WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1  
15 May 2013  
(13-2514)  Page: 1/379  
Trade Policy Review Body 
18 and 20 December 2012  Original: English/ anglais/ inglés  
 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
RECORD OF THE MEETING 
Addendum 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. H.E. Eduardo Muñoz Gómez (Colombia) 
 
This document contains the advance written questions, and replies provided by the 
United States of America.1 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
18 et 20 décembre 2012 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION 
Addendum 
Président: S.E. M. H.E. Ed uardo Muñoz Gómez (Colombie) 
 
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les 
réponses fournies par les États-Unis d'Amérique.1 
 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 18 y 20 de diciembre de 2012 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
E
STADOS UNIDOS  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN 
Addendum 
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. H.E. Eduardo Muñoz Gómez (Colombia) 
 
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito, 
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por los Estados Unidos.1 
                                               
1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  ARGENTINA 
1. In light of the sustained growth of bilateral trade since 2002 – with the exception of 2009 
when the impact of the global crisis unleashed in 2008 was felt – with Argentine imports from the U.S. increasing 12.3% on average over th e last decade (18.5% in 2010 and 27.1% in 
2011), while its exports to the U.S. market increased 5.6% on average (2.0% in 2010 and 
19.9% in 2011), it is deemed fitting to ask about developing channels to access information on market opportunities for products with greater added value that contribute to the increasing 
number of such products in U.S. imports. 
RESPONSE: The US Government has no centralized data source on opportunities available to 
foreign exporters interested in selling to the U.S. market. That is a service normally provided by the foreign government to its own exporters, typically through its embassies.  
Numerous academic studies have shown that innovation, plant productivity and product quality – 
all of which are important for moving up the value chain – are significantly enhanced when firms have freer access to imported intermediate inputs. We would note that Argentina has put in place 
measures that would make it more difficult to import. This could be impacting Argentina's ability to 
participate at higher levels within the global value chain. 
Report by the Secretariat WT/TPR/S/275 of 11/13/12 
I. Questions regarding Section I on the Economic Environment.  
1. In Section 2 (Monetary Policy...) of the Report  by the Secretariat, paragraph 9 outlines the 
fiscal stimulus measures adopted by the U.S. admi nistration to buoy the economy. With regard 
to the Trouble Asset Relief Program, the Report mentions that funding for this program expired 
in 2010, but states that one quarter of the ava ilable funds are outstanding and are allocated to 
support public investment "in the auto industry,"  among other sectors. Could the U.S. describe 
in detail the funds, recipients, programs and implications of said disbursements? 
RESPONSE: The Office of Financial Stability, which administers the TARP, maintains a website 
that provides comprehensive information about TARP, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fin ancial-stability/P ages/default.aspx , that includes pages with 
descriptions of each program, monthly reports that detail major transactions, and a chart updated 
daily that shows exactly how much has been expe nded or recovered in each program under TARP. 
2.  In Section 2 (Monetary Policy...) of the Report by the Secretariat, paragraph 13 mentions that 
the US Federal Reserve (FED) carried out quantita tive easing (QE) to head off the effects of 
the financial crisis. Bearing in mind that to date there have been three rounds of quantitative 
easing (2009, 2010, and 2012), could the U.S. identify the external and internal factors and indicators that could lead to a new round of quantitative easing (QE4) on the part of the FED? 
RESPONSE: The Federal Reserve is an independent agency and responsible for U.S. monetary 
policy. The Federal Reserve released a Federal Open Market Committee statement in late October that reports the current monetary policy action. 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newse vents/press/monetary/20121024a.htm . 
3.  In Section 2 (Monetary Policy) of the Report by the Secretariat, paragraph 14 discusses the 
adoption by the U.S. administration of initiati ves to increase exports. As regards the Export 
Control Reform Initiative, could the U.S. comment on the status of its implementation, request 
greater detail [sic] and the period provided for its application? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has deployed a thr ee-phase implementation plan. The United 
States has developed and applied a methodology for rebuilding the control lists, has already 
published a series of proposed rules for public comment in 2012, will publish the first final rules in 
early 2013, and will continue to publish the remaining proposed and final rules on a rolling schedule throughout 2013. Some aspects of implem entation could require legislation to implement 
a government reorganization that would consolidate the current system into a single control list, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  single licensing agency, single primary enforcement coordination agency, and single information 
technology system. To follow developments on the reform initiative, visit www.export.gov/ecr 
where details on all actions on the initiative are posted.  
II. Questions related to Section III on Trade Policy and Practices by Measure.  
1.  Measures Directly Affecting Imports, Customs Procedures, paragraph 2: Taking into account 
the progress made in installing specialized eq uipment for pre-screening containers bound for 
the United States at the port of Buenos Aires, could the U.S. indicate when this pre-screening 
will begin and what estimates they have about its impact on Argentine exporters with regard 
to the costs and delays that could be caused by its application, based on the experience of the 
58 ports where it currently is being done. 
RESPONSE: Buenos Aires is identified as one of ports that is a participant in the CBP program, the 
Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI is a securi ty regime to ensure all containers that pose a 
potential risk for terrorism are identified and insp ected at foreign ports before they are placed on 
vessels destined for the United States. More info rmation on the CSI program can be found through 
this link, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/carg o_security/csi/c si_in_brief.xml . 
2.  As regards state aid and related fiscal measures , the Report by the Secretariat points out that 
the mission of the US Import-Export Bank is, inte r alia, to offer financing that is "comparable" 
to that which other governments provide to th eir exporters. Could the U.S. comment on the 
criteria and parameters used to determine what levels of financing are "comparable"? 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank does not compare levels of financing offered; instead, the Bank 
compares the specific terms and conditions that our foreign ECA counterparts offer in a 
competitive situation. For financing aspects covered by the set of export credit guidelines known 
as the OECD Agreement on Export Credits or the "Arrangement" (e.g., minimum interest rates or fees, maximum repayment terms), Ex-Im Bank applies these terms. 
For financing aspects not covered by the Arrangem ent (e.g., risk appetite), Ex-Im Bank compares 
proxies (e.g., cover policies). Ex-Im Bank publishes an Annual Competitiveness Report and it can be found at www.exim.gov in the Publications sect ion and it will provide you with many details on 
its comparative analysis. 
3.  Regarding specific trade measures (paragraph 47), the Report by the Secretariat indicates that 
of the anti-dumping orders in force since 1998, 738 were reviewed under the sunset review procedure by the end of 2011. 58% of said orde rs were maintained (i.e., not revoked). Could 
the U.S. comment on the factors that led it to maintain these orders? 
RESPONSE:  In determining whether revocation of an order, or termination of a suspended 
investigation, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a 
reasonably foreseeable time, the USITC considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. 
1675a. In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy or sales of the subject merchandise at less than fair value, 
the Department of Commerce considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. 1675a. 
III. Questions regarding Section IV on Trade Po licy by Sectors, Agriculture, Section IV.1.  
U.S. agricultural policy is particularly important to Argentina because of its global impact, relative 
size and integration in international markets, as is highlighted in paragraph 4. For this reason it is 
of vital importance that developed countries continue to reform agricultural policies in keeping with the mandate of the Doha Round. Furthermore, this explains the central role that reform of these 
policies plays in the context of the Doha Round. 
The questions below (in addition to some clarifications and requests for information from the 
Secretariat) should be understood to refer to th e period under review, unless otherwise indicated. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.  Location of available information – Paragr aphs 5 and 6 of Sections IV.1.i and IV.1.ii 
of the report. 
a)  Could the U.S. indicate the internet site or other sources that identify the agricultural 
producers of commodities and/or processors of said commodities that receive agricultural 
subsidies of any kind (i.e., price support payments or benefits or direct payments)? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain a website of this nature. 
b)  Taking into account the current WTO rules,  could the U.S. indicate the website or other 
sources that identify agricultural producers an d/or commodities processors that receive any 
kind of export subsidy, including those that  may stem from officially supported export 
financing or food aid? 
RESPONSE: The United States directs Argentina to the Dairy Export Incentive Program site: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/deip/deip.asp . 
2. Location of the available informat ion – Food Aid, Section IV.1.ii.b. 
The questions below refer to non-emergency food aid. 
a)  Could the U.S. indicate the website or other sources that identify non-governmental 
organizations or persons that were involved in providing in-kind food aid? 
RESPONSE:  One of the best sources about U.S. food aid programs is the International Food Aid 
Report, which is prepared annually. The latest report includes information about the 
non-government organizations that distribute the food aid. The report is found at the following website: http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/Te stimony/FY_2010_IFAR_10-3-11.pdf . 
b)  Could the U.S. indicate the website or other sources that identify the service provider firms 
that were involved in providing in-kind food aid? 
RESPONSE: The approved list of commodity suppliers is provided at the following website: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ipdqbl.pdf . 
3.  Financing, guarantees and export insura nce - paragraph 16 of Section IV.1.ii.a of the 
report. 
a)  Clarification: The last sentence in paragraph 16 incorrectly states that no financing would be 
available in the absence of GSM-102 payments exceeding fees and recoveries on default 
claims. To the extent that this official support program (with conditions that are different from those that could otherwise be obtained) remains active, it will influence decision-making by export firms. This sentence should be  deleted from the Secretariat's report. 
RESPONSE: There is no declaration in paragraph 16 that no financing would be available in the 
absence of the GSM-102 program. The United States assumes this comment is in reference to the following statement: "Currently, no funding is provided to GSM-102 as fees and recoveries on 
default claim payments exceed losses." This means that program fees cover defaults net of 
recoveries. The statement is strictly related to US Government budget estimates and has nothing to do with the decisions of export firms or whet her financing would be available in the absence of 
the program. 
b)  It is suggested that the Secretariat's report be completed by including information available on 
official U.S. sites or that the U.S. add informat ion on the amounts of official support by product 
and country of destination. Notwithstanding the foregoing, given that this information has not 
been included in the Secretariat's report, could the U.S. provide it?  
RESPONSE: Program utilization by commodity and regi on is available at the USDA Foreign 
Agricultural Service website: http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/Monthly/ecg.html . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  c) In light of the fact that the GSM-102 program has been recognized as circumventing the 
provisions on export subsidies, could the U.S. report on modifications to this program based on this conclusion, the status of discussions on further reforms, as well as the potential outlook for the program? 
RESPONSE: The WTO dispute settlement rulings and recommendations regarding the GSM-102 
program related to the program in effect during fiscal year 2006 of the United States government. 
Since that time, the US Government has made substantial changes to the GSM-102 program, 
including changes to program premia and repayment terms. Current U.S. budget estimates 
indicate that the program is covering its long-term operating costs and losses. 
4.  Food aid - paragraph 16 of Se ction IV.1.ii.b. of the report. 
Could the U.S. comment on monetized food aid, i.e ., in-kind food aid sold in recipient developing 
countries to obtain proceeds for the purpose of providing resources to cooperation projects? 
RESPONSE: Monetized food aid adds to the supply of f ood within food-deficit countries, and the 
sale proceeds fund development projects in agricu lture, health, education, and nutrition. Proceeds 
may also be used to cover the costs of transportation and distribution costs within the recipient 
country. The amount of monetized assistance prov ided by the United States is extremely small 
compared to the total imports and consumption of grains and cereals by countries in Central 
America, Africa, and South Asia, which are the main recipients of food aid. The United States 
continues its analyses of markets and potential impacts of monetization in those markets. These efforts include the use of sophisticated market analyses, such as Bellmon Estimation Studies for Title II (BEST) and Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis. The 
US Government has also improved the oversight of monetization. 
5.  Domestic support – paragraph 16 of  the Section IV.1.ii.c of the report. 
The questions below should not be understood as acceptance of the considerations made in the 
report or in the notifications of the United States regarding these programs, in particular on their 
proper classification under the different kinds of domestic support provided for in the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a)  ACRE Program: 
i)  The Secretariat's report should be completed with information on the amounts of the subsidies 
available to agricultural producers, as they a ppear in other domestic support programs. Could 
the U.S. provide this information as of the last notification corresponding to 2009, indicating 
the products that have benefited therefrom? 
RESPONSE: The United States directs Argentina to review U.S. notification G/AG/N/USA/89 
Supporting Table 6, which covers marketing year 2010 for the requested information. 
ii)  Bearing in mind that the ACRE program not on ly involves price supports, but also revenues to 
agricultural producers that allow this subsidy to  be received even when prices are not low, 
wouldn't this support program be a new distorting agricultural subsidy that runs counter to the 
agricultural reform process? 
RESPONSE: The ACRE program is not a price support program, but rather a whole-farm revenue 
guarantee program. The ACRE program was impl emented as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. The 
program was designed as an alternative to the countercyclical payments program, which is 
classified as an amber box program. A producer who elects the ACRE program is not eligible for 
countercyclical payments and must also take a reduction in direct payments and a reduction in the loan rate under the marketing assistance loan program. Payments under the program have been 
small, and the United States remains well within its commitments on amber box support. 
b) Domestic support programs for dairy products. 
Could the U.S. comment on the status of domestic debate on these programs and their outlook for 
upcoming years? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
c)  Relative significance of different kinds of support: 
i)  Could the U.S. comment on the proportion of each one of the supports and their total with 
respect to the value of agricultural production for each product, including, in particular, the 
crop and revenue insurance programs, the SURE  program, countercyclical payments, and the 
biomass crop assistance program? 
RESPONSE: The programs in question are reported by the United States as non-product specific 
support. Crop and revenue insurance programs are offered for more than 100 different commodities under essentially the same program rules, and additional commodities are regularly being added to the program; the SURE program is  based on whole farm revenue, not individual 
commodities; countercyclical payments are provided on the basis of historical commodity 
production and are not linked to current planting ; and biomass crop assistance provides support 
for harvest and delivery of categories of agricultur al and forest waste products and production of 
certain categories of non-food grasses and legumes. 
ii) If any of these supports benefit more than one product, without benefiting all agricultural 
products, could the U.S. comment on the proporti on of each one of the supports and their total 
with respect to the group of products they benefit? 
RESPONSE: See answer to previous question. 
6.  Tariff quotas – paragraph 13 of  Section IV.1.ii.a of the report. 
a)  Could the U.S. comment on imports (in value and physical quantities) of those agricultural 
products with most favored nation access subject to tariff quotas, according to whether they 
enter within the tariff quota or outside of it? 
RESPONSE: Please see U.S. notification G/AG/N/USA/ 85 concerning imports under TRQs during 
2010 and 2011. 
b)  Could the U.S. report on imports (in value and physical quantities) of agricultural products with 
preferential access that are attributed to the WTO tariff quota? 
RESPONSE: Please see U.S. notification G/AG/N/USA/ 85 concerning imports under TRQs during 
2010 and 2011.  
7.  Reciprocal trade agreemen ts – agricultural products. 
In Section II.3 of the Secretariat's report regarding preferential trade agreements and 
arrangements, there is an interesting chart (n° II. 2) that reports on U.S. imports for consumption 
by type of import regime. 
a)  Could the U.S. report on the proportions and value of imports for consumption of agricultural 
products by the import regime to which they are subject? 
b)  Could the U.S. provide this information for the following products: apples, pears, lemons, 
tangerines, oranges, grapefruits, grapes, bluebe rries, peaches, apricots, garlic, onions, olives, 
olive oil, wine, ethanol, processed food products, dairy products, beef and lamb? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  RESPONSE: 
U.S. imports for consumption from Argent ina, by type of import regime, 2011 
($) 
Group MFN duty 
free Reciprocal 
trade 
agreements Unilateral 
preferences MFN dutiable Total 
Apples 4,011,669 0 2,179,250  426,978 6,617,897  
Apricots  0 0 340,011  0 340,011  
Beef  24,264,098 0 33,426,969  10,590,177 68,281,244  
Blueberries  70,251,725 0 0 0 70,251,725  
Dairy 26,289,277 0 32,261,457  8,845,857 67,396,591  
Ethanol 0 0 2,121,059  801,828 2,922,887  
Garlic 0 0 0  7,555,127 7,555,127  
Grapefruits  0 0 0 0 0 
Grapes  5,544 0 0  4,510,678 4,516,222  
Lamb 0 0 0 0 0 
Lemons  0 0 0  0 0  
Olive oil 0 0 29,022,267  3,355,962 32,378,229  
Olives 0 0 0  0 0  
Onions 0 0 0 0 0 
Oranges  0 0 0  0 0  
Peaches  68,990 0 0 40,488 109,478  
Pears 0 0 0  0 0  
Processed 
foods 5,065,919 0 4,282,855  617,280 9,966,054  
Tangerines  0 0 0  0 0  
Wine 0 0 38,426,411  302,280,315 340,706,726  
Total 129,957,222 0 142,060,279  339,024,690 611,042,191  
8.  The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of  2008 (point 10 of the Secretariat's report). 
Given that the above-mentioned law will soon expire, could the U.S. report on any bills under 
consideration to replace it, the bills' features, scope, and impact on production, and international 
trade of said items and their effects on the environment? 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
9.  Agricultural-related services. a)  Could the U.S. comment on the relative significance that subsidies for crop and revenue 
insurance programs have on the earnings of businesses that provide insurance? 
RESPONSE: The payments made to the insurance companies as compensation for their 
administrative and operating expenses reflects the participation in the crop insurance program, and impacts the revenues generated by the companies from delivery of the U.S. crop insurance 
program. 
b)  Could the U.S. comment on the involvement of foreign insurance businesses in the agricultural 
risks that are subsidized by the crop and revenue insurance program? 
RESPONSE: Foreign-based reinsurers have long been one of the primary commercial reinsurers of 
the U.S. based crop insurance companies. There also  have been several recent acquisitions of U.S. 
crop insurance companies. 
Questions regarding the Report by the US Government. 
1.  With regard to the support that US SMEs receive through the coordinated action of 
government agencies and business entities (VIII. Point 155, Trade Policy Review, Report by the U.S.), it would be interesting to find out about the initiatives that the federal government WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  is undertaking to incentivize trade in that busine ss sector, in keeping with the objectives listed 
under point 5 regarding implementation of polic ies that promote not only the development of 
U.S. exports, but also bilateral trade in order to "fight poverty and expand opportunities." 
RESPONSE:  U.S. small businesses are key engines for economic growth, jobs and innovation. The 
Export Promotion Cabinet has developed recommendations to address the eight priorities for the 
National Export Initiative (NEI) set out in Executive Order 13534 on March 11, 2010. The recommendations cover the five components of the NEI – access to credit, especially for small and 
midsize firms; trade advocacy and export promotion efforts; market access and removing barriers 
to the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad; en forcement of trade rules; and pursuing policies 
that will increase global economic growth. Details on the implementation of the NEI and recommendations related to small business may be found in the 2011 National Export Strategy at 
http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf . 
The National Export Strategy also provides further details regarding the Administration's initiatives 
to reduce barriers to trade, including trade agreements and deeper engagement with emerging 
markets, which can lead to increased economic growth, reduced poverty, and expanded 
opportunities for the U.S. and its trading partners. 
Eight Priorities Identified in the NEI Executive Order: 
Priority 1: Exports by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) 
Priority 2: Federal Export Assistance Priority 3: Trade Missions Priority 4: Commercial Advocacy 
Priority 5: Increasing Export Credit 
Priority 6: Macroeconomic Rebalancing Priority 7: Reducing Barriers to Trade 
Priority 8: Export Promotion of Services 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM ARGENTINA Report by the Secretariat (doc. WT/TPR/S/275) 
SUMMARY 
Paragraph 3 states that, "as concerns investment policy, after several years of review, the 
United States completed a new model bilateral in vestment treaty framework containing detailed 
provisions to foster or facilitate the flow of investment; and in June 2011, new steps were taken to 
facilitate and attract inward FDI into the United States by creating the first government-initiated 
centralized investment promotion body through the SelectUSA initiative." 
1. Could the US Government provide more details about the SelectUSA initiative and the 
measures taken under this initiative to attract investment? 
RESPONSE:  Established by Executive Order of the President in 2011, SelectUSA is the first federal 
initiative to facilitate business investment in the United States. SelectUSA works with firms – both 
foreign and domestic –as well as U.S. economic development organizations to provide information, 
guidance, and counseling on the U.S. economic climate and federal rules and regulations impacting business investment in the United States. Housed in the Department of Commerce, SelectUSA is a part of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS), which is located at U.S. embassies and 
consulates in over 70 worldwide markets and has a robust field operation through Export 
Assistance Centers across the United States. By coordinating resources across the federal government, SelectUSA provides both information assistance and ombudsman services to the 
global investment community. 
The functions of the SelectUSA Initiative are defined within Executive Order 13577 (June 2011), 
and include: (1) coordinating outreach and engage ment by the federal government to promote the 
United States as the premier location to operate a business; (2) serving as an ombudsman that 
facilitates the resolution of issues involving federal programs or activities related to pending investments; (3) providing information to domestic and foreign firms on the investment climate in WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  the United States, federal programs and incentives available to investors, and state and local 
economic development organizations; and (4) reporting to the President, to describe outreach activities, requests for information received, and efforts to resolve issues. 
Since its establishment in June 2011, SelectUSA ha s reached key milestones, including: training of 
key personnel across the US&FCS to assist firms and U.S. economic development organization on 
business investment promotion; providing investors customized, timely, and accurate information about the U.S. investment climate; on a case-by-case basis, working across the U.S. federal 
government to address investor issues and need s; and assisting states, regions, counties, and 
local economic development organizations across the United States in their efforts to promote business investment. 
More information can be found at the following website: www.SelectUSA.gov. 
Paragraph 4 states that the main regulatory reform in the financial services sector since the last 
review was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which entered into force in July 2010. "The Act's main objectives in clude promoting financial stability, ending 'too big 
to fail,' ending bailouts, protecting taxpayers, and protecting consumers from abusive financial 
services practices." 
2. Could the US Government explain how this Act ends bailouts, given that paragraph 143 states 
that the amount spent under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) amounted to 
US$63 billion as of May 2012? 
RESPONSE : TARP was authorized by Congress as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act of 2008 (EESA). EESA's purpose was to promote the stability and liquidity of the financial 
system in the short term during the financial crisis, through TARP and other measures. These 
measures were not designed to address the underlying problems that led to the financial crisis. 
Subsequently, President Obama and Treasury Secr etary Geithner worked tirelessly with Congress 
to enact the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) in 
2010, which addresses the regulatory shortcomings that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and made TARP necessary. This legislation, which is now being implemented, gives the 
government better tools to protect consumers and new authority that builds a stronger and more 
resilient financial system less vulnerable to crisis. 
The Dodd-Frank Act empowers the government to break apart large firms whose imminent failure 
could threaten our financial system, thereby giving the United States the tools to help prevent the 
problem of "too-big-to-fail." The law allows the government to keep a watchful eye over the 
system and curb excessive risk-taking, while su pporting investment and growth. It brings the 
derivatives market out of the shadows. It also protects consumers from the most abusive and 
deceptive practices that helped to create the crisis in the first place. That law safeguards 
consumers and investors, helps the government to better monitor and limit risk, and provides new tools to break up and wind down firms whose imminent failure could threaten the health of the 
economy. For more information about the Dodd-Frank Act and Wall Street Reform, visit: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/wsr/Pages/wall-street-reform.aspx . 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(2) Monetary, Fiscal and Other Policies 
Paragraph 9 states that, "The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 targeted financial 
stability, especially as concerns banking, credit, and support of certain industries. Although funding 
expired at the end of 2010, appr oximately one quarter of the funds are outsta nding and still 
supporting certain programs, including U.S. government investments in the auto industry, 
American International Group (AIG), and 460 U.S. banks (end 2011).2 However, these 
investments and support are gradually being reduced and eliminated." 
3. Could the US Government tell us which programs are still being supported? What type of 
government investments are being made in the auto industry? 
                                               
2 Department of the Treasury, Office of Financial Stability (2011). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Treasury's authority to invest money through TARP ended on October 3, 2010, in 
accordance with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), the legislation that created TARP. As of November 30, 2012, Treasury has recovered almost 90 per cent of the funds invested through the various TARP programs. Se veral programs have al ready been completely 
closed, and more are in their wind-down phases. EESA did not set a date by which the programs 
will be fully shut down, however, the government is focused on winding down TARP programs as quickly as possible, while ensuring financial st ability and maximizing returns to the taxpayer. 
Treasury continues to have TARP investments in AIG and through the Automotive Industry 
Financing Program in General Motors and Ally Financial. 
AIG: During the financial crisis, the government's overall support for AIG peaked at approximately 
$182 billion, including $70 billion that Treasury committed through TARP, and $112 billion 
committed by the FRBNY. On December 11, 2012, Treasury announced that it has agreed to sell 
all of its remaining 234,169,156 shares of AIG common stock in an underwritten public offering, for expected aggregate proceeds of approximately $7. 6 billion. Giving effect to this offering, the 
overall positive return on the Federal Reserve and Treasury's combined $182 billion commitment 
to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now $22.7 billion. Treasury will continue to hold warrants to purchase approximately 2.7 million shares of AIG common stock – the sale of which 
will provide an additional positive return to taxpayers. 
GM: As of September 30, 2012, Treasury held 500.1  million shares and Treasury had recovered 
$23.97 billion of its total $51.03 billion investment in GM. Since GM is a publically-traded company 
and its stock is highly liquid, Treasury can exit its investment over time through sales of its 
remaining common shares on the open market, th rough underwritten offerings, block trades or 
dribble out programs, or a combination of the above.  Treasury will continue to evaluate its options 
to exit its remaining GM investment based on market conditions. 
Ally Financial:  As of September 30, 2012, Treasury's outstanding investment in Ally Financial 
stood at $13.75 billion, having recovered approximately one-third its original investment. Treasury 
continues to closely monitor the performance of Ally Financial and look for the best opportunities 
to exit its remaining investment in the company. 
More information about these programs can be found at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiativ es/financial-stability/TARP- Programs/Pages/default.aspx . 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES 
(i) Bilateral investment treati es and framework agreements 
Paragraph 31 states that the new, "2012 model bilateral investment treaty is reported to build 
upon the previous model by enhancing transpar ency and public participation; sharpening 
disciplines that address preferential treatment to state-owned enterprises, including the distortions 
created by certain indigenous innovation policies;  and strengthening protection relating to labor 
and the environment."3 
4. Could the US Government explain what it means by "distortions created by certain indigenous 
innovation policies"? What are some examples of this? 
RESPONSE:  The revised 2012 U.S. model BIT includes changes to address new and emerging 
barriers in foreign markets that frustrate U.S. investment and U.S. exports. For example, we 
include a new discipline on "indigenous innovation" measures that require investors to purchase, use, or accord a preference to a country's domestic technology. 
                                               
3 Department of State (2012). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (iii) Rules of origin (c) Country-of-origin marking 
Paragraph 11 states that, "other product-specific marking/labeling requirements, at the federal or 
state level, follow other rules or regulations." 
5. Could the US Government provide more details on the authority to make regulations at the 
state level on the marking and labeling of imported products? How are the standards and 
regulations adopted by the states brought into line with the international commitments it has 
entered into? 
RESPONSE:  US Customs and Border protection, the U.S. customs administration, enforces only 
federal marking and labeling requirements on fore ign goods at the time of importation and entry 
into the United States. Each state is responsible for the conduct of its own requirements, including compliance with international agreements wher e there is such an agreement. The federal 
government may consult with a state if concerns are raised with regard to the state's compliance 
with an international agreement. 
(iv) Tariffs 
(b) Applied tariffs 
Paragraph 22 mentions the Manufacturing Enhancement Act, which was passed by Congress and 
signed into law in August 2010. 
6. Could the United States provide more information about what this Act does? Which subsectors 
fall within the scope of this Act? 
RESPONSE:  The US Manufacturing Enhancement Act of  2010, as described in Paragraph 22, 
grouped several hundred tariff duty suspensions an d reductions into one law, thereby providing 
new or extended temporary duty relief for certain products until December 31, 2012. This 
temporary duty relief lowers the costs for companies using these inputs, including for cars, chemicals, medical devices, and sporting goods. 
(v) Other charges affecting imports 
(d) Excise taxes Paragraph 68 states that, "the United States maintains over 100 excise taxes at the federal level 
on various products and services." 
7. Could the US Government list the excise taxes at the state level? 
RESPONSE:  The Federal Government does not maintain a database of such information. However, 
the Federation of Tax Administrators, a non-governmental professional organization, provides 
information on the major state excise taxes at: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html . 
This website also provides links to each state's revenue agency. The state sites may have 
additional information. The US Government cannot vouch for the completeness or accuracy of the 
Federation of Tax Administrators' information. 
(vi) Contingency measures 
(a) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
This section provides information about the investigations initiated over the period, by country and 
by sector. 
8. Could the US Government provide details on th e existing anti-dumping measures, by region? 
RESPONSE:  The details (complete with Federal Register  citations and dates of publication of the 
notices) for all of the AD and CVD orders in effect can be found in an Excel file that is available for WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  download from the US International Trade Co mmission's website (http ://www.usitc.gov/trade_ 
remedy/documents/orders.xls). That being said, in  the ordinary course of business, the United 
States does not organize its statistics in the form Argentina is requesting. However, from the website one can obtain, on a case-by-case basis, the information that Argentina is inquiring about, 
as well as other detailed information about the various investigations. 
Paragraph 45 states that, "in terms of sectors affe cted by anti-dumping investigations, the metals 
industry accounted for 41% of all investigations, followed by chemicals and plastics with 21%, and 
machinery and electrical equipment with 13%." 
9. Could the United States state whether any anti-dumping investigations were initiated during 
the period under review against agricultural products? If so, please indicate the product and origin. 
RESPONSE:  During the period under review (2008-12), there were no investigations initiated 
against agricultural products. 
Paragraph 48 states that, "the United States abandoned the use of zeroing when calculating 
margins in original investigations based on weig hted average to weighted average comparisons in 
2006. However, in February 2002, after publishing a proposed modification, receiving public comments, and consulting with Congress, the US Department of Commerce modified its 
methodology to address the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, expedited, and sunset 
reviews. In administrative reviews, 'except where the Department determines that application of a different comparison method is more appropriate, the Department will compare monthly weighted average export prices with monthly weighted average normal values, and will grant an offset' 
where the export price exceeds the normal value. Further, in sunset reviews 'it will not rely on 
weighted average dumping margins that were calc ulated using the methodology determined by the 
Appellate Body to be WTO-inconsistent.' The new rules apply to all reviews pending before the 
Department for which preliminary results were issued after 16 April 2012." 
10. Could the United States provide more information about the new method for calculating 
dumping margins? 
RESPONSE:  As explained in the February 2012 Federal Register notice (77 FR 8101), in 
investigations and reviews, except where Commerc e determines that application of a different 
comparison method is more appropriate, Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant offsets for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping 
and the antidumping duty assessment rates. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, Commerce has evaluated case-specific arguments as to whether an average-to-transaction 
comparison method is appropriate based on the facts of the particular case. The determinations in 
those investigations and reviews are also published in the Federal Register. 
Paragraph 49 states that, "as of August 2011, the Department of Commerce implemented changes 
in its regulations governing the submission of in formation in anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
proceedings." 
11. Could the United States provide more information about the new requirements for information 
submission? 
RESPONSE:  In two separate Federal Register notices, dated February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7491) and 
September 2, 2011 (76 FR 54697), Commerce issued regulations regarding the certification of factual information submitted to Commerce by a person or his/her representative during AD/CVD 
proceedings. 
The regulation revises the certification that is normally provided by an interested party (e.g., 
foreign company or foreign government) and the interested party's legal counsel or representative 
(if applicable), with a submission in a proceeding. The revised certifications require the 
identification of the document to which the ce rtification applies, the segment of the AD/CVD 
proceeding to which the certification applies, who is making the certification, and the date on WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  which the certification was made. In addition, the revised regulation is intended to ensure that 
parties and their counsel are aware of the potential consequences for false certifications. 
The specific formats to be followed for the certifications are contained in the February and 
September 2011 Federal Register notices. 
Foreign governments are currently allowed to submit certifications in either the format in use prior 
to the effective date of the February 2011 amendmen t to the regulation or in the format provided 
in the new regulation. Both formats for the foreign government certification are provided in the 
September 2011 Federal Register notice. 
(vii) Quantitative trade measures, re strictions, controls, and licensing 
(a) Quantitative restrictions, including prohibitions 
Paragraph 60 states that, "The United States has various laws or provisions that allow for 
quantitative restrictions or prohibitions on imported products. These are often maintained to 
protect the security or economy of the United States, or safeguard the health or well-being of plant or animal life." 
12. Could the United States tell us which products have been subject to a quantitative restriction 
or import prohibition to protect the U.S. economy? 
RESPONSE:  Please see the United States' most recent notification on Quantitative Restrictions, 
submitted on October 3, 2012, issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. 
(viii) Technical regulations and standards Paragraph 71 states that, "over the period under review, the U.S. authorities recognized the need 
to make improvements in their internal procedures for sub-federal notifications, and initiated a 
temporary hiatus in notifications in order to make corrections. Therefore, in contrast with the last 
review period, when 83 sub-federal measures were notified, 16 notifications on sub-federal measures have been made since January 1, 2010, 15 of which have been notified since 
August 2012. 
13. Could the United States explain what type of corrections needed to be made? 
RESPONSE:  The United States streamlined the process to reduce omissions and processing times 
for notifying the measures. 
Paragraph 78 states that, "although the official pr eference is to rely on the industry's use of 
voluntary standards, the CPSC and other agencies with responsibility for product and service regulations may develop technical regulations when voluntary standards are not considered 
adequate or when compliance with voluntary standards is considered unlikely." 
14. Could the United States provide examples of  cases where it was necessary to develop 
regulations because compliance with voluntary standards was considered unlikely? 
RESPONSE:  Two examples include: 
(i) With regard to lead in candle wicks, the CPSC found that the Voice of Safety International 
(VOSI) standard was technically unsound, and thus would not result in the elimination or 
adequate reduction of the risk, and that substantial compliance with it was unlikely. 
See 68 Fed. Reg. 19145-6, paragraph H2, Voluntary Standards, for further information on this finding. The resulting regulation is at 16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13), Metal-Cored Candlewicks Containing Lead and Candles With Such Wicks (Incorporated: 2003) 
(ii) With regard to bunk beds, the CPSC found the ASTM F1427-96 Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Bunk Beds to be inadequate. The regulation goes beyond the provisions of the ASTM voluntary standard to provide increased protection to children from the risk of 
death and serious injury from entrapment. The resulting regulation is at 16 CFR Parts 
1213, 1500, and 1513 for Bunk Beds (Incorporated: 2000). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  The CPSC reports on such regulatory activities annually in its contribution to the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Report. A copy of the most recent report may be found at: http://standards.gov/NTTAA/agency/ind ex.cfm?useaction=NTTAAReports.main . 
Paragraph 80 states that, "although compliance with voluntary consumer product safety standards 
is not a legal obligation, non-compliance may indicate the existence of a hazard. The CSPC and 
other agencies may take corrective action if their analysis shows that the product could pose a substantial hazard, in which case it will take action to withdraw the product from the market." 
15. Could the United States provide us with the cases in which a voluntary standard became an 
obligation in practice, given the presumption made about non-compliance? 
RESPONSE: The CPSC does not require compliance with voluntary standards. However, many 
retailers will not carry products that do not comply with well-known voluntary standards. For 
example, generally, it would be difficult for a supplier to sell consumer electrical products to a 
major U.S. retailer unless the products were compliant with the relevant, major voluntary standards for electrical products. 
What types of measures does the CPSC take to ve rify that the standard is necessary for safety 
reasons? 
RESPONSE:  The CPSC does not conduct verifications that voluntary standards are necessary for 
safety reasons. Voluntary consensus standards development is a private sector-driven, 
multi-stakeholder process, with governance procedures whereby standards development committees determine what safety standards are n eeded. If the CPSC becomes aware of injuries, 
or the potential for injuries associated with a product that fails to comply with a consensus 
voluntary standard, this indicates to the CPSC that the product may contain a defect that presents 
a substantial product hazard. A consumer product that does not meet a voluntary standard, but which also does not create a hazard, normally would not result in action by the CPSC. 
Can the product recall penalty be remedied? 
RESPONSE:  It is unclear what is meant by this question. 
(ix) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
Paragraph 81 states that, "at the federal level, institutional responsibility for sanitary and 
phytosanitary matters continues to be shared am ong several government agencies depending on 
the product and type of risk, while at the state level the authorities may develop their own measures, subject to federal laws and regulations.
4 
16. Could the United States tell us how it brings the state-level sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures into line with international commitments? How is the compliance of state law and regulations monitored? 
RESPONSE:  State-level government authorities may establish SPS measures for application within 
their individual States provided that the measur es conform to federal rules and regulations, and 
are consistent with WTO obligations. Various regulatory agencies, as well as the Department of 
Justice and the USTR, review state laws when approp riate to do so. Part of that review may entail 
an analysis of whether the state requirement conflicts with a federal one. In a situation where a conflict does exist, federal law will prevail. 
17. What procedures are in place to ensure compliance with WTO transparency requirements? 
RESPONSE:  State-level government authorities may establish SPS measures for application within 
their individual States provided that the measur es conform to federal rules and regulations, and 
are consistent with WTO obligations, including those relating to transparency. However, it is 
Federal agencies which are the competent authorities on SPS measures affecting imports. All 
                                               
4 WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, October 29, 2010, pp. 40-46. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  US Federal agencies follow the requirements of  the Administrative Procedures Act, which is 
compliant to WTO transparency requirements. 
In Box III.1, information is provided about the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). 18. Could the United States explain the registration process for facilities outside the United States? 
RESPONSE:  Section 415 of the FD&C Act requires facilities that manufacture, process, pack or 
hold food for consumption in the U.S. to register with the FDA. The owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility, or an individual authoriz ed by one of them, may register that facility. 
Foreign facilities that manufacture/process, pack, or hold food are required to register unless food 
from that facility undergoes further processing (i ncluding packaging) by another foreign facility 
before the food is exported to the United Stat es. However, if the subsequent foreign facility 
performs only a minimal activity, such as putting on a label, both facilities are required to register. 
Foreign facilities must designate a U.S. agent, wh o lives or maintains a place of business in the 
U.S. and is physically present in the U.S., for purposes of registration. The U.S. agent may be authorized to register the facility. For more information on registration of food facilities, please 
see: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceC omplianceRegulatoryInformation /RegistrationofFoodFacilities/
default.htm . 
Foods Handled by More Than One Foreign Facility 
If … Then … 
A foreign facility that manufactures, processes, 
packs,or holds the food sends it to another 
foreign facility for further manufacturing/processing (including packaging) before the food is exported to the U.S. Only the second foreign facility is required to 
register with respect to that food 
The second foreign facility performs only a 
minimal activity, such as putting on a label Both facilities must register 
Any foreign facility packs or holds food after the last foreign manufacturer/processor of the food The foreign packer or holder must register 
For more information please see: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceReg ulatoryInformation/Gui danceDocuments/FoodDe
fenseandEmergencyResponse/ucm331957.htm . 
Facilities may register online at www.access.fda.gov or by fax or mail using FDA Form 3537. The 
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has amen ded Section 415 to include a requirement for 
renewal of registration on a biennial basis. The current registration renewal period is taking place through January 31, 2013. 
The section on preventive controls provides a list of total and partial exemptions, such as "facilities 
that comply with the FDA's existing seafood or juice hazard analysis and critical control point 
(HACCP) regulations; facilities that comply with the FDA's existing low-acid canned food regulations (only for microbiological hazards, addressed by those regulations; for other hazards 
facilities must comply with the FSMA); qualified faci lities (defined as very small business or a small 
business with total annual food sales of less th an US$500,000, at least half of which was sold 
directly to the final consumers, to restaurants, or to retail food establishments in the same State 
or within 275 miles). These qualified facilities must provide documentation including: showing 
potential hazards have been identified, and preventive controls are being implemented and monitored; or showing the facility is complying with all State, local, or other applicable non-federal food safety laws. (Proposed rules not yet issued.)"  
19. With regard to the final point, could the United States indicate whether the exemption would 
also apply to foreign small businesses? 
RESPONSE:  Several provisions of FSMA, including Section 103 (Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based 
Preventive Controls) and Section 105 (Standards for Produce Safety), require FDA to define WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  "small" and "very small" business. In some case s, businesses that are small or very small may 
have additional time to comply with requirements  or may have modified requirements. In general, 
size-based modifications to requirements in regulations that apply domestically will also apply to foreign businesses. 
With regard to registration, at this time, the same  types of food facilities that were required to 
register with FDA under section 415 of the FD&C Act before FSMA are required to register with FDA and renew such registrations. Those facilities are domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, 
process, pack, or hold food for human or animal  consumption in the United States. Section 103(c) 
of FSMA directs FDA to conduct a rulemaking to "clarify the activities that are included as part of the definition of the term 'facility' under such se ction 415 [of the FD&C Act]." The rule to clarify 
activities that are included as part of the definition  of the term "facility" will be proposed as part of 
the rulemaking for the preventive controls regu lation, as provided by section 103(c) of FSMA. 
The Produce Safety Standards section states that, "under Section 419 of the Federal Food, Drug 
and Cosmetic Act, the FDA is required to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe 
production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for which 
the FDA determines that such stan dards minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences 
or death. The FDA has the discretion to decide whether to include small and very small businesses 
that produce low-risk raw agricultural commodities in this rulemaking and, when included, smaller 
businesses have extended compliance dates." 
20. Could the United States indicate whether this exemption for small or very small businesses 
would apply to exporting businesses? 
RESPONSE: In general, size-based modifications to requirements in regulations that apply 
domestically will also apply to foreign businesses. 
With regard to Registration, at this time, the same types of food facilities that were required to 
register with FDA under section 415 of the FD&C Act before FSMA are required to register with FDA 
and renew such registrations. Those facilities are domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for human or animal  consumption in the United States. Section 103(c) 
of FSMA directs FDA to conduct a rulemaking to "clarify the activities that are included as part of 
the definition of the term 'facility' under such se ction 415 [of the FD&C Act]." The rule to clarify 
activities that are included as part of the definition  of the term "facility" will be proposed as part of 
the rulemaking for the preventive controls regu lation, as provided by section 103(c) of FSMA.  
The inspections section states that, "under the statute, at least 600 foreign facilities are to be 
inspected in the first year of enactment and FDA is directed to double the number of foreign facilities inspected each year thereafter for five years. 
21. Could the United States indicate how the 600 facilities to be inspected in the first year will be 
selected? 
RESPONSE:  FDA's foreign surveillance inspections are designed to identify potential food safety 
problems before products arrive in the United States, to determine the compliance status of 
facilities with FDA's requirements and food safety standards, to help the agency make admissibility 
decisions when food products are offered for importation into the United States, and to help ensure that food products under FDA's jurisdiction meet U.S. requirements under the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 
FDA's selection of foreign food facilities for inspection is based on an overall, cross-cutting risk 
profile. The primary factors contributing to a facility's risk profile include the following: (1) the food 
safety risk associated with the commodity (the ty pe of food), (2) the manufacturing process, and 
(3) the compliance history of the facility, such as refusal rates for products that were denied entry into the United States. In addition, section 201 
(http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm ) of FSMA requires FDA to identify 
high-risk facilities and allocate resources to inspect facilities according to the known safety risks, 
and includes several other factors to consider when developing a facility's risk profile. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  As stated above, the food safety risk associated with the commodity is a primary factor 
contributing to a facility's risk profile. High risk food commodities include, but are not limited to, modified atmosphere packaged products; acidified and low acid canned foods; seafood; custard filled bakery products; dairy products includin g soft, semi-soft, soft ripened cheese and cheese 
products; unpasteurized juices; sprouts ready-to-eat; fresh fruits and vegetables and processed 
fruits and vegetables; spices; shell eggs; sandwiches; prepared salads; infant formula; and medical foods. This list is not exhaustive. FDA may conduct routine inspections of other food 
commodities as part of its surveillance activities. 
More information on foreign food facility inspections can be found at: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Interna tionalActivities/ucm211823.htm . 
It should be noted that the FDA targeted completi on of at least 600 facilities as part of this 
mandate in FY 2011, the year the FSMA was passe d. The Agency exceeded  the 600 facility target 
and met the FY 2012 target of 1200 foreign facility inspections last year. 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
(a) Export subsidies and drawbacks 
Paragraph 111 states that, "a number of different types of drawback of duties, taxes, and fees 
paid on imported products remain in operation.5 The drawback schemes cover a variety of 
imported goods, including import duties, taxes, an d fees on: goods imported into the United States 
that are re-exported; goods used in the manufacture of products (including packaging) that are exported; imports of goods that are "commercially interchangeable" with domestically produced 
products that are exported; imports of salt used to cure fish or meat; imported material used to 
construct and equip vessels built for foreign account and ownership; and imported material used to repair jet aircraft engines that are exported."
6 
22. Could the United States explain how it determines which products are "commercially 
interchangeable"? What product characteristics are considered in granting such a drawback? 
RESPONSE:  CBP makes a case-by-case determination as to whether the goods involved in a 
drawback claim are commercially interchangeabl e. The factors in such a determination are 
published in the CBP regulations at 19 CFR 191.32(c), and include, but are not limited to governmental and recognized industrial standards,  part numbers, tariff classification and value. 
(b) National Export Initiative 
Paragraph 112 explains that the National Export Initiative (NEI) has the "goal of doubling exports 
over five years by 'helping firms – especially sm all businesses – overcome the hurdles to entering 
new export markets, by assisting with financing,  and in general by pursuing a Government-wide 
approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps'." 
23. Could the United States provide more information about the type of financial assistance given 
to exporters? How much has been spent under this initiative and how much do you expect to 
spend between now and 2015? 
RESPONSE: Many of the components of NEI are intended to remove barriers to trade, enforce 
existing trade rules and promote sustainable growth  of trade worldwide. Other aspects of NEI are 
largely designed to provide information on exporting to help small businesses explore international 
markets, increase awareness of credit products, and obtain financing at market-based rates. The 
Federal Government is improving performance and making progress toward accomplishing NEI objectives with existing resources. 
Details on the implementation of NEI priorities related to federal export assistance and export 
financing may be found in the 2012 National Export Strategy at http://trade.gov/publications/pdfs/nes2012.pdf . 
                                               
5 WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, October 29, 2010, p. 51. 
6 19 USC 1313. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  24. What measures have been adopted to promote exports? 
RESPONSE:  The President launched the NEI during his State of the Union address on 
January 27, 2010 and established a national goal of  doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014. The 
NEI has five main components. First, the Administration seeks to improve advocacy and trade 
promotion efforts on behalf of U.S. exporters. Se cond, the Administration seeks to increase access 
to export financing. Third, agencies will reinforc e their efforts to remove barriers to trade. Fourth, 
the United States will robustly enforce trade rules, ensuring America's trade partners live up to 
their obligations. Fifth, the Administration will pursue policies at the global level to promote strong, 
sustainable, and balanced growth so that the world economy grows. The annual National Export 
Strategy tracks and measures the Federal Government's progress in implementing the NEI recommendations including the effectiveness of policies and measures undertaken. For full details 
see the 2011 National Export Strategy at: 
http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf . 
The 2012 National Export Strategy is expected to be publically released at the end of the year. 
25. Which sectors does this initiative cover principally? 
RESPONSE:  The NEI's is designed so that US Government agencies are focused and working 
together to ensure that U.S. companies across all sectors have access to markets and can compete 
on a fair and level basis with foreign competitors, consistent with global trading rules. The United 
States has export-competitive products and services across a wide range of industries. For full details see the 2011 National Export Strategy at: http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf . 
The 2012 National Export Strategy is expected to be publically released at the end of the year. 
(c) Finance, insurance, and guarantees Paragraph 117 states that, "under the NEI, the Ex-Im Bank has increased its efforts to provide 
export financing for small businesses, through the Small Business (Global Access) initiative, 
launched in 2011, and the development of new prod ucts, such as express insurance and an online 
application process." 
26. Could the United States indicate which sectors have received this financing? 
RESPONSE:  The sectors that have received US Ex-Im Bank's expanded products cover a wide 
range of products with the most concentration in the non-durable consumables category such as veterinary health products; wood and wood byprod ucts; educational products and books; specialty 
paper products; scrap metal; aircraft parts, equipment and lubricants. The other major category is 
small capital goods and services such as oil and gas equipment; cargo and freight services; portable lubricating and vehicle repair equipmen t; and, electrical and digital equipment and 
software. 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(iv) Subsidies and other government assistance 
Table III.22 lists the federal subsidy programs during fiscal year 2012 [sic-2010]. 
27. Regarding the energy and fuels sector, could the United States explain in greater detail what 
types of credits are granted to alcohol fuel, biodiesel, and renewable diesel? 
RESPONSE:  Further detail for each of the programs can be found in the subsidy notification of the 
United States (see, G/SCM/N/220/USA, 19 October 2011). 
Table III.23 lists the federal programs on biofuels in 2011. 28. Could the United States indicate what mechanism is used to apply the volumetric ethanol 
excise tax credit? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The ethanol excise tax credit reduces the ex cise tax of qualifying producers, blenders 
or users. If tax payers have no excise tax liability or the amount claimed exceeds their liability the amount of the tax credit is refunded as an outlay payment. 
29. Could the United States provide a breakdown of these costs for the period under review? 
RESPONSE:  There are two types of credits granted to alcohol fuels, biodiesel, and renewable 
diesel. Taxpayers may claim either an income tax credit or a refundable excise tax credit for alcohol fuels mixed with gasoline and biodiesel and renewable diesel fuels mixed with diesel. 
Claims for alcohol fuel excise tax credits and income tax credits are estimated to be $6.61 billion in 
fiscal year 2011 and $3.69 billion in fiscal year 2012. Claims for biodiesel and renewable diesel income and excise tax credits are estimated to be $770 million in fiscal year 2011 and $860 million in fiscal year 2012. With the exception of the cellulo sic biofuel producer credit, which is a subset of 
the alcohol fuels income tax credit, all of these fu el credits expired at the end of calendar year 
2011. No payments have been made as of November 2012 for the cellulosic biofuel producer tax credit. 
Although the tax credits for biodiesel and renewabl e diesel expired at the end of calendar year 
2011 there were significant claims made in fiscal year 2012 due to a previous retroactive extension of these credits. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312), which was signed into law in December 2010, retroactively 
extended the biodiesel and renewable diesel credit s that had expired at the end of 2009. Guidance 
issued as a result of that extension required that  claims for qualifying fuel produced during 2010 
would be covered by submissions that could occur in either fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012. 
30. Could the United States provide its definition of  biofuels in relation to the Bioenergy Program 
for Advanced Biofuels? 
RESPONSE:  For the purposes of the USDA Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, "Advanced 
biofuel" is defined as "a fuel derived from renewable biomass, other than corn kernel starch, 
including: 
 Biofuel derived from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin; 
 Biofuel derived from sugar and starch (other than corn kernel starch derived Ethanol); 
 Biofuel derived from waste material, including crop residue, other vegetative waste material, 
animal waste, food waste, and yard waste; 
 Diesel-equivalent fuel derived from renewable biomass, including vegetable oil and animal 
fat; 
 Biogas (including landfill gas and sewage waste treatment gas) produced through the 
conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass; 
 Butanol or other alcohols produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable 
biomass; 
 Other fuel derived from cellulosic biomass. 
Other conditions for eligibility under this program include: 
 Must meet the definition of advanced biofuel and be produced in the United States; 
 Must be a solid, liquid, or gas; 
 Must be a final product; 
 Must be sold as an advanced biofuel through an arm's length transaction to a third party. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  31. What types of payments are provided to produc ers? What requirements must they meet to 
receive these payments? 
RESPONSE:  USDA will make available an actual production payment and an incremental 
production payment to eligible producers. These are direct payments with unrestricted use. 
Applicant Eligibility: requires that the Advance Biofuel Producer be an individual, corporation, 
company, foundation, association, labor organization, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, group of organizations, or non-profit en tity that produces and sells an advanced biofuel 
(as defined above). 
Beneficiary Eligibility: the biofuel must meet the definition of advanced biofuel, be a solid, liquid, 
or gaseous advanced biofuel, be a final product; an d if the biofuel is used on-site, there must be a 
USDA-approved system to verify th e quantity of biofuel used on-site. Fuel must be derived from 
renewable biomass other than corn kernel starch. 
32. With regard to the Flexible Fuel Vehicle Produc tion Incentive, could the United States explain 
how the credit accrual system works for automakers? 
RESPONSE:  Under U.S. law, automakers are required to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
(CAFE) standards for their passenger cars and light trucks. Manufacturers producing alternative fuel vehicles that meet specific energy effici ency and minimum driving range requirements are 
able to gain CAFE "credits" by manufacturing these types of vehicles. This helps manufacturers 
raise their overall fleet fuel economy levels in th eir efforts to comply with the CAFE standards. 
Manufacturers get different amounts of credit for producing "dedicated" alternative fuel vehicles (that run only on alternative fuel and not on gasoline or diesel) and for producing "dual fuel" or 
"flexible fuel" alternative fuel vehicles (that can ru n on either alternative fuel or gasoline/diesel). 
By statute, the maximum fuel economy increase allowed through the use of the dual-fuel vehicle credits is 1.2 miles per gallon for a given manufacturer's fleet (domestic passenger cars, imported 
passenger cars, or light trucks) through model year (MY) 2014. The statutory credits begin to 
phase out after model year 2014 and are eliminat ed after model year 2019, at which time the 
US Department of Transportation will begin to assess credits for dual-fuel vehicle production based 
on calculation of the vehicles' actual use of alternative fuel. 
33. How much has been spent under this program during the period under review? 
RESPONSE:  As noted above, the "incentive" at issue relates to credits received for production of 
alternative fuel vehicles. These credits help manufacturers meet CAFE standards and are not 
government financial contributions or expenditures of any sort. 
Paragraph 144 explains that the expected outlay s under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act (ARRA) have increased from US$787 billion to US$840 billion. 
34. Could the United States indicate the period in which these outlays are expected to be made? 
RESPONSE:  As of June 30, 2012, $5.8 billion in ARRA funds (2 per cent of the total appropriated 
by Congress) had not been awarded.
7 There is no deadline for the assignment of these pending 
outlays, but the majority relate to contracts, grants or loans for projects for which a supplier has 
not been identified or finalized, or certain entitlement allocations (e.g., Social Security benefits, Veterans benefits). 
35. Could the United States explain the reasons for the increase in the expected outlays? 
RESPONSE:  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $787 billion 
in fiscal stimulus. The original expenditure estimate was increased to $840 billion in 2011, to reflect larger than expected outlays, primaril y in unemployment insurance and the Supplemental 
                                               
7 Review of Recovery Act Funding, www.recovery.gov/Transparenc y/Pages/FundsNotSpent.aspx .  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as Food Stamps).8 There has been no new 
appropriation of funds since the enactment of ARRA in February 2009. 
36. What sectors can benefit from the tax credits? 
RESPONSE:  Tax credits are defined as an amount of money that a taxpayer is able to subtract 
from their tax liability. They are distinct from changes in tax rates, exclusions from taxable income 
or depreciation/deferral allowances. ARRA included tax credits for individuals and businesses. 
Tax credits for individuals included the American Opportunity (education) Tax Credit 
($21.4 billion), the Child Tax Credit ($18.4 billion), the First Time Homebuyer Credit 
($10.4 billion), an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($5.1 billion), the deduction of sales 
and excise taxes for certain motor vehicles ($1.1 billion), and a tax credit for computer technology and equipment purchased as part of higher education (negligible cost). 
Some tax credits applied to both individuals and bu siness, mostly in the area of energy, including 
the residential energy credit ($11 billion), the residential credit for alternative energy ($602 million), the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources ($647 million), 
credits for renewable energy properties ($144 million), the electric motor vehicles credit 
($115 million), the investment/production credit ($125 million), the credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties ($51 million), the credit for investment in advanced energy facilities 
($1.4 billion), special tax credits for certain government retirees ($362 million), the increase in 
new markets tax credit ($174 million), and the regulated investment companies allowed to pass-thru tax credit bond credits (negligible cost). 
                                               
8 Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on 
Employment and Economic output from April 2011 through June 2011 , August 2011, 
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cb ofiles/attachment s/08-24-ARRA.pdf   WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  ASEAN 
1) Pg. 12, Paragraph(s) 42-44 The United States through the USTR has notably made great efforts in increasing its transparency 
with the public on specific issues and areas through dialogue, frequent consultations and by 
utilising electronic media to reach a broader array of public audiences. While also coming up with 
initiatives like SelectUSA, BusinessUSA and other trade-related tools for its business. 
Can the United States clarify whether these initiatives and information-seeking tools are only 
available to interested businesses based in the US or can interested (foreign) investors utilise them 
as well? 
RESPONSE: Many of these tools are available to both domestic and foreign firms. 
SelectUSA works with firms – both foreign and domestic – as well as U.S. economic development 
organizations to provide information, guidance, and counseling on the U.S. economic climate and 
federal rules and regulations impacting business investment in the United States. Housed in the Department of Commerce, SelectUSA is a part of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service 
(USFCS), which is located at U.S. embassies and consulates in over 70 worldwide markets and has 
a robust field operation through US Export Assistance Centers across the United States. By coordinating resources across the federal government, SelectUSA provides both information 
assistance and ombudsman services to the global investment community. 
The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Tariff Tool combines complex tariff and trade data into a simple 
and easy-to-search public interface. Using the Tool, users can see how U.S. and FTA partner tariffs on individual products are treated under an agreemen t. The Tool allows the users to easily identify 
the share of trade or the share of tariff lines that fall within the various tariff elimination baskets. 
Users can also compare how particular sectors were treated across various FTAs. The FTA Tariff Tool is available at http://export.gov/fta/ftatarifftool  and can be viewed outside of the 
United States. 
USTR's websites, weekly e-newsletter, and the online posting of the Federal Register  Notices 
soliciting public comment and input are all in the public domain. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  AUSTRALIA 
PART 1: QUESTIONS ON THE WTO SE CRETARIAT REPORT – WT/TPR/S/275 
SUMMARY 
Page x, Paragraph 10 
Australia notes that the United States has one of the largest agriculture sectors in the world and is 
also the largest agriculture exporting country, as described in the Secretariat report. Australia agrees with the assessment that, given the United States' large share of world production, exports 
and imports of agricultural products, developments in United States agricultural policies have an 
important impact on world markets. Australia would add that the United States agricultural sector is characterised by substantial government policy intervention in some parts. 
With this in mind, could the United States outline how the next US Farm Bill and broader US 
economic and trade policy will contribute to trad e liberalisation in global agricultural and food 
markets in pursuit of our agreed long-term objective in the WTO Agricultural Agreement to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system? 
RESPONSE:  The United States remains committed to the long-term objectives in the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture to create a freer and more market-oriented agricultural trading system. Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to speculate as to 
content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. However, the United States expects that any 
final legislation will be consistent with its WTO obligations. 
Page x, Paragraph 11 Can the US advise whether it has given consideration to amending or reforming the laws and 
regulations regarding rules of origin and mark ing requirements to make them more easily 
accessible and less cumbersome?  
RESPONSE: While the United States does not consider its laws and regulations either inaccessible 
or cumbersome, CBP, proposed a regulatory ch ange to apply the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR 
Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, rather than the case-by-case determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin marking purposes. Based on 
the comments received in response to the proposed changes, in September 2011, CBP issued a 
final rule that did not adopt new origin and marking rules. A total of 70 commenters responded to the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of the country of origin 
rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters ra ised specific concerns or questions regarding 
the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or opposing the proposal. See: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-02/html/2011-22588.htm . 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(2) PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Page 16, Paragraph 10 
Could the US please respond to point in the Secretariat report that some trade laws or procedures 
would require updated or amended WTO notifications and which current notifications should be updated or amended as a result? When will these updated notifications be provided to the WTO? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not find the Secretariat's report to be update to date with 
regards to the U.S. notifications. The United States most recent notification on Quantitative 
Restrictions, submitted on October 3, 2012, was issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. The United States notified on its GSP program via WT/COMTD/N/1/Add. 8, dated July 4, 2012. The United 
States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat on 
Friday, December 13, 2012. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  With regards to the HS2012 changes mentioned on page 38 of the Secretariat's report, the 
United States acknowledges the need to delete subheadings 3702.91 to 3702.95 and to replace those with new subheadings 3702.96, 3702.97 and 3702.98. The failure to make this change was an accidental omission and steps are being taken to rectify the situation. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
Page 30, Paragraph 2 
We note in paragraph 2 (page 30) that Auto mated Commercial Environment (ACE) is being 
implemented in phases. Australia would appreciate if the US could advise when ACE is expected to be fully operational, and how operat ional costs of ACE will be sourced. 
RESPONSE:  Core functionality for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is planned to be 
completed in approximately 3 years. This core functionality will establish the foundation for the 
import/export process. CBP is working to identify operations and maintenance savings that could be redirected to ACE development as well as looking for ways to go farther with the available 
funding. 
Page 31, Paragraph 4 We note in paragraph 4 (page 31) that in 2010, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) adopted 
new eligibility requirements, which slightly modified the rules for taking the license exam for 
customs brokers. Australia would appreciate if the US could elaborate on this change and the 
reason(s) behind the change. 
RESPONSE:  CBP amended the customs broker eligibility to more closely align the basic 
requirements that an individual must satisfy to take the written examination for a customs 
broker's license with the basic requirements an  individual must satisfy to obtain a customs 
broker's license. In order to be eligible to take the written examination, an individual must be a 
U.S. citizen on the date of examination, must no t be an officer or employee of the US Government, 
and must have attained the age of 21 prior to th e date of examination. The amendments facilitate 
the overall licensing process by helping to ensure  that those sitting for the examination are not 
automatically precluded from obtaining a licens e by reason of age, citizenship status, or 
employment. See: https://federalregister.gov/a/2010-21254 . 
Page 32, Paragraph 6 
Paragraph 27 of Commentary 22.1 on the text of the WTO Valuation Agreement – Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation states that "the Technical Committee concludes that in a series 
of sale situation, the price actually paid or paya ble for the imported goods when sold for export to 
the country of importation is the price paid in the la st sale occurring prior to the introduction of the 
goods into the country of importation, instead of the first (or earlier) sale. This is consistent with 
the purpose and overall text of the Agreement." 
Could the United States clarify how its interpretation of the phrase 'sold for exportation to the 
United States' as being the 'first (or earlier) sale' is consistent with the WTO Technical Committee's 
interpretation? 
Further, in light of the WTOTC's assessment, will th e US reconsider its position on this issue to 
bring US practice in to line with the WTOTC's interpretation? 
RESPONSE: The United States agrees with the WTO Valuation Agreement-Technical Committee on 
Customs Valuation position, and is of the opinion that the last sale in a series of sales generally represents the sale for exportation. However, in certain circumstances where a purchaser, 
middleman and foreign seller have arranged their transactions to show that merchandise is clearly 
destined for exportation to the United States and there is complete documentation, the first sale may be able to be used. The United States does not consider this position as inconsistent with the 
WTO Valuation Agreement – Technical Committee on Customs Valuation. The United States does 
not intend to reconsider this position. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  (iii) Rules of Origin 
(c) Country-of-origin marking 
Page 35, Paragraph 10 
We note that labelling is a TBT rather than a ROOs issue, and in this context seek clarification of 
the United States country-of-origin labelling requirements. Specifically, are imported goods treated 
differently than domestic goods regarding origin labelling or is the impact of the requirements on 
imported goods different from the impact on dome stic goods? If so, how do these requirements 
comply with the United States' international trade obligations, including those in the WTO? 
RESPONSE: The United States marking requirements are found in 19 USC 1304, which requires 
that unless excepted, all foreign origin goods be marked so as to inform the ultimate purchaser in the United States of its country of origin. U.S. labelling requirements are consistent with WTO 
obligations. 
(iv) Tariffs 
Page 42, Paragraph 30 We note in paragraph 30 (page 42) that certain watches, watch movements, and jewellery enter 
the US duty free from U.S. insular possessions th rough special annual import allocations. Can the 
US please elaborate the rules subject to the qualif ication of such treatment, and policy objectives 
behind the annual exemption limits? 
RESPONSE:  The rules specifying the duty free treatmen t of certain watches from the US Insular 
Possessions are laid out the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Specifically please 
see Chapter 91 Additional Note 5: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/do cs/tata/hts/bychapter/1211htsa.pdf . 
The US Department of Commerce and the US Department of the Interior jointly administer the 
Insular Possessions Watch and Jewelry Program under Public Law 97-446, as amended by Public Law 103-465, Public Law 106-36 and Public Law 108-429. The purpose of this program dates back 
to the original legislation from 1954 and was esta blished to support the light industry on the 
islands. Additional information is included in the United States' notification of this program to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in G/SCM/N/220/USA (19 October 2011). 
Further information on the regulations governing this program can be found at the following URL: 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sips/15cfr303.html . 
(v) Other charges affecting imports 
Customs user fees 
We understand that the purpose of the Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) is to cover the cost of 
processing the entry of imported merchandise (page 42). Could the US provide information on the 
accumulated MPF paid and the cost of merchandise processing over the review period? Australia 
would also appreciate it if the US could elaborate on the usage of a surplus fund (in case the accumulated MPF paid exceeds the cost of merchand ise processing) or the recovery of a necessary 
fund (in the opposite case). 
RESPONSE: The United States did not experience a surplus with its MPF collections. The projected 
MPF collected for the review period is approxim ately $2.85 billion. The projected expenditures for 
CBP's commercial operations for the review period is approximately $3.17 billion. 
Page 42, Paragraph 32 
Australia notes that the Report makes no mention of the status of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal 
Accountability Act, which would require manufactu rers of certain products imported into the 
United States to establish a registered agent in the United States to accept service of process on 
their behalf, imposing an additional costly burden on foreign manufacturers. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  What is the status of this bill in Congress? 
RESPONSE: The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act has been introduced in both the 
House and Senate. However it is not possible to speculate when either chamber might take further action with respect to this bill. 
Page 43, Paragraph 34 
We note in paragraph 34 (page 43) that new legisl ation raised the MPF ad valorem rate for formal 
entries from 0.21% to 0.3464% as of 1 October 2011. Australia would appreciate if the US could 
elaborate on the reason(s) behind this increase. 
RESPONSE:  The last legislative change to the Merchandise Processing Fee was 17 years ago in 
1995, and the costs of maintaining and improving the level of service that Customs and Border 
Protection provides have increased since that ti me. The increase covers these costs, the purpose 
for which the fees are collected. In order to  collect an amount commensurate with CBP's 
commercial costs, the ad valorem rate required an upward adjustment. The United States notes 
that while the MPF fee was increased, the upper cap limit of $485.00 remained the same. 
(b) Harbor Maintenance Tax 
Page 44, Paragraph 36 
We note in paragraph 36 (page 44) that the Harbor Maintenance Tax ad valorem fee of 0.125% is 
assessed on the declared value for commercial cargo entering the United States. Australia would 
appreciate if the US could confirm whether this f ee is applicable regardless of the origin of the 
cargo. If so, Australia would appreciate it if the US could elaborate on the reason(s) behind not exempting this fee to its FTA partners. 
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain a country of origin exemption for HMF. The 
amount of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), also  called the Harbor Maintenance Fee, is set by 
statute (26 U.S.C. § 4461 and 4462). Funds collected through this fee are used for improvements 
to and maintenance of ports. Fees are structured to help offset the costs of maintaining the ports 
for commercial trade and funds collected through this fee are intended for improvements to and maintenance of ports.  
Page 44, Paragraph 36 We also note in paragraph 36 (page 44) that the fund has maintained a significant surplus for 
many years. Australia would appreciate if the US could elaborate on the amount in the fund 
currently available, and would like to know whet her the US plans to reduce the fee in future, 
bearing in mind the obligation of Article VIII: 1 of  GATT that such charges be limited in amount to 
the approximate cost of the services rendered. 
RESPONSE: The United States Army Corp of Engineers,  the agency responsible for the HMT funds 
has a number of proposals that it is currently considering, and a number of projects prepared to 
begin. Time may pass between collection of the fee and expenditure of the relevant sums because, after each project is vetted, the funds must be appropriated by Congress in order for any project 
to begin. A considerable amount of recordkeeping and accounting help ensure that funds that are 
collected are used for projects that are appropriat e under the provisions of the HMT fund and that 
they are used in a manner that is in compliance with the United States' WTO obligations. 
(vi) Contingency Measures 
(a) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Page 47, Paragraphs 42-55 
Australia requests an update on the progress of  the United States in bringing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 2000 (also known as the Byrd Amendment) in to conformity with 
its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the Subsidies and Countervailing Agreement? Have the recommendations of the WTO dispute (DS217, DS234) been fully WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  implemented? Are the Act and the actions of the United States Customs and Border Protection 
taken under the Act now compliant with the United States' international trade obligations? 
RESPONSE: On February 8, 2006, the President signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act, which 
included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The 
United States has taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.. 
(b) Import licensing Page  54, Table III.14 , 
It appears that the steel import licensing system has been put in place for the purposes of 
monitoring. Could the US clarify how this is consistent with Article 11 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards? 
RESPONSE:  The steel import license is not a safeguard action within the meaning of GATT 
Article XIX and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. The license requirement is for statistical 
purposes only and has been duly notified to the WTO in accordance with Article 7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
(c) New legislation or rules enac ted during the review period 
Page 57, Paragraph 68  
We note in paragraph 68 (page 57) that final rules and regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ha d not been issued as of 1 July 2012. We also 
note that on 22 August 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a rule mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to require companies to publicly disclose their use of conflic t minerals that originated in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo (DRC) or an adjoining country . Australia would appreciate it if the US could 
elaborate on any implications for other countries exporting minerals including tantalum, tin, gold or tungsten. 
RESPONSE: The final rule requires issuers that report to the Securities and Exchange Commission 
and that have conflict minerals that are necessary to their products that they manufacture or contract to manufacture to conduct a reasonable country of origin inquiry regarding those minerals 
to determine whether any of the minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an 
adjoining country. 
Based on the inquiry, if an issuer determines that its conflict minerals did not originate in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country, the issuer is not required to file a 
conflict minerals report or obtain an independent private sector audit of that report. Instead, the 
issuer only is required to separately describe its reasonable country of origin inquiry in a filing on Form SD, the specialized disclosure report form. Also, the issuer in this instance would not be 
required to disclose the country of origin of those conflict minerals. 
(vii) Quantitative trade measures, re strictions, controls and licensing 
Page 57, paragraph 69 
In relation to the historical licence-reduction provisions of the Dairy TRQ licensing programme, 
how many historical licences are currently issued? 
RESPONSE: For 2012, there are 163 historical licenses holders and 946 historical licenses 
currently issued. 
What will the figure be once the reduction provisions take effect? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The primary impact of the historical license surrender provision is to reduce the 
quantity (size) of a license issued the following year, and not on the number of licenses. We do not 
forecast the number of licenses for a coming year.  
Would the US please explain what the rationale wa s for suspending the provisions on the reduction 
of historical licences until 2016? 
RESPONSE: The rationale for suspension until 2016 was an acknowledgement that factors beyond 
the control of the license holders contributed to a declining use of licenses. These factors include 
the lack of availability of cheese from the European Union, and general economic conditions in the 
United States, including a weaker U.S. dollar. 
Can the US please advise whether this suspension will have an impact on access to licences for 
importers and exporters for unused quantities of the Dairy TRQ? If so, what is the extent of this 
impact? 
RESPONSE: There will be no impact. When the reduct ion provisions are in effect, any amounts 
permanently reduced are transferred to the non-hist orical quota, which is allocated by a lottery 
available to all importers and exporters. With the suspension, no reductions will now occur 
through 2015. Given the annual reallocation proce ss, all quantities of licensed dairy and cheese 
items are fully available every year, regardless of initial type of license.  
(viii) Technical regulations and standards 
Page 58, Paragraph 70  
Australia notes that the United States has an enquiry point and notification authority under the 
TBT Agreement. 
Can the United States clarify the governance me chanism around management of the TBT enquiry 
point? What processes are instituted to ensure a timely response to queries made to the TBT 
enquiry point? What commitments does the United States make to respond to enquiries to the TBT 
enquiry point and is there a deadline for responding to requests? 
RESPONSE: The Congressional mandates for USA WTO Inquiry Point Notification Authority are in 
US Code 19USC242 and 19USC2544, which are called out in Chapter 13 of the Trade Agreements 
Act of 1979, Subchapter II - Technical Barriers to Trade (Standards), Part b (Functions of Federal Agencies). This authority was delegated to Department of Commerce, and in turn, the Department 
of Commerce assigned the authority to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 
The USA Inquiry Point responds to WTO Member requests for documents and information within 
2 days, and usually replies within 1 day. Comments received or inquiries for clarification of technical details in a notified measure must be transmitted to the relevant USA regulatory agency 
for reply. 
With respect to inquiries regarding actions by US regulatory agencies, the USA Inquiry Point's role 
is limited to conveying the inquiry to the relevant US regulatory agency and reminding agencies 
when inquiries are outstanding and require a response. 
In addition, the Administrative Procedure Act requir es regulators to publish regulatory proposals in 
the US Federal Register, solicit comments on th e proposal from the public, and respond to 
substantive comments received during the comment period when the final rule is published. 
Page 59, Table III.15  
We note in Table III.15 (page 59) that Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review stressed the importance of publ ic participation in the rulemaking process, and 
sought to improve rulemaking by requiring the us e of the Internet and a period of 60 days to 
enable public comment on regulatory proposals. Australia would like to know whether public participation is open to foreign stakeholders. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Yes, foreign stakeholders may comment through their national WTO Inquiry Point, 
through the US Federal Register, or the Regulations.gov website. 
(ix) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures Page 61, Paragraph 81 
Can the US advise the time required for SPS ru lemaking to be concluded and thus the delay 
foreign exporters should expect before obtaining market access for their requests for agricultural products following a risk analysis? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. rulemaking process for SPS measures is transparent and science-based. The 
time required for such a review is dependent upon a number of factors, including the nature of the request, the availability of scientific evidence to support the request, the quality of data submitted 
by the petitioner, and the results of audits. For an indication of APHIS-specific efforts to reduce the 
administrative procedures related to rulemaking, please see 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/impor t_export/plants/plant_import s/quarantine_56/index.shtml . 
Are there any plans to review the rulemaking process to implement new, trade facilitating SPS 
rulemaking procedures, thereby reducing the significant delays for obtaining market access to the 
US? 
RESPONSE: The US Government is continually striving to improve its regulatory coherence and 
cooperation with both domestic and international stakeholders. See the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) efforts with respect to this issue: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fil es/omb/inforeg/eo12866 /eo13563_0118 2011.pdf . 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
Page 70, Paragraphs 114, 115, 116 
Australia notes that the Ex-Im Bank provides export financing through various programmes 
including direct loans to foreign buyers of exports from the United States. 
Can the United States clarify how the Ex-Im Bank determines which particular goods and services 
exports are to be included as part of a loan? What  consideration is given to each in terms of value 
for money, quality, fit for purpose, availability and specific company products? 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im is typically presented with a request for financing support for a given 
transaction/project with the specific goods and se rvices already identified. Our engineering group 
will evaluate the proposed transaction for technical feasibility and appropriateness of the goods and services for the proposed purpose of the tr ansaction. The Bank also has several statutory 
requirements it must follow; these include no support for military/defense items unless it is clearly 
non-lethal dual use, nuclear and nuclear related have to undergo a US State Department 
clearance, no support for any item that can be used to produce a good or service that has an adverse economic impact on the US Ex-Im is also directed by the US Congress to afford the same 
treatment of services exports that the Bank pr ovides to goods exports. Finally, Congress has 
directed Ex-Im Bank to provide a certain amount of support for small business exporters and to encourage the growth of renewable energy exports.  All of these provisions apply to all of Ex-Im 
Bank products of loans, guarantees and insurance. 
Australia notes the examples included in the Report  of direct loans to foreign buyers of exports 
from the United States in the commercial aircraft, heavy equipment and project finance areas, and 
special financing programmes in aircraft finance, project finance and supply chain finance. 
Does the Ex-Im Bank prioritise industries to which it provides such loans and financing, and if so 
which industries does it prioritise? 
RESPONSE:  The only industries on which Ex-Im Bank is directed to focus are small business 
exporters (which is more a cross section of  many industries), and renewable energy WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  technology/products. As noted above, Ex-Im Bank is a demand-driven export credit agency; 
therefore the sectors it supports are those whose companies come to Ex-Im Bank for financing. 
We note in paragraph 115 (page 71) that Ex-Im Bank identified nine key markets (Brazil, 
Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, So uth Africa, Turkey, and Viet Nam). Could the US 
please elaborate on whether this list changes over time, and if so, the basis of changes? 
RESPONSE: Ex-Im Bank has been focused on these nine countries for the past several years and 
during this time, no changes have occurred. However, that would not preclude changes or additions to this list of key markets which would happen if it was determined that other markets 
offered more opportunities for U.S. companies than current ones. 
Australia notes the Report statement that accordin g to authorities, Ex-Im Bank fees are set in 
accordance with the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (para 116). 
Can the US clarify how Ex-Im Bank fees are set fo r Category 0 High Income OECD and Euro Area 
countries, given that there are no Minimum Premium Rates under the OECD Arrangement for 
transactions involving obligors in Category 0 countries? 
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank follows the current OECD guidance regarding Cat 0 markets pricing 
by identifying one or several of the acceptable market benchmarks and using it as the basis to 
price the transaction. 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(ii) State Trading Enterprises, government corporations and government enterprises 
Pages 74 and 75, Paragraphs 126 and 127, Tables III.20 and III.21 Noting that the role of the Commodity Credit Corp oration is to 'stabilise, support and protect farm 
income and prices', could the US outline the rationale for maintaining the Corporation given 
current high international prices and projections of  significant global demand and strong prices for 
the foreseeable future? 
RESPONSE: Not all agricultural prices are high. Moreover, projections cannot take into account 
year-to-year variations such as weather effect s. The Commodity Credit  Corporation (CCC) is 
essentially a financing mechanism to provide an orderly implementation of programs under its authority which are authorized or mandated by statute. 
(iii) Government procurement 
Page 78, Paragraph 138 Australia notes the Report statement that procurement at the sub-central (i.e state) level is a 
matter of state law. 
How does the United States Government encourage US states to be bound by international 
government procurement obligations? How successful are attempts by the United States Government to encourage greater participation by the states in international government 
procurement arrangements? 
RESPONSE: When U.S. trading partners request coverage of state procurement in a trade 
agreement, the US Trade Representative asks for the state's authorization to cover its 
procurement under the agreement, pointing out th e reciprocal benefits to the state of such 
coverage. Only where a state authorizes such coverage is its procurement included in the trade agreement. The procurement of 37 states is covered under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, with varying numbers of st ates covered under free trade agreements. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  (iv) Subsidies and other government assistance 
Page 79, Paragraph 143, 144  
Australia notes that GM, Ally Financial and AIG remain included in the Trouble Asset Relied 
Program (TARP). 
Could the United States provide an outline of how long these companies are expected to be 
included in the TARP? What processes are in place to encourage exit from the program? 
RESPONSE: 
GM: As of September 30, 2012, Treasury held 500. 1 million shares and Treasury had recovered 
$23.97 billion of its total $51.03 billion investment in GM. Since GM is a publically-traded company 
and its stock is highly liquid, Treasury can exit its investment over time through sales of its remaining common shares on the open market, th rough underwritten offerings, block trades or 
dribble out programs, or a combination of the above.  Treasury will continue to evaluate its options 
to exit its remaining GM investment based on market conditions. 
Ally Financial:  As of September 30, 2012, Treasury's outstanding investment in Ally Financial 
stood at $13.75 billion, having recovered approximately one-third its original investment. Treasury 
continues to closely monitor the performance of Ally Financial and look for the best opportunities to exit its remaining investment in the company. 
AIG: During the financial crisis, the government's overall support for AIG peaked at approximately 
$182 billion, including $70 billion that Treasury committed through TARP, and $112 billion 
committed by the FRBNY. On December 11, 2012, Treasury announced that it has agreed to sell all of its remaining 234,169,156 shares of AIG common stock in an underwritten public offering, 
for expected aggregate proceeds of approximately $7. 6 billion. Giving effect to this offering, the 
overall positive return on the Federal Reserve and Treasury's combined $182 billion commitment 
to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now $22.7 billion. Treasury will continue to hold 
warrants to purchase approximately 2.7 million shares of AIG common stock – the sale of which 
will provide an additional positive return to taxpayers. 
More information about these programs can be found at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiativ es/financial-stability/TARP- Programs/Pages/default.aspx . 
Australia notes that there is no legislative expiry  to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(ARRA) with the expected outlays from ARRA increasing from US$787 billion to US$840 billion. 
Given the increase in outlays under ARRA how much of the new outlays are on new public 
projects? To what extent will foreign firms be able to participate in these new projects? 
RESPONSE: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $787 billion 
in fiscal stimulus. The original expenditure estimate was increased to $840 billion in 2011, largely 
as a result of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the long-term multiplier effects of 
past spending. There has been no new appropriat ion of funds since the enactment of ARRA in 
February 2009. The CBO report can be found at: Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Impact of 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic output from 
April 2011 through June 2011 , August 2011, 
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cb ofiles/attachments/08-24-ARRA.pdf . 
The Recovery Act stimulus is divided into temporary tax reductions, payments to eligible recipients 
like Social Security beneficiaries, aid to states for education grants and to improve infrastructure. 
Of this, about 32 per cent or $277 billion was toward education programs and public work contracts, grants, and loans, and of this $225 billion have been disbursed. 
Section 1605 of ARRA requires that for any ARRA-funded construction, alternation, maintenance, 
or repair of public buildings or public works,  all iron, steel, and manufactured goods must be 
produced in the United States although there are no restrictions on the nationality of the firm 
providing the good or service. Regulations for ARRA are at: Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 74, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  No. 77, April 23, 2009, www.whitehouse.gov/sit es/default/files/omb/assets/fedreg_2009/ 
042309_recovery.pdf. The provision also requires th at the law be applied in a manner consistent 
with the United States' international obligations under NAFTA and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. 
Additional information on this progra m is available at www.recovery.gov/. 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
(e) Patent Law 
Page 93, Paragraph 179  
What changes have been implemented to patent office practices as a result of the decision in Mayo 
v. Prometheus? 
RESPONSE: The United Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a new procedure for 
examining process claims for subject matter eligibili ty in view of the Supreme Court decision Mayo 
v. Prometheus. For a memo outlining the changes, please see: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/ exam/2012_inter im_guidance.pdf . 
Page 93, Paragraph 180 
Could the United States elaborate on the nature of the metrics for patent quality, how they are 
measured and what steps are taken to improve quality where the metrics identify a problem? 
RESPONSE: The USPTO utilizes work product reviews (In-Process Review, Complete First Action 
on the Merits (FAOM) Review and Pre FAOM Search Review) to place emphasis on the importance of high quality examination early in prosecution. The Pre FAOM Search Review and Complete FAOM Review emphasize the use of best practices during  the initial search and examination to highlight 
the importance of a thorough search prior to the first action on the merits as well as a clear and 
complete first action in achieving high quality examination. The Final Disposition reviews emphasize the correctness of an examiner's final decision on the patentability of the claims. The 
Quality Index Report measures events that occur during the prosecution of an application that may 
have the effect of extending prosecution. The findings of these metrics are used to provide 
feedback and training to the corps which promote the principles of compact prosecution. To the 
extent that our metrics focus on high quality examination early and throughout prosecution, they 
promote efficiency and as a result contribute to the achievement of the Office's goals of reducing 
overall examination time in addition to promoting high quality examination. For more information, please see: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/in it_events/qual_comp_metric.pdf . 
Page 94, Paragraph 183 
In regard to the trademark amendments of 2011, could the United States indicate the thinking 
behind requiring additional administrative measures for trademark right holders to maintain their 
registrations in that country? Is there a particular trigger for requesting additional specimens that 
we should be informing our rights holders about? 
RESPONSE: The revisions will facilitate the USPTO's ability to verify the accuracy of identifications 
of goods/services. The accuracy of the trademark register as a reflection of marks that are actually 
in use in the United States for the goods/services identified in the registration serves an important 
purpose for the public. The public relies on the regi ster to clear trademarks that they may wish to 
adopt or are already using. Where a party searching the register uncovers a potentially confusingly 
similar mark, that party may incur a variety of resulting costs and burdens, such as changing its 
plans to avoid use of the mark, investigative costs to determine how the similar mark is actually used and assess the nature of any conflict, or cancellation proceedings or other litigation to resolve 
a dispute over the mark. If a registered mark is no t actually in use in the United States, or is not 
in use on all the goods/services in the regist ration, these types of costs and burdens may be 
incurred unnecessarily. Thus, accuracy and reliability of the trademark register help avoid such 
needless costs and burdens, and thereby benefit the public.  
Specimens of use in use-based trademark applications illustrate how the applicant is using the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  proposed mark in commerce on particular goods/services identified in the application. Post 
registration affidavits or declarations of use and their accompanying specimens demonstrate a trademark owner's continued use of its mark in commerce for the goods/services in the registration. The USPTO anticipates issuing requ irements for additional specimens or other 
information, exhibits, and affidavits or declarations in a relatively small number of cases, to assess 
the accuracy of the identifications of goods/serv ices. For example, additional specimens may be 
requested in a case to verify the accuracy and the nature of the use when the identification 
includes a large number of, or significant disparity in, goods/services.  
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE (i) Agriculture in the United States 
Page 99, paragraph 1 and 2 There appears to be a typographical error in one of the first sentences in paragraphs 1 and 2. Can 
the US please confirm that the total value of its agricultural production was US$372 billion in 
2011? 
RESPONSE: The United States confirms that the total value of its agricultural production was 
US$372 billion in 2011.  
Page 100, Table IV.2 Can the United States explain how domestic policy choices have contributed to the general decline 
in maize exports from the United States since 2006/07? 
RESPONSE: U.S. share of global corn trade has declined since 2006, due to both policy and 
market factors, as listed below. The complicated interaction among these factors makes it difficult 
to pinpoint the precise contribution of each. 
Reduced exportable supplies in the United Stat es: Despite record planted area in the United 
States, unfavorable weather and below-trend yields  for the past three years have resulted in 
reduced crop outputs and lower exportable supplies. This has been happening at precisely the 
same time as foreign competitors are ramping up production and exports. 
Intensifying international competition: Since 2006, the U.S. corn crop has faced increasing 
competition in global markets. Global import demand over the past several years have driven area 
expansion in Brazil, Argentina, and Ukraine, wh ere the combined production has gained 49 per 
cent since 2006. In 2011, combined exports from these three countries surpassed those from the 
United States. Ukraine, in particular, has increased its corn exports twelve-fold in just six years. 
More indirect U.S. corn exports: Part of the reas on for the fall in U.S. corn exports is that more 
corn is being processed into value added produc ts which are then exported. Among those value 
added corn products are ethanol and meat. As an ex ample, estimating the amount of corn used to 
produce these indirect exports reveals that corn used in the production of meat, which was then 
exported, increased by 63 per cent (8 million tons) over the past five years. 
Page 100, Paragraph 5 and 6 
The Secretariat Report states that, after falling for many years, the number of farms in the 
United States has been increasing for the last decade, with about 2.2 million farms currently in 
operation. This is apparently due to an increase in small farms. Could the United States outline its 
definition of a farm and advise whether the growing number of smaller farms reflects any particular agricultural sector policy choices? 
RESPONSE: A farm is de ﬁned, for statistical purposes, as any place from which $1,000 or more of 
agricultural goods (crops or livestock) were sold or normally would have been sold during the year under consideration. 
A property with less than $1,000 in sales could still be classified as a farm if it had enough acreage 
of various crops or head of livestock to generate  $1,000 of sales. These places are called "point WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  farms," and their numbers have grown sharply. In  the 2007 Census of Agriculture, point farms 
accounted for 31 per cent of all farms, up from 11 per cent in the 1982 census. The number of point farms increased substantially between the 2002 and 2007 Censuses of Agriculture, reflecting a concerted USDA effort to better identify and tr ack very small farms. Thus, some part of the 
observed increase in small farm numbers reflects better counting, not more farms. 
In addition, USDA has used the $1,000 threshold, under the direction of Congress, since 1974. 
Because the farm definition is not adjusted for inflation, it will define more very small places as 
farms as farm commodity prices increase over time. 
Ninety-one per cent of U.S. farms are classified as small – gross cash farm income (GCFI) of less 
than $250,000. About 60 per cent of these small fa rms are very small, generating GCFI of less 
than $10,000. These very small farms, in some re spects, exist independently of the farm economy 
because their operators rely heavily on off-farm income. 
In response to growing consumer and retailer interest in local food production, USDA has initiated 
several programs aimed at beginning farmers and at local food markets in recent years. Farms 
that produce for local markets are considerably smaller, on average, than other farms. Thus, shifts 
of consumption to local markets, and hence to the farms that supply them, do appear to favor smaller operations. On the other hand, local production is still a small part of crop agriculture, with 
local producers accounting for less than 5 per cent of all cropland and the evidence regarding 
impacts of these programs on small farm counts has so far been mixed. 
Given that for family farms "off-farm income is…more important than earnings from farming 
activities but the opposite is true on larger farms" (paragraph 6), does the United States consider 
that significant Amber Box support has diminished, in particular for the 2.5% of farms which 
represented 59% of all total sales (particularly as the Secretariat report points to a growing agriculture trade surplus? 
RESPONSE: The United States agrees that domestic support levels have diminished. We note that 
the U.S. 2010 Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS or "amber box" support) was at a 
historically low level of $4.119 billion in 2010, down from $4.267 billion in 2009. 
Page 101, Paragraph 8 and Table IV.3 
Australia notes that sugar imports to the United States have increased significantly over recent 
years, particularly when compared with other products in Table IV.3. Could the US outline the reasons for this increase in sugar imports, the current policy settings to meet consumer demands 
at reasonable prices and, the state of domestic demand and supply? 
RESPONSE: As demand for sugar in the United States continues to increase, domestic U.S. sugar 
cannot meet demand, and therefore, increasing imports have been a large component of domestic 
consumption.  
(ii) Agriculture policies 
Page 103, Paragraph 11 
We note the prospects for the change in Farm Bills. When the Farm Bill was introduced in 2008 the 
CBO estimated total costs of mandatory programs at $284 billion over 2008-2012 and $604 billion 
over 10 years (2008-2017). 
Could the US provide some indication of when we might expect a new Farm Bill and what the 
budgetary implications would be of extending the current bill (noting the baseline for total outlays 
based on existing programs is estimated to be $993 billion for the period 2013-2022). 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-g oing. Therefore, the United States is 
unable to speculate as to the timing and conten t of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
We understand the Senate and House proposals fo r a new Farm Bill look to reduce Farm Bill 
spending by 2-3 per cent. Can the US provide any early indication of how this might impact on 
support notifications in the WTO. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Farm Bill spending estimates are based on projections that assume a specific set of 
market and weather conditions, as well as progra m parameters. Actual expenditures will vary and 
until the final program details under a new Farm Bill are set, it is not possible to project support levels under WTO rules. 
Page 103, Paragraph 13 Efforts to improve utilisation of tariff quotas remains an important issue for many WTO members. 
In this context, Australia remains concerned that some persistent underfill of some tariff quotas could be a result of quota administration practice and not simply reflect market circumstances. The 
Secretariat's Report indicates that, for US tariff quotas, "fill rates vary significantly from one quota 
to another". While the US has provided various reasons for this underfill to the WTO Committee on Agriculture, can the US also provide reasons as to why it applies price-based SSGs when in-quota trade is already so low? 
RESPONSE: The United States has price-based special safeguards (SSGs) on all tariff lines also 
subject to WTO tariff-rate quotas (TRQ). There is no SSG on in-quota imports so if all imports are 
within the TRQ, the price-based SSG never comes in to effect. The United States annually notifies 
SSG use and provides quantity data on the use of  the SSG by tariff line as a WTO Committee on 
Agriculture best practice because the notification instructions only require reporting on whether 
the price-based safeguard has been used. 
Page 104, Paragraph 20, Table IV.4 The Secretariat Report notes that the United States is the world's biggest donor of food aid. Since 
2006, the structure of its food aid deliveries has ch anged as the proportion of direct transfer has 
fallen and that of local purchases and triangular purchases have increased. Australia welcomes this 
shift and understands this is due, at least in part, to the pilot program 'Local and Regional 
Procurement Project'. What has been the assessment of this project? In particular, we would be 
interested to better understand whether the change in the structure of United States' food 
assistance deliveries is structural, as opposed to a counter-cyclical reflection of current high market prices? 
RESPONSE: The WTO's report (Table IV.4) appears to contain a few errors. The World Food 
Programme's (WFP) Food Aid Information System does show an increase in locally purchased food aid, but the tonnages in the WTO report do not match the WFP's data. The tonnages for triangular purchases of the US Government appear to be overstated in the WTO report.  
USDA hired an independent evaluator to review th e Local and Regional Procurement Pilot project. 
The report will be issued and made available to th e public before the end of calendar year 2012. In 
terms of the structure of international food assistance programs, the US Government currently 
provides food assistance through Title II of the Food for Peace Act, Food for Progress, 
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition, and the Emergency Food 
Security Program. The authorizing statutes for Title II of the Food for Peace Act, Food for Progress, 
and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition allow donations of 
commodities produced in the United States. The Emergency Food Security Program allows for the purchase of locally produced food and other forms of food assistance (e.g. vouchers). 
As of 2010, direct transfer still accounted for roughl y half of total food aid. Direct transfer risks 
undercutting local producers as well as normal patterns of international commercial trade. Has the 
US undertaken any assessment of the impact of it s direct transfers on domestic production in 
recipient countries and also in neighbouring countries? 
RESPONSE: The US Government reviews recipient countries' markets closely prior to the 
provision of any food aid. The US Governme nt reviews expected consumption, domestic 
production, stocks, and commercial imports in the recipient countries. Food aid is provided when 
domestic and commercial supplies are not sufficient to meet consumption needs. In emergency 
situations, the US Government also works closely with the World Food Programme and other emergency relief organizations to make sure that the most critical needs are met. Given the food deficits in recipient countries and the size of food aid donations relative to commercial production 
and markets, the US Government is not aware of specific situations where its food aid has had a 
negative impact. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Could the United States outline any future plans fo r ongoing reform to provide a greater proportion 
of untied cash-based food assistance, consistent with the disciplines envisaged in the draft Doha agriculture modalities? 
RESPONSE: The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) nego tiations are not complete. Therefore, 
discussion of any future plans based on the draft DDA text would be premature at this point. 
Page 106 and 107 While support provided through counter-cyclical payments (paragraph 24), marketing assistance 
loans and loan deficiency payments (paragraph  25) and the ACRE program (paragraph 27) has 
deceased, Australia's notes that insurance subsidies and the value of crops covered (paragraph 28) has nonetheless increased. Does the United States consider that insurance subsidies will be the primary vehicle for support to US agriculture going forward? If so, does this reflect a structural 
shift to a greater portion of farm support being spent on Amber Box support in favour of 
agricultural producers? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. domestic support notifications have shown that crop insurance has 
accounted for a larger share of amber box support  in more recent years. However, given the 
uncertainty over the timing and content of the next  Farm Bill, it is premature to discuss the overall 
role crop insurance subsidies might play in the future. 
Sugar 
Page 107, Paragraphs 27 and 28 We note premium subsidies to producers have incr eased by $2.5 billion over the past year and the 
value of crops covered have increase by $47 billio n over 4 years. Could the US indicate whether 
the USDA's RMA has undertaken any studies itself or is aware of any other studies on the impact 
these schemes have on producer decision-making in terms of planted areas in any given year? 
RESPONSE: RMA has not conducted such an analysis.  
Page 107, Paragraph 30 
Australia notes in paragraph 30 that the Sugar Program supports US sugar prices above 
comparable levels in the world market. We under stand the Sweetener Users Association recently 
told USTR in public testimony that "if food manufacturers could access world-priced sugar, it would 
better serve our national interests and grow manuf acturing jobs. It would also help every day 
Americans who are spending an additional $3.5 billion a year on import duties for sugar". Has the United States undertaken any official analysis on the cost impact of the program to the US 
economy in general and sugar/sugar products consumers in particular? 
RESPONSE: No official analysis of such cost impacts is underway by the United States. 
How does the US sugar program of marketing loans, price supports, domestic marketing 
allotments and tariff rate quotas position the US  sugar industry to benefit from growing global 
demand for sugar in coming years? 
RESPONSE: The United States cannot speculate on the future business strategies of the U.S. 
sugar industry; however, given that demand for sugar in the United States is significantly greater 
than the domestic supply, traditionally the U.S. sugar industry has focused on supplying domestic, 
rather than global, demand. 
Page 108, Paragraph 33 
What was the value of the purchases made under the DPPSP in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012? 
Given the reduced reliance on the MILC and DPPS P programs does the US envisage phasing out 
these programs in the future? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  RESPONSE: FY 2009 expenditures for product purchases under the DPPSP were $227 million. 
There have been no purchases since then. Given the uncertainty of the timing and content of 
successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill, discussio n of any future plans would be premature at 
this point in time. 
(iii) Levels of support Page 109, Paragraph 37 
If farmers are benefiting from high market prices, and crop insurance premiums are tied to prices 
resulting in support under crop insurance being high, is any consideration being given to farmers 
funding their own insurance programs? 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
Page 109, Paragraph 40 
The Secretariat Report notes that, while "the trend in support for agricultural producers in the 
United States has been downward for several years, this is not due to a change in agricultural policies but to rising prices, which have reduced price- and revenue-linked payments." What 
consideration is the United States giving to structural reform to reduce its substantial policy 
intervention in its agriculture sector? 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
(3) Services 
(i) Environmental services 
Page 189, Paragraph 66 
Paragraph 66 of the Secretariat's report states that the US has GATS commitments on sewerage 
and refuse services that are limited to services pr ovided under contract by private industry, but US 
FTAs do not contain any restrictions related to National Treatment for sewerage and refuse 
services. Could the US confirm whether it makes full National Treatment commitments in this 
sector in its FTAs? 
RESPONSE: Yes. The national treatment obligation in our FTAs applies to all service sectors unless 
a specific exemption is listed in Annex I or II. However, these commitments apply only to privately 
contracted services as the national treatment obligation does not apply to government procurement. 
PART II: QUESTIONS ON THE REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES  WT/TPR/G/275 
III. OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY : BUILDING SUPPO RT FOR TRADE 
(iv) State and local government relations 
Page 14, Paragraph 50 
Australia notes that USTR serves as the liaison point in the Executive Branch for state and local 
government and Federal agencies to transmit information to interested state and local governments, and relay advice and information from the states on trade-related matters. 
What obligations/mechanisms do US states have to advise USTR of any changes to state 
government agency structures including changes to agency names and organisational structure? 
RESPONSE: States may advise USTR of any changes to state agency structures or agency names 
through various mechanisms. One is the State Point of Contact System (SPOC) which was created 
by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR). It is important that the USTR receive input 
and advice of state and local government represen tatives. The Governor's office in each state WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  designates a single contact point. The SPOC is responsible for disseminating information received 
from USTR to relevant state and local offices, and assist in relaying specific information and advice from the states to USTR on trade-related matters or other changes within the state. 
Additionally, under the USTR Advisory Committee system, the USTR established an 
Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee on Trade (IGPAC). The IGPAC has broad 
representation from state and local officials from  all three branches of government, as well as 
state and local associations and regulators. These advisors help keep USTR abreast of issues and 
other pertinent information that impacts the states. 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
Maritime Services  
The US report mentions the US has an open market for services but does not go into detail on the 
level of openness in specific service sectors. Coul d the US provide further information on the level 
of actual openness in the maritime transport sector, including whether cabotage or coastal shipping by foreign service suppliers is permitted in specific circumstances? 
RESPONSE: Vessels engaged in transportation are considered to be goods, not services. With 
respect to services, the United States has not undertaken specific commitments in maritime transport services. 
Air Services 
The US is the world's largest aviation market and therefore a significant market for service 
suppliers providing aviation-related services such as ground handling. Are there any restrictions on 
the number of ground handling providers in the US ? Are there any restrictions on foreign service 
suppliers providing ground handling services at airports in the US? 
RESPONSE: There is no US Government-imposed limit on the number of ground-handlers at U.S. 
airports or on foreign service suppliers providing such services. Airport managements, however, 
may impose reasonable, minimum standards for third-party service suppliers at their airports. If 
airport management is not already providing identical aeronautical services and there is not adequate space available on the airport for all interested potential suppliers to operate, airport 
managements may limit access and choose among competing suppliers that meet the minimum 
standards, after having negotiated in g ood faith with the interested suppliers. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  BRAZIL 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(1) RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AND (2) MONETARY, FISCAL AND OTHER 
POLICIES 
Pages 3, 4, and 6 (Paras 5, 9, 13 and 14) 
The Report states that "from a peak in 2002, the U.S. dollar depreciated gradually by about 25% 
until 2008, stabilized temporarily in 2008-09, and then resumed its downward trend in 2009 to 
mid-2011, depreciating by around 16%. (…) The euro-dollar exchange rate movements have an 
impact on U.S. trade that extends beyond the di rect import and export linkages of the United 
States and the euro zone, as they also affect third-country markets where both compete". The Report also mentions that "as a result of the financial crisis, a number of fiscal stimulus measures were enacted to aid the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted 
in 2009, continued to support the recovery in 20 11, although at declining levels. The Troubled 
Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 targeted financial stability, especially as concerns banking, credit, and support of certain industries. Al though funding expired at the end of 2010, 
approximately one quarter of the funds are outs tanding and still supporting certain programmes, 
including U.S. government investments in the auto  industry, American International Group (AIG), 
and 460 U.S. banks (end 2011)". Finally, the Report recalls that "from late 2010 to mid-2011, the 
Fed conducted a second round of quantitative easing due to the financial crisis and its aftermath". 
Questions: 
1. To what extent does the United States take into account, during its policy-making process, the 
distortive effects of its fiscal and monetary policies on global exchange rates and, 
consequently, on international trade? 
RESPONSE: The United States has undertaken both accommodative fiscal and monetary policies 
to support the recovery of the U.S. economy. Th ese policies are beneficial to both the United 
States and the global economy. 
2. Which measures, if any, does the United States take to avoid nullifying and impairing, as a 
result from the devaluation of the U.S. dollar driven by the recent U.S. fiscal and monetary 
policies, other Members' benefits under the WTO Agreements? 
RESPONSE: The assertion on which this question is based is incorrect. The real exchange rate of 
the U.S. dollar is currently close to its July 2008 level, prior to the start of the first round of quantitative easing. 
3. Is the overvaluation of third countries' currencie s due to speculative capital inflows viewed as 
an acceptable by-product of US' fiscal and monetary policies given the broader objective of injecting stimulus into the economy to spur growth? 
RESPONSE: According to the IMF, the U.S. dollar is overvalued by between 0 and 10 per cent on 
a real effective basis. Moreover, studies by the IMF, including in the World Economic Outlook and 
Global Financial Stability Report, have found little evidence that monetary policy in the United 
States has resulted in a rise in U.S. capital outflows. As Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has 
noted, "differences in growth prospects among countries – and the resulting differences in expected returns – are the most important determin ant of capital flows. The rebound in emerging 
market economies from the global financial crisis, even as the advanced economies remained 
weak, provided still greater encouragement to these flows." 
4. Does the US envisage devising and adopting regulatory measures targeted at speculative 
capital outflows resulting from a combination of excess liquidity produced by QEs and low 
interest rates? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States maintains an open capital account. 
5. What in the US' view would be appropriate re sponses by countries most distressed by the 
adverse consequences of overvaluation on production, trade and employment? Would multilateral coordination be a more adequate venue? 
RESPONSE: Policies aimed at maintaining undervalued exchange rates, particularly by 
systemically important countries, are harmful to the global trading system and result in persistent global imbalances. We have engaged bilaterally and multilaterally, through the IMF and the G-20, 
to address these problems. 
6. Is the unconventional or "accommodative" monetary policy a means through which the US 
intends achieve its goal of doubling exports in five years, according to the National Export 
Initiative? To what extent is the performance of US exports due to the its monetary policy 
rather than fiscal measures and other policies? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. dollar exchange rate is market -determined. We do not use the exchange 
rate as a tool to meet trade policy goals. The purpose of accommodative monetary policy is to 
meet the independent Federal Reserve's dual mandate of price stability and maximum 
employment. As noted in the December 2012 Federal Open Market Committee statement: "The Committee remains concerned that, without sufficient policy accommodation, economic growth 
might not be strong enough to generate sustai ned improvement in labor market conditions." 
Strengthening growth in the United States will he lp boost global growth, particularly at a time 
when the economies of the euro area and Japan are in recession. 
7. The process of "quantitative easing" has as an inevitable result the depreciation of local 
currency. Has the impact of this depreciation b een evaluated on international trade? To what 
extent the distorting effects of this policy can be considered as currency intervention and consequently as a form of subsidy to commerce violating GATS article XV? 
RESPONSE: The premise that quantitative easing has resulted in a depreciation of the dollar is not 
supported by the data, which show that the US dollar exchange rate is essentially unchanged from where it was prior to the Federal Reserve's actions U.S. monetary policy is directed at meeting the 
independent Federal Reserve's dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment. 
(3) DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE AN D FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT 
(ii) Trade in services 
Page 12 (Para 27) 
The Report comments that the US "is aware of the growth potential of its services exports and has 
enacted laws or initiated actions to increase servic es exports, especially in the travel and tourist 
sector." It states equally that early this year "President Obama issued an Executive Order to 
improve visa processing and promote travel and tourism." It entails actions to "improve visa 
processing times for non-immigrant visas for foreign visitors, in particular with respect to increasing capacity by 40% in Brazil an d China, in order to promote tourism." 
Question: 
1. According to estimates from the US Department of Commerce, Brazil is set to become the 
second fastest growing country in the number of vi sitors to the US over the next four years. 
Further, more US tourist visas have been issued to Brazilian visitors than to Chinese citizens 
for the first time from January to September 2012. In light of the aforementioned trends, and 
given Brazilian tourists spent nearly 6 billion doll ars in the US in 2010, does the US deem that 
including Brazil in its Visa Waiver Program would further encourage Brazilian citizens to visit 
the US? If so, does it consider extending that special treatment to Brazil in the near future? 
RESPONSE: The United States Government is increasing efforts to expand the Visa Waiver 
Program (VWP) and travel by nationals of VWP pa rticipants, as directed by the President in 
Executive Order 13579 (January 2012). Designation as a VWP program is, however, subject to 
criteria established by U.S. law. These include re quirements with respect to low nonimmigrant visa WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  refusal rates; issuance of machine-readable electronic passports; information sharing; 
consideration of law enforcement and security interests; and cooperation in the repatriation of citizens and nationals with a final order of removal. 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(2) PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Pages 15 and 16 (Paras 6 to 10) 
The report by the Secretariat states that "the United States is committed to contributing 
constructively and creatively to the functioning of  the WTO, in particular, acknowledging that the 
W T O  D o h a  R o u n d  i s  a t  a n  i m p a s s e ,  i t  i s  c o m m i t t e d  t o  f r e s h  a n d  c r e d i b l e  a p p r o a c h e s  t o  n e w  market-opening trade initiatives". In document WT/TPR/G/275, the United States mentions that "work has picked up in multilateral negotiations on trade facilitation and a variety of development 
issues, negotiations the United States strongly supports". 
Questions: 
1. Could the United States elaborate on what it envisages as "a variety of development issues", in 
the context of its Report? 
RESPONSE: One of the areas of work in the multilateral negotiations that has picked up since the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference is with respect to those issues under negotiation in the CTD Special 
Session, including the Monitoring Mechanism for special and different treatment, the Cancún 28, 
and the Agreement Specific Proposals related to the SPS and Import Licensing Agreement. Consistent with Ministers' Elements for Political Guidance (WT/MIN(11)/W/2), Members have focused on making progress in these areas throughout 2012, and we hope that progress can 
continue to be achieved during 2013. 
2. In spite of U.S. initiatives in the area of tr ade facilitation, ITA coverage extension, and a 
plurilateral agreement on services, which other approaches, if any, is the United States 
committed to in WTO negotiations? 
RESPONSE:  The United States views the WTO as an institution at a crossroads. This year, the 
Membership's collective efforts to 'turn the page' in the Doha negotiations are creating important 
new opportunities. Technical negotiations on a multilateral trade facilitation agreement are 
advancing. We also are working to address de velopment concerns and are exploring realistic 
approaches that can advance some partial result on agriculture. Preparations are underway to expand the product coverage of the Informatio n Technology Agreement, or ITA, and some 
Members are pursuing promising work in the services area. And we are open to new ideas on how 
to advance market access in agriculture, NAMA, and services. 
The United States is committed to the WTO and wants to make it work more effectively in the 
interests of all Members. This includes using the WTO Committee system to raise issues that we 
consider to be important, such as trade protectionist measures. We want to encourage healthy debate and, where possible, explore the potentia l for the negotiation of new trade opportunities.  
3. How do the U.S. current initiatives in WTO negotiations relate to the spirit of the DDA mandate 
and to the balancing of the three pillars? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is very willing to continue to make progress wherever possible on 
the Doha mandate, based on common efforts. But "business as usual" has not worked, and will not 
work going forward. We believe that now is the time  to craft credible, innovative approaches to the 
WTO's work as an institution that liberalizes trade and creates and applies meaningful rules to trade. But all major players must do their part. 
4. How does the US believe the plurilateral services initiative can be squared with the objective of 
fulfilling the development mandate of the Doha Round, as reaffirmed by Ministers during MC-8? How can the services initiative be reconciled with the MC-8 direction for inclusive, 
transparent, and multilateral "new negotiating ap proaches" to break the deadlock in the Doha WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  Round? To what degree can it be justified as a stepping stone towards restoring the credibility 
and legitimacy of the multilateral trading system? 
RESPONSE: The United States sees the International Services Agreement (ISA) as a complement 
to our bilateral and regional initiatives rather than a WTO work product. We would note that many 
WTO Members, including Brazil, are currently engaged in negotiation outside the WTO to liberalize 
trade. 
(3) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS 
Page 20 (Para 19) 
The US Congress sets the statutory guidelines for unilateral preference programmes and is 
responsible for initiating and passing legislation to amend or re-authorize these programmes. During the past two years Congress has held signif icant policy discussions on prospective reform of 
some of these programmes, though they have not yet led to any major changes. The legal 
authority for the GSP and ATPA programmes lapsed on 31 December 2010 and 12 February 2011, respectively. In October 2011, legislation was enacted re authorizing the two programmes until 
31 July 2013. Congress may consider changes or reforms in the GSP and ATPA programmes when 
it next takes up renewal of these two programmes, probably in the first half of 2013. According to the President's Trade Policy Agenda, the growing competitiveness of many emerging market GSP 
beneficiaries may prompt review and reform of the GSP programme. 
Question: 
1. Regarding the upcoming appraisal of the US GS P program in Congress, what are the possible 
"changes or reforms" in the GSP and how ar e they expected to affect emerging-market 
beneficiaries? 
RESPONSE:  It is not yet clear whether possible reforms to the GSP program will be on the 
Congressional agenda in 2013, and the Administration is not in a position to speculate on what 
specific reforms Congress might consider. For its part, the Obama Administration believes it is 
important that any prospective reform of the GSP program take into account both the needs of the world's poorest countries and the fact that many emerging market countries may no longer need 
preferential access to compete in the U.S. market in some product sectors.  
(4)
 INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
Page 28 (paras 34, 35 and 36) 
According to the Secretariat, "there remain a nu mber of restrictions to foreign investment in 
certain areas, and certain information-gathering, monitoring, reporting, and disclosure procedures can also have an impact on foreign investment." The next paragraph states that "According to a 
2009 Congressional Research Service report, a number of federal laws or regulations act as 
barriers or otherwise restrict foreign investment in  several areas, i.e. maritime, aircraft, mining, 
energy, lands, radio communications, bankin g, and investment company regulations". 
Questions: 
1. Could the U.S. elaborate on these limitations? 
RESPONSE: The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report cited in Paragraph 35 of the 
Secretariat's Report discusses a number of federal-level measures that "have an impact on foreign 
investment in the United States," including measures that do not restrict foreign investment. 
Indeed, the report notes that "there are not across-the-board, blanket restrictions on foreign investment in the United States." The United St ates maintains an open investment regime, with 
very few limitations on foreign investment. Detailed information about specific measures that 
impact foreign investment in the United States is widely and publicly available, including in the CRS report cited in the Secretariat's Report. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  2 Does the US Government consider removing or relaxing such restrictions? 
RESPONSE: There are not at present any proposals within the US Government for significant 
revision to measures impacting foreign investment. As noted in the CRS report cited in Paragraph 35 of the Secretariat's Report, foreign investment in the United States is subject to restrictions in 
only a very small number of sectors. 
3.  Will the SelectUSA Initiative, mentioned in para graphs 29 and 33 of that same report, be able 
to provide information on those restrictions? 
RESPONSE: SelectUSA can help a firm understand the U.S. federal regulatory climate as it 
pertains to a current or potential business investment. Providing information to domestic and foreign firms on the investment climate in the United States is among the functions of the SelectUSA Initiative 
4.  Brazil noted that neither the US Government  nor the WTO Secretariat mentioned, on their 
reports, the "Make it in America" Initiative. Co uld the U.S. provide detailed information about 
such initiative? 
RESPONSE: The Make it in America Challenge  will provide $43 million in competitive grant 
funding through the Department of Commerce's Ec onomic Development Administration (EDA) and 
National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST MEP), 
and the Department of Labor's Employment  and Training Administration (ETA). 
Make it in America  will build upon the administration's bottom-up approach to strengthening the 
economy by partnering with state, regional and lo cal economies. Successful projects will leverage 
funding from both funding agencies to include: 
 public works projects that revitalize, expand and upgrade physical infrastructure; 
 technical assistance in developing new strategies and tools to enhance their economies; 
 technical assistance to companies looking to in vest in innovative technologies, new products 
or services, or enhanced processes that will grow sales and jobs; 
 targeted training and employment activities that support the local workforce needs of 
employers, move new and current workers up and along a career pathway, and strengthen 
America's highly-skilled and diverse workforce. 
Additional information can be found at: http://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-
sheets/2012/09/25/fact-sheet-make-it-america-challenge . 
According to the Secretariat, "a number of federal laws or regulations act as barriers or otherwise 
restrict foreign investment in several areas, i.e.  maritime, aircraft, mini ng, energy, lands, radio 
communications, banking, and investment company regulations. In addition, in terms of reporting and disclosure, four major federal statutes have an impact on foreign investment. For example, a 
provision in the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act requires foreign persons or an 
interest by a foreign person in agricultural land to submit a report to the Secretary of Agriculture 
within a specified timeframe". The Report also mentions that "[t]he Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an interagency committee authorized to review 
transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person, in order to 
determine the national security effects of such transactions. Where CFIUS identifies national 
security concerns with a transaction that are no t adequately and appropriately addressed by other 
law, CFIUS is authorized to negotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the risks cannot be mitigated, recommend to the President that he suspend or prohibit the transaction". 
Questions: 
1.  Could the United States elaborate on the reasons and the rationale underlying the adoption of 
the aforementioned barriers, restrictions and requirements to foreign investments? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Secretariat's Report does not itself speak to barriers or restrictions on foreign 
investment. Rather, the Report references a report  of the Congressional Research Services (CRS) 
that discusses federal-level measures that "have an impact on foreign investment in the United States," including measures that do not restri ct foreign investment. Detailed information about 
these measures is presented in the CRS report itself. As recognized by the question, the rationale 
underlying CFIUS review is to address potential national security concerns. 
2. Could the United States clarify its understanding of what constitutes "national security effects", 
"national security concerns" and "mitigation measures"? 
RESPONSE:  With respect generally to the concept of "national security," please refer to the official 
guidance that Treasury published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register (and available on 
the CFIUS webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ), regarding the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that have presented 
national security considerations. CFIUS's use of ri sk mitigation agreements is addressed generally 
in Executive Order 11858, amended by the President on January 23, 2008, can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2008-01-25/ pdf/08-360.pdf . 
Information describing mitigation measures requir ed by CFIUS is available in the CFIUS Annual 
Report, available on the CFIUS website at www.treasury.gov/CFIUS. 
3. Could the United States present and elaborate on recent examples of application of the 
referred provisions? 
RESPONSE: By law, information filed with CFIUS may not be disclosed by CFIUS to the public. 
Accordingly, CFIUS does not comment on information relating to specific CFIUS cases, including 
whether or not certain parties have filed notices for review. General information regarding CFIUS' 
review of transactions in the previous year is publicly available in our annual report to the 
US Congress available at www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
(5) AID-FOR-TRADE 
Page 29 (Para 39) 
According to the Secretariat, the first Quadre nnial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) 
"showed a statistically significant relationship  between USAID trade capacity building (TCB) 
obligations and developing country exports, indicating that, on a predictive basis, an additional US$1 of USAID TCB assistance is associated with a US$42 increase in the value of developing 
country exports two years later." 
Questions: 
1.  Could the U.S elaborate on the methodology the QDDR used to reach such conclusion? 
RESPONSE:  QDDR's conclusion was derived from a 2010 USAID evaluation titled "From Aid to 
Trade: Delivering Results". The evaluation examined the impact of trade capacity building (TCB) activities funded and implemented since 2002 by USAID and other US government agencies. The 
evaluation addressed six questions, including: To what extent have USAID programs of this type 
contributed in a measurable way to improved trade capacity in the target countries? 
Regression analysis by David H Bearce, Steven E. Finkel and Anibel L. Perez-Linan at the 
University of Pittsburgh was used to examine the impact of U.S. government and USAID TCB 
obligations on a cross-country basis. In addition, the analysis was further expanded by identifying 
patterns of domestic and external factors that appeared to have an impact on trade performance at the country level in USAID recipient countries and in countries to which USAID did not provide 
TCB assistance. The regression analysis found a statistically significant relationship between USAID 
TCB obligations and developing country exports, whic h was used to predict that each additional $1 
invested by USAID is associated with $42 increase  in the value of developing country exports two 
years later. A summary of USAID's report on this evaluation is available at: 
http://pdf.usaid.gov/ pdf_docs/PDACR201.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  2. Was it based on an average from all countries th at received assistance from the USAID, or was 
it based only on selected cases? 
RESPONSE: The evaluation analyzed documentation fo r 256 USAID TCB projects carried out in 
78 countries that, taken together, represent 70 per cent of total USAID TCB obligations for 
projects with a distinct trade focus between 2002 and 2006. The evalua tion examined both 
ongoing and completed projects that represented the full range of funding amounts, scopes, and 
durations. Drawing upon international trade data  for 188 countries and controlling for external 
factors such as size of the recipients country's economy, world economic analysis to and other 
donor TCB assistance. 
3. Is there any plan to include any South American country in the programmes held under the 
Partnership for Growth (PFG) initiative, mentioned in paragraph 40? 
RESPONSE: The US Government is reviewing the progress of the first four PFG countries. The 
information of the review will help shape the PFG effort going forward. The PFG process transforms 
the character of the U.S. bilateral relationships with a select set of top-performing low-income 
countries to accelerate and sustain broad-based economic growth. No new countries have been 
selected for a second round of PFG initiatives. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(i) Customs procedures 
Page 31 (para 2) 
According to the Secretariat, the "Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), initiated in response to the 
Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act to evaluate the feasibility of requiring 100% 
scanning of maritime cargo containers. The SAFE Port Act, as amended, requires 100% scanning 
of all maritime containers shipped to the United States (…) Complimentary rules and procedures 
for ensuring security of air cargo on passe nger aircraft were enacted (Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act)  and the law is under the purview of the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), another agency of the Department of Homeland 
Security. The law required 100% cargo scanning on international U.S. inbound flights" 
Questions: 
1. Could the US share the results of that evaluation of feasibility? 2. How does the United States estimate the impact of 100% scanning legislations on international 
trade? 
3. Is there any data available on possible costs to  exporters and importers that would result from 
the adoption of these provisions? 
RESPONSE:  Estimates for potential costs incurred outside of the United States to implement the 
scanning regime as envisioned by the SAFE Port Act legislation vary based on a number of variables involved in the calculation and the lack of a single perspective on who would bear costs 
associated with equipment procurement, maintenance and operations; upfront expenditures for 
potential redesigns of ports and facilities; and data analysis and alarm resolution. In the pilot ports the US Government bore all the costs. On May 2012, DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a report and letter to Congress extending to July 2014 the deadline to implement 100% scanning. 
Reports on progress and costs for 100% scanning can be found at  
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets /Mgmt/OIG_10-52_Feb10.pdf, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-
10-12 . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  (iii) Rules of origin 
Pages 32 and 33 (Para 7) 
According to the Secretariat, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposed in 2008 a new 
uniform set of rules of origin, applicable to all imports in non-preferential trade. However, after 
receiving comments, the CBP officially withdrew the proposal in 2011. Thus, the non-preferential 
rules of origin remain unchanged and are to be to  determined origin on a case-by-case basis. The 
Secretariat also indicates that "[t]he role of U.S. industry has been noted as having a very 
influential impact on the varying product-by-pro duct outcome of preferential rules of origin 
negotiations. This proliferation of differing rules of origin, their complexity, and lack of transparency continues to be of concern for some." 
Questions: 
Please elaborate on the arguments put forward in the comments opposing the new rules. Which 
domestic sectors/industries have most voiced opposition to the proposal? 
Does the US still intend to adopt a new uniform set of non-preferential rules of origin? If so, would 
there be any estimated deadline to do so? 
Could the United States elaborate on how its rules of origin and/or marking systems (both 
preferential and non-preferential) assure transpar ency and predictability to interested parties? 
RESPONSE: The US Customs administration, CBP, proposed a regulatory change to apply the 
NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, rather than the case-by-case determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin marking purposes. Based on the comments received in response to its proposed changes, in 
September 2011, CBP issued a final rule not adop ting new origin and marking rules. A total of 
70 commenters responded to the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform 
application of the country of origin rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters raised specific 
concerns or questions regarding the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or opposing the proposal. For more specific information on the comments and replies, and rational 
please see, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-02/html /2011-22588.htm . 
The United States does not have any immediate plans to adopt a new set of non-preferential rules 
of origin. 
Page 36 (Para 13) 
According to the Secretariat, "[s]pecific rules for U.S. imported products, differ from those applied 
to domestic products, which differ from FTA preferential origin rules, and these are likely to differ for U.S. products exported (subject to foreig n countries marking or origin requirements)". 
Question: 
1. Could the United States elaborate on the reasons for the existence of different marking and/or 
origin rules for imported and domestic products? 
RESPONSE: The United States believes the U.S. marking disciplines are rational as they were 
created and are maintained to ensure that the ul timate U.S. purchasers are informed as to the 
country of origin of a good. Certain sensitive imported goods might involve further elements designed to lower risk of circumvention of U.S. legal requirements. U.S. preferential rules of origin 
employ the "wholly obtained" criterion for goods that are wholly the growth, product, or 
manufacture of a particular beneficiary country. For goods that consist in whole or in part of materials from more than one country, the U.S. pref erential rules of origin are based on tariff-shift 
method, regional value-content method, or other specific rules. The US "non-preferential rules of 
origin" employ the "substantial transformation" criterion for goods that consist in whole or in part of materials from more than one country. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  The United States does not maintain rules of origin and marking for goods being exported. 
(v) Other charges affecting imports Pages 42 and 43 (Paras 32, 33 and 34) 
Question: 
How can selective exemptions from the merchandising processing fee be justified in the light of the 
most-favored nation principle? 
RESPONSE:  The United States believes that the exem ption from the merchandise processing fee 
with respect to imports from US FTA partners is consistent with US WTO obligations, and considers 
its decision to absorb the costs of services for certain FTA partners to be entirely appropriate. 
(vi) Contingency measures Pages 48 and 50 (Paras 48 and 50) 
According to the Secretariat "[t]he United States abandoned the use of zeroing when calculating 
margins in original investigations based on weig hted average to weighted average comparisons in 
2006. However, in February 2012, after publishing a proposed modification, receiving public 
comments, and consulting with Congress, the US Department of Commerce modified its 
methodology to address the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, expedited, and sunset reviews. In administrative reviews, 'except where the Department determines that application of a 
different comparison method is more appropriate, the Department will compare monthly weighted 
average export prices with monthly weighted average normal values, and will grant an offset' where the export price exceeds the normal value. Further, in sunset reviews 'it will not rely on 
weighted average dumping margins that were calc ulated using the methodology determined by the 
Appellate Body to be WTO-inconsistent.' The new rules apply to all reviews pending before the 
Department for which preliminary results were issued after 16 April 2012". 
Question: 
1. Does the abovementioned provisions mean that the United States precluded the use of zeroing 
in all AD-related circumstances? Are there any exceptions that could result in future applications of zeroing by the United States? In which circumstances "a different comparison 
method is more appropriate"? Please elaborate. 
RESPONSE: As explained in the February 2012 notice, in investigations and reviews, except 
where the Department of Commerce determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the Department of Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices 
with weighted-average normal values, and will grant an offset for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rate. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, 
the Department of Commerce has evaluated whether an average-to-transaction comparison 
method is appropriate, based on the facts of the particular case. 
According to the Secretariat, the Department of Commerce proposed to modify its regulations 
concerning the use of market economy input prices in non-market economy proceedings. Under 
the proposed modification, where a non-market economy producer purchases an input from a 
market economy supplier, the Department of Comme rce would treat the price paid to the market 
economy supplier as the price for all of the input used only if "substantially all" of the input 
(greater than 85%) was purchased from the market  economy supplier. In other cases, a surrogate 
price for the portion of the input not purchased from a market economy supplier could be used. 
According to the Secretariat, the DoC proposed to modify its regulations concerning the use of 
market economy input prices in non-market economy proceedings. Under the proposed 
modification, where a non-market economy producer purchases an input from a market economy supplier, the DoC would treat the price paid to the market economy supplier as the price for all of 
the input used only if "substantially all" of th e input (greater than 85%) was purchased from the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  market economy supplier. In other cases, a surrogate price for the portion of the input not 
purchased from a market economy supplier could be used. 
Questions: 
1.  Was any scientific or technical study carried ou t to define the percentage above (greater than 
85%) as "substantially all"? What elements were looked into to set such percentage? 
RESPONSE: The Department of Commerce  proposed this percentage as a reasonable and 
predictable threshold for "substantially all," to be applied across all products and NME countries. 
T h i s  p r o p o s a l  h a s  n o t  y e t  b e e n  a d o p t e d  a s  f i n a l ,  a s  t h e  D e p a r t m e n t  o f  C o m m e r c e  i s  s t i l l  
considering comments received from its request for public comment. 
2.  Please specify the components of the surrogate  price for the portion of the input not purchased 
from a market economy supplier. 
RESPONSE:  Surrogate values are identified on a case-by-case basis for each individual segment 
of a case, using publicly available information. In accordance with our statutory requirements, surrogate values are sourced from countries that are (1) economically comparable to the country 
under investigation/review, and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. Such 
surrogate values may be based on publicly availabl e import statistics, publicly available domestic 
industry data from the surrogate country, etc. 
(vii) Quantitative trade measures, re strictions, controls, and licensing 
Page 54 (Para 62) 
According to the Secretariat, "[t]he United States last notified quantitative restrictions in 1999, 
and cross-referenced three notifications in the areas of safeguards, import licensing, and textiles. 
According to the authorities, a new notification is under preparation"). 
Question: 
1.  Could the United States provide any estimate  of the timeframe for the completion of the new 
notification under preparation? 
RESPONSE:  The United States' most recent notification on Quantitative Restrictions, submitted on 
October 3, 2012, was issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. 
(viii) Technical regulations and standards 
Pages 60 and 61 (Paras 76, 79 and 80) 
According to the Secretariat, "[n]ew regulations, including those that incorporate technical 
regulations and conformity assessment procedures, must be published in the Federal Register in 
both proposed and final form and must be cleare d by the OMB before publication if they have a 
significant effect". 
Questions: 
1. Could the United States elaborate on the reasons of the requirement for OMB clearance for 
"economically significant regulations"? 
RESPONSE: Under Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review", OMB is responsible 
for reviewing "significant regulatory actions" by the agencies, with the exception of the so called 
"independent" agencies (e.g., CPSC) published in the Federal Register. "Significant regulatory actions" are defined in the Order as regulations that may: WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  (1)  Have an annual effect on the economy of  $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the ec onomy, productivity, co mpetition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State,  local, or tribal governments or communities; 
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken by another 
agency; 
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitl ements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or 
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles of this Executive Order. 
Those regulatory actions that are likely to impose the economic effects described in subsection (1) 
above are designated by OMB as "economically significant." This definition is functionally 
equivalent to the definition of a "major" rule as that term is used in the Congressional Review Act 
(2). 
For economically significant regulations, the agen cies must submit for OMB review, along with the 
draft regulation, a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).The RIA must provide an assessment of 
benefits, costs, and potentially effective and re asonably feasible alternatives to the planned 
regulatory action (see section 6(a)(3)(C)). Preparing RIAs helps agencies evaluate the need for 
and consequences of possible Federal action. By analyzing alternate ways to structure a rule, 
agencies can select the best option while provid ing OIRA and the public a broader understanding 
of the ranges of issues that may be involved. Accordingly, it is important that a draft RIA be reviewed by agency economists, engineers, and scien tists, as well as by agency attorneys, prior to 
submission to OIRA. 
OIRA reviews the draft rule and the RIA for consistency with the regulatory principles stated in the 
Order, and with the President's policies and priori ties. The review determines whether the agency 
has, in deciding whether and how to regulate, assessed the costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives (including the alternative of not regulating). 
2.  How does the United States assure that this requirement does not impose non-science based 
restrictions to trade (e.g., how does this requirement reconcile with the SPS Agreement 
provisions)? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is obligated to apply only those SPS measures that are consistent 
with the WTO SPS Agreement. OMB review, which may be required depending on whether the rule 
is "significant," does not alter that obligation. 
The report by the Secretariat states that compliance with voluntary consumer product safety 
standards is not a legal obligation, but non-compliance may indicate the existence of a hazard. 
Moreover, the CSPC and other agencies may take co rrective action (e.g. withdrawal of the product 
from the market) if their analysis shows that the product could pose a substantial hazard. The report also mentions that "the CPSC focused much of its surveillance and compliance work on 
imported products which represented about 80% of recalls for 2008-11." 
Questions: 
1.  In that situation, how does the US ensure that producers are adequately informed about the 
possible consequences of non-compliance to those voluntary standards? 
RESPONSE: Where compliance with a voluntary standard is mandatory, it will be set out in 
regulation. U.S. regulations are published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Where there are no applicable tech nical regulations, the manufacture, or if the 
product is imported, the U.S. importer, is nonetheless legally responsible for ensuring its products 
do not present an unreasonable risk of injury or death. Companies may use a variety means to ensure their products do not present an unreasona b l e  r i s k  o f  i n j u r y  o r  d e a t h ,  s u c h  a s  p r o d u c t  
safety design assessments or conformance with voluntary standards. Many manufacturers and WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  importers also use the voluntary standards to establish consumer product performance 
requirements. 
The CPSC has an extensive global outreach program on U.S. product safety rules as well as the 
benefits of complying with voluntary standa rds. Outreach includes in-person training; 
videoconferences and teleconferences; webinars; PowerPoint presentations; and other materials in 
multiple languages, many of which are available on the CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov. 
2.  Does the fact that "non-compliance may indicate the existence of a hazard" mean that 
products which do not comply with the voluntary standard compete in a less advantageous 
manner in the US market? If this is so, would it be reasonable to qualify these "voluntary standards" as "de facto mandatory"? 
RESPONSE: No, products that do not comply with the voluntary standard do not compete in a less 
advantageous manner in the U.S. market. It would not be reasonable to characterize such 
voluntary standards as de facto mandatory. Manufactures may choose to use a particular 
voluntary standard to establish specific prod uct performance requirements, and importers and 
distributors may impose requirements to use spec ific voluntary standards on their suppliers. These 
are is a business decisions. 
If the CPSC becomes aware of injuries, or the potential for injuries associated with a product that 
fails to comply with a consensus voluntary standard, this indicates to the CPSC that the product 
may contain a defect that presents a substantial product hazard. A consumer product that does not meet a voluntary standard, but which also does not create a hazard, normally would not result in action by the CPSC. 
Could the United States elaborate on the reasons for CPSC's stronger focus on imported products? 
RESPONSE: For purposes of protecting the public agai nst unreasonable risks of injury, the CPSC 
treats all consumer products the same, regardless of where they are manufactured. 
A large percentage of recalled products comes from outside the United States. CPSC institutes a 
recall after the product is on the market, and the reasons for the recall do not take into account the country of manufacture. CPSC announces recalls of products that present a significant risk to 
consumers, either because the product could contain a defect or because it violates a mandatory 
safety standard. 
Almost 50 per cent of all consumer products sold in the United States are imported, and the 
percentage of these products is growing. Because foreign-made products have such a significant 
market share, and because CPSC recall data indicate that four out of every five of the recalls that 
have occurred in recent years have  involved foreign-made consumer products, it is prudent for the 
CPSC to use significant resources to ensure the safety of those products. 
According to the Secretariat, there are about 225 ANSI accredited standards developing 
organizations (SDOs) in the United States. 
Question: 
1.  Could the US share information on how many SDOs, among the 225 accredited by ANSI, have 
accepted to comply with the TBT Code of Good Practices on standard-setting? 
RESPONSE: The American National Standards Institute (A NSI) is a private sector organization and 
the official U.S. representative to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, via 
the US National Committee, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). ANSI has 
accepted the TBT Code of Good Practice on behalf of its membership of 225 accredited standards development organizations. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  (2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
Page 70, 71, 72 (Paras 115, 116 and 117, Table III.18) 
According to the report by the Secretariat, the Ex-Im Bank operates in 186 countries around the 
world and has identified nine key markets, including Brazil. 
Questions: 
1.  Please indicate and/or comment on the criteria used for the selection of these markets. 
RESPONSE: The criteria includes the following: size of export market for U.S. firms; projected 
growth; projected infrastructure needs; Ex-Im's current market penetration in the market; congressionally mandated markets; and markets where Ex-Im's financing could make a difference. 
2. In the case of Brazil, which sectors/industries is the Ex-Im Bank targeting? What are goals and 
export results the Ex-Im Bank expects to reach with respect to Brazil? 
RESPONSE: Major sectors include transportation, warehousing, oil and gas, and mining. Thus far, 
Ex-Im has been successful in financing green technologies, oil and gas projects, railway sector, 
aircraft and manufacturing. 
3.  Would the United States please provide further details on the increase of loans provided by the 
Ex-Im Bank between 2008 and 2011? To which sectors have those loans been granted? 
RESPONSE: The increase in the use of Ex-Im Bank direct loans was based on demand for this 
product due to several factors: retreat of commercial banks from transactions with longer tenors and larger amounts because of liquidity constraints, and the attractive CIRRs vs. pure cover transactions from a competitive perspective. The majority of the direct loans that Ex-Im has 
approved over the past several years have been primarily for project finance transactions across a 
range of industry sectors: oil and gas, power, transportation, telecommunications, renewable energy sectors as well as engineering/consulting services. Ex-Im Bank approved 2 long term direct 
loans in 2008 valued at $356 million; in 2009, 16 direct loans valued at $3.025 billion; in 2010, 14 
valued at 4.26 billion; in 2011, 17 valued at $6.32 billion, and in 2012, 18 long term direct loans valued at $11.8 billion. 
The answers to all of these specific questions and more details on all US Ex-Im Bank activity and 
operations can be found at www.exim.gov. 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(i) Business framework and bu siness investment incentives 
Page 72 (Para 120) 
According to the Secretariat, the US Government has turned to a number of fiscal incentives to 
help spur the economic recovery following the economic downturn. One of the incentives is the 
reduction of the workers' payroll taxes by 2%, through the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
Reauthorization and the Job Creation Act (TRUIRJCA) of 2010. 
Questions: 
1.  Please indicate the amount of government revenue forgone or not collected as a result of this 
reduction of the workers' payroll taxes. 
RESPONSE:  The Tax Relief, Unemployment Reauthoriz ation and Job Creation Act of 2010 reduced 
the payroll tax paid by employees from 6.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. The US Department of the 
Treasury estimated that the payroll tax cut would payroll tax collections by $110 billion in 2011. 
2.  Please inform which sectors/industries/regions have most benefitted from this fiscal incentive. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  US Department of Treasury's state-by-sta te estimates of the number of people who 
benefited from the payroll tax reduction and the amount of tax received in 2011 can be found at the following website: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center /press-releases/Pages/tg1029.aspx . 
Payroll tax revenue estimates are not available at the sector or industry level. 
3.  Would this fiscal incentive amount to a partial exemption of taxes paid or payable by industrial 
enterprises? 
RESPONSE:  Payroll taxes paid by all employees were reduced from 6.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. 
The Tax Relief, Unemployment Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 did not change the 
payroll taxes paid by employers. 
(iii) Government procurement Page 78 (Para 137) 
According to the Secretariat "[t]he United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a 
federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for goods and services. When the law g o e s  i n t o  e f f e c t ,  a n  a m o u n t  o f  2 %  i s  a p p l i e d  t o  foreign entities not party to an international 
procurement agreement. This is understood to apply to countries that are not members of the GPA 
or do not have a free trade agreement with the United States". 
Question: 
Could the United States elaborate further on the provisions of this specific legislation and on its 
legal basis under the WTO Agreements? 
RESPONSE: The text of the referenced legislation, Section 301 of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health 
and Compensation Act of 2010, is available on the Internet at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . The United States 
would refer Brazil to the text of the legislation for an elaboration of its provisions. This legislation is 
fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreements and, pursuant to the express 
terms of the statute, the U.S. government shall apply the legislation "in a manner consistent with 
United States obligations under international agreements." 
(iv) Subsidies and other government assistance 
Pages 79, 80 and 81 (Paras 140-143) 
Subsidies, as defined and notified under GATT Article XVI:1 and Article 25 of the Agreement on 
Subsides and Countervailing Duties are reported to the WTO by Members including the United States. According to the latest notification in October 2011, the United States reported 
50 federal programmes, and over 500 sub-federal programs (Table III.22). 
As illustrated through the WTO notification, the agriculture and energy and fuel sectors are the 
largest recipients of government assistance and have grown in recent years. One of the major 
contributors to the growth in this sector is interest in biofuels, or using incentives to find alternatives to fossil fuels. This has gained further momentum in recent years due to the high 
energy prices and the negative contribution to the current account caused by substantial 
petroleum imports (Chapter I). Biofuel incentives ar e also important as they could have a direct or 
indirect impact on certain aspects of global trad e, due to diversion of food products to fuel, 
commodity price fluctuations, and with respect to  agricultural policies. There are a number of 
programmes, grants, tax credits, and other incentiv es related to energy biofuels (Table III.23). 
Question: 
1.  Would the United States please explain which are the eligibility criteria for the Federal 
programmes on biofuels focused on production, research, development and innovation (as 
opposed to consumption)? Specifically in the case of the Flexible Fuel Production Incentive, is 
there any connection between the program and government procurement stimulus under "Buy American" conditions? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Department of Energy maintains an Alte rnative Fuels Data Center which contains 
a comprehensive list of the numerous Federal laws and incentives related to alternative fuels, including certain biofuels. The following link: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/fed_summary , is 
connected to the database containing are fede ral incentives, laws and regulations, funding 
opportunities which contain eligibility criteria for federal initiatives related to alternative fuels and 
vehicles, and advanced technologies and is updated regularly. We have found no connection between the program and the "Buy American" requirements for government procurement in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ARRA). 
T h e  T A R P  p r o v i d e d  g o v e r n m e n t  s u p p o r t  t o  A I G ,  the automotive industry, banks, and financial 
institutions. On 31 May 2012, the lifetime cost of TARP was estimated at US$63 billion. While 
many of the TARP programmes are winding down, significant assets remain under government 
control or ownership and a number of programmes remain active, especially in the housing market. The United States has articulated broad pr inciples for exiting TARP, including exiting TARP 
programmes as soon as practicable and seeking to maximize taxpayer returns. As concerns the 
Automotive Industry Financing Program, TARP has received US$40 billion of its approximately 
US$80 billion investment. Chrysler exited the prog ramme in July 2011, but GM and Ally Financial 
(former GMAC financing) remain included, as US$37.2 billion of reimbursement remains 
outstanding. Likewise, AIG is still covered under TARP and is expected to have a lifetime cost of US$18.7 billion. 
Question: 
1.  Concerning TARP/Automotive Industry Financing Program, how is the government 
participation in the companies involved bein g reduced? Could you provide which is the 
percentage of government participation in the companies involved at present? 
RESPONSE: Treasury continues to have TARP investments through the Automotive Industry 
Financing Program in General Motors and Ally Financial. 
GM: As of September 30, 2012, Treasury held 500.1 million shares (approximately 32 per cent of 
the company's common stock) and Treasury had recovered $23.97 billion of its total $51.03 billion 
investment in GM. Since GM is a publically-traded company and its stock is highly liquid, Treasury 
will exit its investment over time through sales of its remaining common shares on the open 
market, through underwritten offerings, block trades  or dribble out programs, or a combination of 
the above. Treasury will continue to evaluate its options to exit its remaining GM investment based on market conditions. 
Ally Financial:  As of September 30, 2012, Treasury's outstanding investment in Ally Financial 
stood at $13.75 billion (including approximately 74 per cent of the company's common stock), 
having recovered approximately one-third its original investment. Treasury continues to closely 
monitor the performance of Ally Financial and look for the best opportunities to exit its remaining 
investment in the company. 
More information about Treasury's TARP investments can be found at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financi al-stability/reports /pages/default.aspx . 
(v) Competition policy 
According to the report by the Secretariat (see paragraph 149), the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) amended the Hart-Scott-Rodino Pre-merger notification rules and the form for reporting the 
proposed merger. The new rules would include sign ificant changes. Additionally in 2010, the DoJ 
and the FTC amended the Horizontal Merger Gu idelines. The amendments retained the core 
elements of the previous guidelines but contain a number of important clarifications concerning 
market definition. 
Question: 
1.  Please elaborate on the hanges brought by th e new rules amended by FTC and on clarifications 
on market definition made to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Department of Justice made changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules, the premerger 
notification form and instructions to reduce the filing burden and streamline the form parties must 
file when seeking antitrust clearance of proposed  mergers and acquisitions under the HSR Act and 
the Premerger Notification Rules. 
The revisions were part of ongoing efforts by the FTC and DOJ to review their regulations, ensure 
that the rules are necessary and up-to-date, and eliminate unnecessary or potentially overly 
burdensome reporting requirements for business. The changes are intended to make the HSR form 
easier to complete, reduce the burden for most filers, and make the premerger notification review 
program more effective for both agencies. 
The Final Rules and Form are available at 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/fed reg/2011/07/110707hsrfrn.pdf . 
The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), were developed after extensive public 
consultations, including with non-US agencies, and updated the 1992 guidelines in several 
important ways. The Guidelines: 
 Clarify that merger analysis does not use a single methodology, but is a fact-specific process 
through which the agencies use a variety of tools to analyze the evidence to determine 
whether a merger may substantially lessen competition. 
 Introduce a new section on "Evidence of Advers e Competitive Effects." This section discusses 
several categories and sources of evidence that the agencies, in their experience, have 
found informative in predicting the li kely competitive effects of mergers. 
 Explain that market definition is not an end itself or a necessary starting point of merger 
analysis, and market concentration is a tool that is useful to the extent it illuminates the 
merger's likely competitive effects. 
 Provide an updated explanation of the hypothetic al monopolist test used to define relevant 
antitrust markets and how the agencies implement that test in practice. 
 Update the concentration thresholds that determine whether a transaction warrants further 
scrutiny by the agencies. 
 Provide an expanded discussion of how the agen cies evaluate unilateral competitive effects, 
including effects on innovation. 
 Provide an updated section on coordinated effe cts. The guidelines clarify that coordinated 
effects, like unilateral effects, include conduct not otherwise condemned by the antitrust 
laws. 
 Provide a simplified discussion of how the agen cies evaluate whether entry into the relevant 
market is so easy that a merger is not likely to enhance market power. 
 Add new sections on powerful buyers, mergers between competing buyers, and partial 
acquisitions. 
The Guidelines are available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/08/100819hmg.pdf . 
The Guidelines were amended to take into account the legal and economic developments since the 
1992 guidelines were issued. They are not intended  to represent a change in the direction of 
merger review policy, but to offer more clarity on the merger review process to better assist the business community and, in particular, parties to mergers and acquisitions. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 86-7 (Para 157) 
The United States' strong results in receipts of royalties and licence fees underline the benefits of 
the IP system to the country, which has a large surplus in IP licence trade and is the world's 
largest IP licence exporter. Paragraph 157 stresses the fact that emerging countries such as 
Argentina, Brazil, China and India have provided  particularly strong growth of receipts and 
payments associated with films and television tape distribution. 
Question: 
1. Could the United States provide detailed inform ation of such growth, specifying particular IP 
areas? 
RESPONSE: The USPTO's experience with data on revenue receipts is limited to data reproduced 
in our 2012 report available, table 11, available at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/news/publicat ions/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf . 
Unfortunately, these data were not investigated on  a country-by-country basis, and so we are not 
aware of the source of the information used as a basis for Paragraph 157. 
Page 89 (Para 166) 
Paragraph 166 states that the mission of the USTR includes "to support and implement the 
Administration's commitment to aggressively protect American IP overseas", in view of the alleged 
impact of IPR infringements in foreign markets on U.S. businesses. 
Question: 
1. In what ways does the United States ensure that the "Administration's commitment to 
aggressively protect American IP overseas" do es not contravene provisions of the TRIPS 
Agreement, especially Articles 7 and 8 of the agreement? 
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to abiding by all provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. 
The United States Government strives to work cooperatively and constructively with its trading 
partners, through direct consultations and information exchanges. 
Page 92 (Para 175)  
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is a major reform of U.S. patent law, aimed at boosting 
competitiveness by modernizing patent law. Another topic arising in patent law in the recent past 
is the surge in patent litigations, often by so-called "non-practicing entities" (NPEs), which could allegedly stifle innovation and therefore reverse the intended effect of the patent system. 
Attempting to address this issue, the "Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes 
Act" (HR 6285) was introduced in the American Congress in 2012; in addition, the Federal Trade 
Commission and the Department of Justice announced a joint public workshop to explore the 
impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities on innovation and competition and the 
implications for antitrust enforcement and policy. 
Question: 
1. If available, could the United States please  provide information on the impacts of NPEs and 
PAEs on innovation and estimate regarding costs of litigation for innovator companies? Has there been observed any reduction on innovation of American firms caused by the surge in patent litigation? 
RESPONSE: The US Government is studying the consequences of patent litigation by 
non-practicing entities or patent assertion entities.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  Page 93 (Para 176) 
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides for substantial modification on the U.S. patent law. 
Under the Act, the disclosure of best mode continues to be a requirement for obtaining a patent in the first instance; nevertheless failure to disclose it cannot be raised as a ground for invalidating, 
cancelling, or otherwise holding unenforceable any claim in a granted patent. 
Question: 
1. Could the United States please provide information on the reason that failure to disclose the 
best mode cannot be raised as a ground for invalidating, cancelling or otherwise holding 
unenforceable any claim in a granted patent, if the disclosure of best mode is a requirement for obtaining a patent? 
RESPONSE: An applicant for a patent must disclose: (1) a written description of the invention; 
(2) a written description of the manner of making and using the invention, sufficient to enable one 
skilled in the art to make and use it (known as  the `enablement requirement'); and (3) the best 
mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention. 
The disclosures required of an applicant are part of the important tradeoff that underlies the 
patent laws: the grant of a limited-term monopoly in exchange for disclosure of the invention. 
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act eliminated th e best mode requirement as a basis for both 
invalidity and unenforceability defenses in response to concerns that challenges to patents based 
on best mode are, among other things, often not relevant by the time the patent is in litigation because the best mode contemplated at the time of the invention may not be the best mode for practicing or using the invention years later. Howe ver, a defendant in patent litigation may allege 
an intentional nondisclosure of the best mode, with intent to deceive the Office, as a basis for an 
unenforceability defense. 
Page 93 (Para 177 and 178) 
Paragraphs 177 and 178 states that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act includes provisions for 
boosting competitiveness and for supporting innovative firms, particularly small businesses, such as discounts of fees and prioritized examination process. 
Question:  
1. Is there any available information regarding the effect of such provisions on small businesses? 
If so, could the United States provide details? 
RESPONSE: For example, the USPTO offers prioritized examination of utility and plant patent 
applications through the Track One initiative. A patent application under Track One receives special 
status with fewer requirements than the current accelerated examination program and without having to perform a pre-examination search. Prioritized examination is available for a fee at the 
time of filing an original utility or plant application, with a 50% discount for small entities. A 
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in a plant or utility application may also receive a single prioritized examination. 
Thus far, the USPTO has received over 6,900 applications from about 2,800 applicants for 
prioritized examination under Track One. Of thes e, over 2,900 applications (42%) from nearly 630 
applicants (37%) have benefited from small entity status. The USPTO regularly provides more detailed statistics on the Track One initiati ve here: www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/ 
Track_One.jsp. 
Page 93 (Para 180) 
In recent times, it has been observed a surge in worldwide patent applications, to which Members 
responded by rationalizing resources and developing measures to address this surge while 
maintaining quality and examining applications in  an expedite manner. Paragraph 180 provides 
details on a range of initiatives to improve quality and timeliness of patent examination. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  Question:  
1. Could the United States provide information regarding the definition of the technology fields 
eligible for accelerated examination under the Green Technology Pilot Program? 
RESPONSE: Under the now discontinued Green Technology Pilot Program an applicant was able to 
have an application accorded special status and given expedited examination, for applications 
pertaining to green technologies including greenhouse gas reduction (applications pertaining to environmental quality, energy conservation, de velopment of renewable energy resources or 
greenhouse gas emission reduction). Additional information about this pilot, including statistical 
data can be found on the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/ init_events/green_tech.jsp . 
2. Does the United States have any information related to the impact of the Green Technology 
Pilot Program on the transfer of technology to the Member? 
RESPONSE: The United States issued 1062 patents under this now closed pilot program. 
However, the USPTO does not track or collect technology transfer data on these or any other 
patents. 
3. Could the United States please provide details of the new metrics developed for patent quality 
at the USPTO and their impact on timeliness of patent examination? 
RESPONSE: In summary, the new composite quality metric is composed of seven total factors 
that take into account stakeholder comments, including three factors drawn from the USPTO's previous quality measurement procedure, and four new factors that focus upon data never before 
acquired and/or employed for quality measurement purposes. The factors that have been modified 
from the previous USPTO quality measurement pr ocedures are: (1) the quality of the action 
setting forth the final disposition of the application, (2) the quality of the actions taken during the course of the examination, and (3) the perceived quality of the patent process as measured 
through external quality surveys of applicants an d practitioners. The newly added factors measure: 
(1) the quality of the examiner's initial search, (2) the degree to which the first action on the 
merits follows best examination practices, (3) the degree to which global USPTO data is indicative 
of compact, robust prosecution, and (4) the degree to which patent prosecution quality is reflected 
in the perceptions of the examination corps as me asured by internal quality surveys. Additional 
information about the new quality metrics can be found on the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/in it_events/qual_comp_metric.pdf . 
With respect to the impact of the quality metrics on timeliness of patent examination, the quality 
metrics aren't per se  directed to timeliness of application processing. However, the work product 
reviews (In-Process Review, Complete First Action on the Merits (FAOM) Review and Pre FAOM 
Search Review) place emphasis on the importance of high quality examination early in 
prosecution. The Pre FAOM Search Review and Co mplete FAOM Review emphasize the use of best 
practices during the initial search and examinat ion to highlight the importance of a thorough 
search prior to the first action on the merits as well as a clear and complete first action in 
achieving high quality examination. The Final Disposition Review emphasizes the correctness of an examiner's final decision on the patentability of  the claims. The Quality Index Report measures 
events that occur during the prosecution of an application that may have the effect of extending 
prosecution. The findings of these metrics are used to provide feedback and training to the 
examiners to promote the principles of compact pr osecution. To the extent that our metrics focus 
on high quality examination early and throughout patent prosecution, they promote efficiency and, 
as a result, contribute to the achievement of th e Office's goals of reducing overall examination 
time in addition to promoting high quality examination. 
4. Regarding the Patents for Humanity pilot programme, could the United States please provide 
details of concrete benefits accruing to patent licensees? 
RESPONSE: Patents for Humanity is a voluntary awards competition for patent owners and 
licensees, which is open to anyone in the world who owns or licenses a U.S. patent. The program is open to patent licensees as well as patent owners. Licensees can submit applications to the 
program based on work they've done using license d technologies to address humanitarian needs, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  or they can team up with patent owners to submit joint applications combining the efforts of 
multiple parties. 
Those selected as winners receive the same benefits, whether they are patent owners or licensees. Successful Patents for Humanity participants receive accelerated processing of select matters at 
the USPTO on any technology in their portfolio. They will also get recognition of their valuable 
work at a public awards ceremony. 
Additional information about this program can be found on the USPTO website: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_ev ents/patents_for_humanity.jsp . 
Page 94 (Para 181) 
Among other international treaties and declarations, the TRIPS Agreement states that IP rights 
should not be a barrier to the protection of public health, an understanding reiterated by the Doha 
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public  Health. Paragraph 181 provides information 
related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Ca re Act and the 12-year period of data exclusivity 
from the time of FDA approval of the original product, after which follow-on biologics would be able 
to rely on data provided for the original approval. 
Question:  
1. Could the United States provide information rela ted to the impact of the approval of biological 
products "biosimilar" to or "interchangeable" wi th a biological product already licensed by the 
FDA? Was there any impact regarding the price of such products to the consumer?  
RESPONSE: To date, the United States FDA has not approved a biological product as biosimilar or 
interchangeable under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI). 
2. If any, are there measures available for third parties to ensure that the 12-year period of data 
exclusivity does not inadvertently provide for an extension of the 20-year period of patent protection of patented biological products? 
RESPONSE: No. Data exclusivity is separate and independent of patent protection. Data 
exclusivity prevents unfair commercial use of clinical safety and efficacy data and information required by our Food and Drug Administration fo r the marketing approval of a drug product, by 
preventing reliance on this data for a limited period by third parties for their own marketing 
approval without the consent of the originator. A patent, on the other hand, provides its owner with exclusive rights under Article 28 of the TR IPS Agreement to prevent others from making, 
using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the subject matter of the patent without consent for a 
limited period. These are separate and independen t forms of intellectual property which protect 
separate subject matter. Data exclusivity cannot ex tend patent protection and patent protection 
cannot extend data exclusivity. 
Page 96 (Para 189) 
Regarding the enforcement of IP rights, recent court decisions in the United States have allegedly 
responded to instances of infringement of medica l patents by denying injunctive relief, instead 
granting monetary damages, often in the form of royalty payments, what would in effect provide 
for a compulsory licensing. Four examples of such  cases are: Voda v. Cordis Corp., Innogenetics, 
N.V. v. Abbott Labs, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, and Medtronic Somafor Danek USA, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc. 
Question: 
1. Could the United States please confirm and el aborate on the decision of such cases? Are the 
monetary damages allegedly issued a type of compulsory licensing? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not agree with the interpretation of such cases suggested by 
the question. The remedies in these cases reflect judicial determinations of the most appropriate WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  form of relief in particular cases based on the application by those courts of relevant legal 
standards to the facts of those cases, not a form  of compulsory licensing. The U.S. patent law 
(Title 35 of the US Code) does not contain any compulsory licensing provisions. 
Page 97 (Para 192) 
According to the Secretariat, the United States conducts enforcement efforts "in a manner 
consistent with the balance found in U.S. law an d the legal traditions of its trading partners". 
Question: 
1.  Could the United States elaborate on which provisions of U.S. law and on which legal traditions 
of trading partners does it find  the balance for IPR enforcement? 
RESPONSE: In the United States, respect for the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, are 
fundamental features of IPR enforcement. The United States also respects the laws and regulations 
of its trading partners. We work closely, and actively consult, with our trading partners through 
bilateral and multilateral fora, information exchanges, and other interactions. The United States actively promotes exchanges between governments, such as collaboration between Customs 
services and other law-enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, and representatives of 
intellectual property registration and protection agencies. 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
(1) AGRICULTURE 
(ii) Agriculture policies 
Pages 103, 104 (Para 16) 
According to the Secretariat, the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) is administered by 
the Foreign Agricultural Service in conjunction with the Farm Services Agency of USDA. Under the 
Program, the CCC may provide guarantees for credit s from private U.S. banks to approved foreign 
banks for the purchase of agricultural products by  foreign buyers. Currently, no funding is provided 
to GSM-102 as fees and recoveries on default claim payments exceed losses. For the year ending 
30 September 2011, the Export Credit Guarant ee Program registered guarantees stood at 
US$4.1 billion, mostly for exports of wheat, maize, soybeans and soybean products, and cotton. 
Questions: 
1. Can the US clarify the period it uses to evaluate whether fees and recoveries payments exceed 
losses and the specific period underpinning the assertion made in the paragraph above? 
RESPONSE:  The U.S. budget formulation process estimates the net present value of the 
program's cash flows over the life of the lo an or guarantee, and any outstanding claims. 
2.  In light of the decision by the DSB in DS 267 ("US-Upland Cotton") that considered GSM a 
prohibited export subsidy, what are the measur es being taken by the United States to bring 
the program to compliance, aside from the periodic Operation Reviews under the 
Brazil-US Framework for a Mutually Solution to the Cotton Dispute in the WTO? 
RESPONSE: The United States has made a number of changes to the GSM-102 program since 
2005, including changes to both program premia and repayment terms. The United States has: 
 implemented premia based on country risk; 
 increased the average premium rate five times si nce 2010, resulting in an increase of more 
than 90 per cent of the average annualized rate faced by participants; 
 implemented a tiered approach to maximum repayment terms based on country risk; WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
   reduced overall maximum repayment terms from 36 months to 30 months, and more 
recently reduced maximum terms further to 24 months on a trial basis. 
In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill eliminated the 1 per cent cap on premia rates and instituted a 
requirement that the GSM-102 program, to the maximum extent possible, ensure premia are 
sufficient but not more than what is necessary to cover the program's long-term operating costs 
and losses. 
As a result of these changes, current U.S. budge t estimates indicate that the premia charged by 
the program are more than adequate to cover its long-term operating costs and losses. 
The FAS also administers a number of programmes to promote exports, such as: the Quality 
Samples Program (through which the CCC funds th e provision of product samples to foreign 
importers); the Market Access Program (the CCC provides funding for some of the costs of 
marketing and promotional exercises abroad); the Emerging Markets Program (for technical 
assistance activities that promote exports, such as feasibility studies and specialized training); the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program; and the Technical Assistance for Speciality 
Crops Program. Total funding available for these programmes for FY 2012 was US$255 million. 
Questions: 
1. Could the United States please explain each of these programs, how they are operated and the 
specific funding available for each of them? 
RESPONSE: Quality Samples Program FY 2012 Authorized Funding: $2.5 million. The Quality Samples Program helps U.S. agricultural 
trade organizations provide samples of their products to potential importers overseas. The 
program focuses on industry and manufacturing, as opposed to end-use consumers. 
Market Access Program 
FY 2012 Authorized Funding: $200.0 million. The Market Access Program aids in the overseas 
marketing of U.S. agricultural commodities and prod ucts by sharing the costs of activities such as 
trade shows, market research, technical assistance, trade servicing, and seminars to educate 
overseas customers. 
Emerging Markets Program FY 2012 Authorized Funding: $10.0 million. The Emerging Markets Program provides funding for 
technical assistance activities in emerging markets in all geographic regions. The program may 
only support exports of U.S. agricultural commoditi es and products through generic, as opposed to 
brand, activities. 
Foreign Market Developm ent Cooperator Program 
FY 2012 Authorized Funding: $34.5 million. The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program 
aids in overseas marketing of agricultural co mmodities and products by sharing the costs to 
create, expand, and maintain long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products. 
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program 
FY 2012 Authorized Funding: $9.0 million. The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program is 
designed to assist U.S. organizations by provid ing funding for projects that address sanitary, 
phytosanitary, and related technical barriers to that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. 
specialty crops. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  Page 107 (Para 28) 
According to the report by the Secretariat, insura nce coverage is available for over 100 different 
crops under a wide variety of insurance policies covering production, price and/or revenue risks, under the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Insurance coverage is provided by the private sector 
at subsidized rates under terms set by the Fede ral Crop Insurance Corporation and administered 
by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA). Most  of the policies available from the RMA are for 
crops, although livestock policies are available for cattle, pigs, lambs, and milk to insure against 
declining prices or differences between sale price and feed costs, and policies are available for 
forage, grazing, and rangelands. The subsidies prov ided by USDA are on producer premiums paid 
to private insurance companies for providing the in surance policies, as well as on a portion of the 
companies' operating costs and underwriting losses. The premium subsidy to producers was 
US$4.7 billion in CY 2010 and is expected to be  about US$7.2 billion for CY 2011. The value of 
crops protected by insurance also increased, from US$67 billion in 2007 to $114 billion in 2011, 
representing about 80% of area planted to principal crops. 
Brazil notes that the U.S has been notifying "underwriting gains or losses" incurred by "Risk 
Management Agency" in providing crop insurance under "General Services" in the Green Box. 
Questions: 
1.  Could the U.S. explain how these insurance programs work, how they are technically operated 
and the specific funding available for them? 
RESPONSE: USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) o ffers two broad types of federal crop 
insurance: yield-based and revenue-based. The RMA also provides insurance for producers of 
livestock. 
Yield-based crop insurance plans offer protection  against the loss of production due to natural 
causes (e.g., drought, excess moisture, etc.). Re venue-based crop insurance offers protection 
against decreases in revenue due to either loss of production or declines in price. Another category 
of revenue insurance provides protection against declines in revenue on a whole-farm basis over some period of years. For producers of livestock, insurance is available to protect against declining 
prices, reduction in the margin between sales price and certain input costs, and loss of vegetation 
for livestock feed. Additional information on the major plans of insurance available through the federal crop insurance program is provided at: http://www.rma.us da.gov/policies/ . 
FUNDING FOR INSURANCE PLANS 
The Federal Crop Insurance Act limits government expenditures for premium subsidies and 
administrative and operating expense (A&O) paym ents for the livestock price insurance plans 
(LRP, LGM) to not exceed $20 million per fiscal year. For all other insurance plans, there are no 
statutory or regulatory limits on either the amount of premium subsidies or the amount of 
indemnity payments paid to producers. Regarding payments for A&O expenses, the Federal Crop Insurance Act proscribes the maximum per cent of premium that the government will pay to 
companies for such expenses. The Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) negotiated between 
the government and companies effective for 2011 introduced a limit (about $1.3 billion) on the maximum amount of compensation pa id to companies for A&O expenses. 
2.  Explain the rationale for its notification of f unding provided by the Risk Management Agency in 
support of the administration and provision of crop insurance? 
RESPONSE: The United States has historically reported crop insurance expenditures in terms of 
net indemnities: the difference between producers' premiums (total premium – premium subsidy) 
and indemnities (payout for a crop or revenue loss). The total net indemnities were reported as 
non-product specific support under the AMS. The new method reports premium subsidies, rather than net indemnities, as producer support from crop insurance. This change is prompted by a 
change in legislation for the crop insurance program. The 2008 Farm Act mandated the crop 
insurance program operate with an actuarially-sound target loss ratio of 1.0. That is, over the long term, premium subsidies should equal net indemnities and thus should capture the full level of support to producers. In addition, a portion of A&O expenses and underwriting gains paid to crop WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  insurance companies are reported in the green box under "General Services," similar to how 
salaries and expenses are reported for other programs. 
3.  Explain how premium is determined for each crop insurance policy offered the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program? 
RESPONSE: Over 90 per cent of program premium is for policies that are based on the farmer's 
own production history. The overall approach to rating for these policies is generally known as the "loss cost method." Premium rates for the yield risk are derived from the average historical rate of 
loss at a county/crop level. For example, if the average rate of loss is ten per cent, then the 
premium rate charged is around ten per cent. Other factors also play a role such as catastrophic loading and reserve loading. 
The premium rate for revenue policies takes the loss  cost-based yield risk premium rate described 
above and then adds an additional premium load for the revenue risk. The additional premium load 
for revenue risk is based on the implied price volatility derived from options prices from the commodity exchange markets. 
4.  Elaborate on the timeframe the RMA uses to evaluate the loss ratio of different policies? 
RESPONSE: In general, RMA uses loss costs to determine premium rates, not loss ratios. The 
time frame used for the calculating average loss costs is twenty years, although there is a 
catastrophic load process that uses data from a longer period. 
5.  Clarify how the reinsurance scheme between the RMA and private companies work and how it 
affects the premium charged under different policies? 
RESPONSE: The relationship between RMA and the co mpanies is governed by a Standard 
Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) which establishes the terms by which A&O compensation and 
reinsurance is provided to the companies. The SRA establishes two reinsurance funds into which a company can place policies – the Commercial Fund and the Assigned Risk Fund. The Assigned Risk 
Fund is available for those policies that that the company regards as high risk. The mechanisms by 
which the Commercial Fund and Assigned Ri sk Fund operate are otherwise the same. 
For policies placed into the Commercial Fund, the company must retain at least a 35-percent share 
of the premium and ultimate net losses. The corresponding percentage for the Assigned Risk Fund 
is 20 per cent. For purposes of computing underwriting gains/loss, the policies placed in both reinsurance funds by a company are aggregated to the state-level. RMA and the companies then share in the underwriting gains/losses for the reinsurance fund according to the terms of the SRA, 
as applicable. 
The reinsurance terms in the SRA have no impact  on the premium charged to producers for the 
purchase of federal crop insurance policies. 
Page 107 (Para 28 and 29) 
The crop insurance program is expanding at a fast pace and has been evaluated by some academic 
scholars as a very distortive type of subsidy, in cluding because, when farmers already benefit from 
high prices, such as in 2011, CIP provides additional payments through HRO (Harvest Revenue 
Option) policies. 
Questions: 
1.  How much of the insurance policies sold had the HRO option in 2011 and what does it 
represent interms of planted area? 
RESPONSE: The term 'Harvest Revenue Option' applies only to Group Risk Income Protection 
(GRIP) that provides revenue coverage on an area basis. Similar revenue coverage, but on an 
individual APH basis, is available through the Revenue Protection (RP) policy. For both, if the 
harvest price is higher than the planting-time pr ice, yield losses are compensated at the higher 
harvest price. This is intended to cover the losses faced by growers who have insufficient WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  production to fulfill their delivery contracts and must purchase grain from the open market at 
harvest time to meet their obligations. 
In 2011, out of 1,152,060 crop insurance policies, RP accounted for 750,923 (or 65 per cent) and 
GRIP-HRO accounted for 12,448 (or one per cent).  Out of a total of 265.7 million net insured 
acres, RP accounted for 167.3 million acres (or 63 per cent) and GRIP-HRO accounted for 
3.4 million acres (or one per cent). 
2.  Was that number higher than the previous 3 years? 
RESPONSE: RP and GRIP-HRO accounted for around 61 per cent of crop insurance policies 
between 2008 and 2010, whereas 66 per cent of the policies in 2011 had the same option. 
3.  What are the main causes of the verified increase in subsidy levels: (i) an effect of more HRO 
policies sold; (ii) increase in the average level of coverage chosen by the policy holders; 
(iii) increase in the number of policies sold? 
RESPONSE: From 2010 to 2011, the main cause of the increase in subsidy, which is determined 
as a per cent of premium, was an increase in commodity prices. Higher commodity price increase 
crop value and therefore liability, premium, and subsidy. Other contributing factors were an 
increase in the average coverage level (63 per cent in 2010 versus 66 per cent in 2011), and an increase in the average premium rate (from 9.7 per cent in 2010 to 10.5 per cent in 2011), largely 
driven by an increase in price risk for revenue coverage as indicated by commodity market options 
prices. An increase in the participation rate in the crop insurance program also contributed to the increase. 
(2) SERVICES 
(ii) Financial services 
Page 121 (Para 67) 
The financial services sector accounted for 8.5% of US GDP in 2010, 47% of which was generated 
by banking activities, 33% by insurance, 16% by securities trading activities, and the rest by 
funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles. Over the last decade, the U.S. has run trade surpluses 
in financial services and trade deficits in insu rance. In 2010, exports of financial services, 
excluding insurance, amounted to US$66.4 billion, while imports amounted to US$13.8 billion. Also 
in 2010, exports of insurance services reache d US$14.6 billion, while imports amounted to 
US$61.8 billion. The U.S. sells more financial servic es through companies' foreign affiliates than it 
buys from foreign companies' affiliates established in the United States. In 2009, sales of financial 
services, including insurance, to foreign persons by U.S. multinational corporations amounted to 
US$226 billion, while sales of financial services to U.S. persons by foreign multinational corporations were US$147 billion. 
Question: 
1.  Is a foreign insurance company required to have a license from a public authority to operate in 
the American market such as the one mentioned in page 22, paragraph 3 given to banking 
institutions? 
RESPONSE: Insurance is licensed at the state level of government.  
According to the Secretariat Report, the US government continued to provide support to the 
financial sector, specifically to the banking sect or, during the review period with a view to 
achieving financial stability and propping up econ omic recovery (see paragraph 9, page 4, Section 
I, "Economic  Environment". The Secretariat report also shows that US' exports of banking services 
– a sector which has run a surplus for the last ten years - rose significantly in the period under 
review. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  Questions: 
1.  Considering such massive granting of subsidies in services is likely to have implications on the 
competitiveness of the financial sector on a global scale, to what degree has government support to the sector contributed to the performa nce of US financial services exports over the 
period under review? 
RESPONSE: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) established OFS within the 
Office of Domestic Finance of the Department of  the Treasury to implement Troubled Asset Relief 
Program (TARP), the purpose of which was to restore the liquidity and stability of the financial 
system. The authority to make new commitments expired on October 3, 2010. Since that time, the 
focus has been on working to withdraw the assistance that had to be provided during the financial crisis; to reduce emergency assistance; and to manage the remaining TARP investments to protect taxpayers' interests while maintaining financial stability. The United States complies with all WTO 
notification requirements and does not believe that any of these activities require WTO notification. 
See: http://www.treasury.gov/initiativ es/financial-stability/reports /Documents/2012_OFS_AFR_Final_1
1-9-12.pdf . 
2.  Despite the volume of assistance provid ed, the United States has not made any WTO 
notifications over the period under review, other than the Dodd-Frank Act, concerning any new, or any changes to, existing laws, regulations or administrative guidelines that 
significantly affect trade in services, as required  by Article III.3 of the GATS. Does the US have 
plans to notify such subsidies to the CTS? If so, could the US indicate when it intends to do so? 
RESPONSE: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) established OFS within the 
Office of Domestic Finance of the Department of  the Treasury to implement Troubled Asset Relief 
Program (TARP), the purpose of which was to restore the liquidity and stability of the financial 
system. The authority to make new commitments expired on October 3, 2010. Since that time, the 
focus has been on working to withdraw the assistance that had to be provided during the financial crisis; to reduce emergency assistance; and to manage the remaining TARP investments to protect 
taxpayers' interests while maintaining financial stability. The United States complies with all WTO 
notification requirements and does not believe that any of these activities require WTO notification. See: http://www.treasury.gov/initiativ es/financial-stability/reports /Documents/2012_OFS_AFR_Final_1
1-9-12.pdf . 
Page 122 (Para 72) 
The main regulatory reform since the last TPR of the United States, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) (the Dodd-Frank Act), entered 
into force on 21 July 2010. As stated in its intr oductory paragraph, the Act's objectives include 
promoting financial stability, ending "too big to fail", ending bailouts, protecting taxpayers, and 
protecting consumers from abusive financial services practices. The Act does not introduce market 
access or national treatment limitations, but establishes a new and comprehensive regulatory framework and extends regulation over new markets, entities, and activities. 
Question: 
1.  Are there any exceptional circumstances prescribed by law that allow the bailout of a financial 
institution? 
RESPONSE: Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the orderly liquidation authority for banking 
institutions by providing an emergency tool to ensure the orderly liquidation of a failed or failing 
large, interconnected financial company when the stability of the financial system is threatened. It is modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FIDA) and the systemic risk exception 
contained in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act. Further detail can be 
found at: http://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/ 2012-01-25_resolution-strategy.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  The full text of the Act can be found at: 
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc. cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173enr.tx
t.pdf. 
Page 122 (Para 74) 
Section 173 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Access to United States financial market by foreign 
institutions) introduces 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. The amended International 
Banking Act 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 United States 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 for the financial system of such home country to mitigate such risk. 
The new amendments also allow the Board to order the termination of the activities of U.S. offices of such foreign banks in the absence of these cr iteria. Similarly, the SEC is now required, when 
considering an application for establishment of a foreign broker or dealer that presents a risk to 
consider the same criteria regarding home country regulation. 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. 
Questions: 
1.  Could the United States elaborate on what it understands as "an appropriate system of 
financial regulation for the financial system" and as "demonstrable  progress"? 
2.  How is it determined whether an institution poses a risk to the stability of the financial system 
of the United States? Is there a list of specific criteria? 
3.  If it is concluded that an institution poses a risk to the financial system of the United States, 
what's the criteria used to determine whether the institution's home country has adopted or has demonstrated progress in the adoption of rules for a financial system able to mitigate 
those risks? If there are specific criteria, are th ey dictated by multilateral institutions such as 
FSB, IOSCO, etc.? 
4.  If the authorization for a foreign institution to  operate in the American market is denied, is the 
competent institution obligated to justify such a decision? 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 1-4:  Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in assessing 
the financial stability factor generally may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, FRB 
Order No. 2012-2 (February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . 
Discussion of the financial stability criteria specific to an application by a foreign bank to establish 
a U.S. office may be found at Bank of China Limited, FRB Order No. 2012-6 (May 9, 2012), at 
page 16; http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509c.pdf . 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
WT/TPR/G/275 Report 
IV. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2010 
(2) Regional Initiatives 
(vi) Managing and deepening U.S.-EU trade 
Page 20 (Para 83) 
The USA states that "in 2011, the United States interacted extensively with counterparts in the 
major EU governing institutions (the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the 
European Council) and EU Member State governments on key issues for U.S. workers, farmers, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  and businesses, such as EU restrictions on U.S. ag ricultural exports, the protection of intellectual 
property rights (IPR), and joint efforts on shared concerns in third country markets". 
Questions: 
1.  Could the U.S. indicate whether there has been any outcome on such interaction with the EU 
governing institutions regarding EU restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports? 
RESPONSE: We have worked to expand markets for U.S. agricultural producers by encouraging EU 
regulators to ensure that their regulatory decisi ons are science-based. By year's end, the EU was 
moving closer to allowing the import and sale of beef that has been treated with lactic acid. We 
also engaged with the EU over regulations restricting imports of several major U.S. food and agricultural products, including products of agricultural biotechnology. 
2.  Has this issue been discussed under the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) umbrella? 
RESPONSE: We have not addressed agricultural restrictions specifically in the TEC. There are TEC 
discussions regarding standards and innovation, espe cially in the bio-based economy, the results 
of which could eventually have beneficial effects on trade. 
VI. TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT 
Pages 31 and 32 (Paras 145-149) 
The report provides information on the work carried out by the U.S.A. regarding a list of 
"environmental" goods, agreed on by APEC memb ers. The country considers the list a historic 
outcome. Taking into account that, according to the WTO integrated database, the U.S.A. already 
applies maximum and average "ad valorem" duties below the proposed 5% limit of the APEC list for most of the tariff lines listed. 
Questions: 
1.  Which would be the foreseen challenges the U. S.A. will have to face in order to abide to the 
agreed tariff-line levels? 
RESPONSE:  The United States will seek legislation to reduce any tariffs above 5% by 2015. 
2.  Which are the expected gains for U.S. products in terms of market access? RESPONSE : The APEC List of Environmental Goods in cludes 54 environmental goods, including 
such core products as: 
 Renewable and clean energy technologies, such as solar panels, and gas and wind turbines, 
on which tariffs in the region are currently as high as 35 per cent; 
 Wastewater treatment technologies, such filters and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment, 
on which tariffs in the region are currently as high as 21 per cent; 
 Air pollution control technologies, such as soot removers and catalytic converters, on which 
tariffs in the region are as high as 20 per cent; 
 Solid and hazardous waste treatment technologies, such as waste incinerators, and crushing 
and sorting machinery, on which tariffs in the region are currently as high as 20 per cent; and 
 Environmental monitoring and assessment equipment, such as air and water quality 
monitors, and manometers to measure pressure, and water delivery systems, on which tariffs in the region are currently as high as 20 per cent. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  The United States exported environmental goods worth $27 billion to the APEC region in 2011, of 
which $1.2 billion worth faced tariffs above 5 per cent. Thus, the tariff cuts on these products will facilitate increased market access for U.S. exporters. 
3.  Could the U.S. provide more information on the environmental provisions in the FTAs signed 
with Peru, Colombia and Panama and the work developed with those three countries, 
particularly in terms of technical cooperation, to provide a smooth implementation of those provisions? 
RESPONSE:  The Environment Chapters of the Peru, Colombia, and Panama agreements are 
intended to contribute to the Parties' efforts to ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive. First, the Chapters provide that each Party shall strive to ensure that its environmental laws and policies provide for and en courage high levels of environmental protection, 
and include an obligation on each Party not to fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws. 
Moreover, the Chapters commit the Parties to adopt, maintain, and implement laws, regulations, and other measures to adhere to their obligations under specified multilateral environmental 
agreements. Second, the Chapters also contain provisions on procedural matters and enforcement 
mechanisms. For example, the Chapters include provisions to promote public awareness of environmental laws and establish procedures under which members of the public may make 
submissions to an independent secretariat asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its 
environmental laws. Third, the Chapters include provisions that strengthen the Parties' co-operation on environmental issues and establish an environmental affairs council to consider and discuss the implementation of the respective Chapters. Related to these cooperation efforts, 
and as discussed below, the Parties have negotiated Environmental Cooperation Agreements 
(ECAs) in parallel with the Environment Chapters. The Colombia and Peru FTAs also include provisions relating to the conservation and sustaina ble use of biological diversity. Additionally, the 
Peru agreement includes an Annex on Forest Sector Governance, which sets out detailed 
provisions designed to strengthen Peru's capacity to sustainably manage its forest resources and combat illegal logging and associated trade. 
The ECAs establish a framework for enhancing bilateral cooperation between the Parties aimed at 
protecting, improving and preserving the environm ent, including the conservation and sustainable 
use of natural resources. The United States and Peru have an extensive environmental cooperation work program focused primarily on forest sector governance. As part of this program, the United 
States has provided technical support to Peru in its process for developing regulations to 
implement its Forestry and Wildlife law, including sharing experiences with respect to formulating and applying laws and regulations; public partic ipation, process planning and methodology; and 
communications. The United States also has supported Peru's development of its National Forestry 
(and Wildlife) Information System. Our FTAs with Colombia and Panama only recently entered into force. The United States currently is in the proc ess of identifying specific goals, objectives, and 
priority areas for cooperation with both countries. 
4.  Considering that the methodology of work in the WTO to address environmental concerns is 
still not consensual, how does the US Government intend to address these provisions vis-à-vis the present trade and environment agenda? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is committed to working with WTO Members to address 
trade-related environmental concerns in the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), and we look forward to discussing ideas for taking this work forward with Brazil and other interested 
members.  
PART III – OTHER QUESTIONS 
The Secretariat Report for the 2010 US TPR highlight ed the overall openness of the services sector 
in the US. It stressed, however, the existence of re strictions in, inter alia, professional services in 
Mode 4. It pointed out specifically the insuffici ency of the quota (65,000) assigned for foreign 
professionals in a specialty occupation through the H-1B visa category. According to the website of the US Embassy in Bern, "H-1B classification appl ies to persons in a specialty occupation which 
requires the theoretical and practical applicatio n of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
requiring completion of a specific course of higher  education. This classification requires a labor 
attestation issued by the Secretary of Labor. This classification also applies to WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  Government-to-Government research and development, or co-production projects administered by 
the Department of Defense." 
Questions: 
1.  In light of the foregoing, has the US undertaken any actions throughout the review period to 
improve market access to foreign temporary workers in a specialty occupation? 
RESPONSE: The Secretariat's 2010 Report noted no "insuf ficiency" in the H-1B cap; rather, it 
notes that, in years when demand for H-1B visas is strong, the cap can be reached quickly. It 
further noted that this was not the case in the most  recent year of that Report's period of review. 
More generally, and as noted in the Report, U.S. law provides for the issuance of H-1B visas beyond the 65,000 cap in specified circumstances. This includes up to 20,000 visas for foreign nationals holding a master's degree or higher from a U.S. university; as well as visas for 
employment at or by U.S. institutions of higher education and related or affiliated nonprofit 
entities, and non-profit or government research organizations, which are not subject to any cap. 
"Specialty occupation" professionals also may be eligible for admission into the United States 
under visa categories other than H-1B. 
2.  Does the US envision making the definition of specialty occupation more specific? 
RESPONSE: The term "specialty occupation," for purposes of H-1B visas, is defined within U.S. 
law as "an occupation that requires: (i) theoretica l and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge; and (ii) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty 
(or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." Regulations implementing the applicable U.S. law provide that, to qualify as a specialty occupation, a position must meet one of the following criteria: (i) a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into  the particular position; (ii) the degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can 
be performed only by an individu al with a degree; (iii) the employ er normally requires a degree or 
its equivalent for the position; or (iv) the nature  of the specific duties are so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of 
a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
4. How does the US limitation on acquisition of financial assets by foreign governments (their 
agencies, funds or public enterprises) affect Market Access (MA) and National Treatment (NT) 
in American financial market? 
RESPONSE:  The US does not limit acquisition of US financial assets based in the ownership of the 
foreign investor.  
5. How do Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) provisions impact on foreign firms, 
especially on MA and NT in American financial market? 
RESPONSE: FATCA applies to U.S. persons' accounts in foreign financial institutions. 
6. Would the US favor similar measures to FATCA from its trade partners even though these 
measures could create restrictions in terms of access to their financial markets? 
RESPONSE:  The US Government is committed to continued cooperation with other governments 
in addressing offshore tax evasion, and the Treasury Department is engaged in a dialogue with interested foreign governments regarding the implementation of FATCA. 
7. How does "Buy American Act" affect MA and NT in financial services? What is the estimated 
impact on American financial industries as well as on those of its trade partners? 
RESPONSE:  The Buy American Act does not apply to services. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  CANADA 
Government Report – United States (G-275) I. The United States in the Multila teral System: paragraph 2, page 5: 
In its report, the United States emphasizes its commitment to the enforcement of global trade 
rules during the period under review. In an Ex ecutive Order on February 28, 2012, the President 
established the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of U.S. trade rights and domestic trade laws. 
1. Does the creation of the ITEC signify a new appr oach to the enforcement of global trade rules 
by the U.S.? 
RESPONSE:  On February 28, 2012, President Bara ck Obama signed Executive Order 13601 
establishing the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) to advance U.S. foreign policy and 
protect the national and economic security of  the United States through strengthened and 
coordinated enforcement of U.S. trade rights under international trade agreements and enforcement of domestic trade laws. ITEC builds  upon existing trade enforcement capacity to 
create a unique and more aggressive "whole-of-go vernment" approach to addressing unfair trade 
practices around the world. ITEC will enhance the United States government's trade enforcement activities by focusing existing resources more efficiently across the executive branch and among 
stakeholders. 
2. Does this indicate a shift in the focus of U.S. trade enforcement activities? 
RESPONSE:  The United States will remain focused on ensuring that our trading partners follow 
WTO rules and abide by their trade agreement obligations, including commitments to maintain 
open markets on a non-discriminatory basis, and to  follow rules-based procedures in a transparent 
way. 
Part II. Trade Policy and Investment Regimes:  (4) Investment Agreements and Policies: 
(iii) Investment regulations and re strictions: paragraph 36, page 28: 
With respect to approvals for foreign investments: 1. What, if any, involvement do state governments have in the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States (CFIUS)? 
RESPONSE: State governments are not involved in CFIUS reviews. 
2. It is Canada's understanding that some states have Merger Moratorium (or Business 
Combination) statutes. Which states maintain these and how do they fit into the US's overall 
investment strategy, particularly as it relates to FDI attraction? 
RESPONSE: The United States Government maintains a centralized resource – the SelectUSA 
Initiative – to provide investors information about the U.S. investment regime, and to help 
investors better understand the U.S. legal and regulatory landscape. The SelectUSA website 
(http://www.selectusa.gov) includes links to private sector guides to investing and doing business 
in the United States, as well as a list of contacts  for designated investment officials in each U.S. 
state and territory. Information about specific statues of individual states can be obtained from a 
variety of public resources, as well as through these contact points. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure; (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (iii) Rules of origin: paragraph 10, page 35: 
Canada notes that paragraph 10 states that, "The rules of "substantial transformation" may be 
applied to determine the last country in which the article was transformed by having a new name, character, or use". WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  3. Will the United States consider applying the rule  of substantial transformation to the labelling 
of meat cuts, in order to comply with the WTO ruling on US Country of Origin Labelling measures? 
RESPONSE: The WTO Dispute Settlement Body did not recommend that the United States come 
into compliance by any particular means. Accordingly, the United States continues to consider all 
of its options in this regard. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (v) Other charges affectin g imports: paragraph 36, page 44: 
It is noted that a number of changes to the Harbor Maintenance Tax have been proposed, but 
none passed into law. 
4. Could the United States confirm whether changes to the HMT will be enacted in the near 
future, in particular given the policy options discussed in the July 2012 Study of US Inland 
Containerized Cargo Moving through Canadian And Mexican Seaports prepared by the US Federal Maritime Commission? 
RESPONSE: The United States is still considering the options that are available and taking into 
account studies conducted and comments submitted on this issue by interested parties, including the private sector, trading partners, and other federal and state agencies. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by  Measure: (vi) Contingency Measures: 
(a) Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures: paragraph 43, page 46: 
It was identified that there were very few anti-dumping investigations initiated in 2010 (only 3 
cases), with a significant increase in 2011 (9 ca ses), which approached the numbers seen in both 
2008 and 2009 (15 and 18 cases respectively). 
5. Can the United States provide any comments as to why comparatively few anti-dumping 
investigations were initiated in 2010? 
RESPONSE: The United States is not able to comment as to why the number of investigations 
initiated in one year versus another have either declined or increased since the answer to this question is based on the number of  petitions filed by a domestic industry. The decision to file a 
petition rests solely with the domestic industry and, therefore, the United States cannot speak to 
the industry's motivations and decisions. Similarly, the United States is not able to comment on the general year-to-year trends associated with the outcomes of antidumping measures imposed since each measure is wholly dependent upon the specific facts in each investigation. 
6. It was also indicated that only half of the an tidumping investigations initiated in 2011 resulted 
in a final imposition of antidumping measures, whereas for the period of 2008-2010 more than 90 per cent of the antidumping investigations resulted in final antidumping measures being 
imposed. Can the United States provide an expl anation as to why there has been a significant 
drop in the number of antidumping measures imposed in 2011 relative to the number of 
antidumping investigations initiated? 
RESPONSE: See answer above. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by  Measure: (vi) Contingency Measures: 
(a) Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures: Paragraph 48, Page 48: 
Paragraph 48 states that in "administrative review s, except where the Department determines that 
application of a different comparison method is  more appropriate, the Department will compare 
monthly weighted average export prices with monthly weighted average normal values, and will grant an offset where the export price exceeds the normal value" [emphasis added]. 
7. Please provide details about the use of zeroing with different comparison methods. Will the 
Department of Commerce continue the practice of zeroing with the transaction-to-transaction (T-T) or weighted average-to-transaction (W-T) methods? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
  RESPONSE: As explained in the February 2012 notice, in investigations and reviews, except 
where the Department of Commerce determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the Department of Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant an offset for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping 
and the antidumping duty assessment rate. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, the Department of Commerce has evaluated whether an average-to-transaction comparison 
method is appropriate, based on the facts of the particular case. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure; (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical regulations an d standards: paragraph 71, page 58: 
Canada notes with interest paragraph 71 of the Se cretariat's report regarding the US initiating a 
temporary hiatus on issuing sub-national notifications. 
8. Could the United States clarify this statement? 
RESPONSE: The United States is notifying sub-national measures. 
Canada Follow Up Question:  Canada notes the US's confirmation that it is notifying sub-national 
measures to the WTO. Canada asks the US to elaborate on the duration of the "temporary hiatus" 
as regards the issuance of sub-national notifications? Can the US confirm that relevant 
sub-national notifications proposed or adopted duri ng this hiatus were notified as required under 
the TBT Agreement? 
RESPONSE: The United States notes that adjustments were made when Inquiry Point staff was 
reduced for budgetary reasons. Even under these fiscal constraints, the United States notified 
110 subfederal measures in the last five years, according to the WTO notification database. 
9. Could the United States provide details on th e improvements and "corrections" made to US 
processes and steps or the processes now in place as regards sub-national notifications? 
RESPONSE: The United States streamlined the process to reduce omissions and processing times 
for notifying the measures. 
Canada Follow Up Question:  Could the US provide details on how the process to reduce 
omissions and processing times for notifying sub-national measures was streamlined? What led to 
the need to streamline the previous processes? 
RESPONSE: Our Inquiry Point staff was reduced by one third due to reductions in the budget, so 
there are fewer staff available to handle the work. Inquiry Point staff review a database of state 
notifications on a daily basis, and the Inquiry Point communicates the possible notifications to 
USTR for review and approv al to send to the WTO. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure; (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical regulations an d standards: paragraph 78, page 60: 
Canada notes that Paragraph 78 on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) states that, 
"Although the official preference is to rely on industry's use of voluntary standards, the CPSC and 
other agencies with responsibility for product and service regulations may develop technical 
regulations when voluntary standards are not considered adequate or when compliance with voluntary standards is considered unlikely." 
10. Could the United States please elaborate on the criteria used to determine the adequacy of a 
given standard and the likelihood that it will be complied with? 
RESPONSE: Criteria used to determine when reliance on a voluntary standard would be 
inadequate include the likelihood that the voluntary standard will eliminate or adequately reduce 
the risk of injury and, in addition, that there will be substantial and timely compliance with the 
voluntary standard. To determine the likelihood that a voluntary standard will be complied with, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  we perform an analysis inter alia of its technical scope, as well as the reasonableness and 
practicability of its specifications. 
Canada Follow Up Question:  Could the US elaborate on how it determines the likelihood that a 
given standard will eliminate or adequately reduce  the level of injury? By what criteria is a 
standard's specifications analyzed and dete rmined to be reasonable and practical? 
RESPONSE: To determine the likelihood that a consumer product safety standard will eliminate or 
adequately reduce the level of injury the Commission staff: (1) collect injury and death data 
associated with a specific product, (2) analyze the injury and death data, (3) match the technical 
provisions of a safety standard to the identified hazards, and (4) review the extent of injury/death 
reduction, after the safety standard has been implemented. 
(1) Injury and death data collection: The Commission staff collect information on injury, death, 
and other consumer product safety data associated with consumer products found in homes, 
schools, and recreation areas. This information comes from a wide range of sources, including consumers and consumer groups, hospitals and clinics, medical examiners and 
coroners, industry, and the press. 
(2) Hazard analysis of injury and death data: The Commission staff screen the injury and death 
data to determine which injuries and fatalities might be addressable through a safety 
standard. After determining what data is applicable to the analysis, the staff look for 
patterns and trends in the data that bear on safety. Special attention is given to in-depth investigations having detailed information about injury/death scenarios. The identification of injury trends may reflect potential emerging hazards with new or existing products. This 
analysis is conducted by teams of Commission staff members, including experts from 
engineering, epidemiology, health science s, human factors, economics, and other 
appropriate disciplines. Staff investigates specific injury cases to gain additional knowledge 
about injuries or hazards and to understand the relationship between the product and the 
reported injury or hazard. 
(3) Matching safety standards technical provisions to the hazards: For each specific hazard, the 
team looks for technical provisions in a standard to make sure a hazard is addressed. When 
specific hazards are not addressed by technical provisions, the staff recommends changes to enhance the safety provisions of the standard . Staff experts evaluate the efficacy of the 
technical provisions in addressing the hazard. Each hazard analysis is unique and focuses on 
a specific product and a specific product hazard. 
(4) Review to determine injury reduction: After implementation of a safety standard, the staffs 
confirm the implementation of the technical stan dard and review data in connection with the 
effectiveness of the standard in reducing injury and death. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade: (i) Business framew ork and business investment incentives: 
paragraph 122, page 73 
With respect to SelectUSA: 11. Could you please elaborate on the role of Sele ctUSA, particularly its advocacy role abroad? 
Does SelectUSA have a presence abroad? 
RESPONSE:  Established by Executive Order of the President in 2011, SelectUSA is the first federal 
initiative to facilitate business investment in the United States. SelectUSA works with firms – both foreign and domestic – as well as U.S. economic development organizations to provide 
information, guidance, and counseling on the U.S. economic climate and federal rules and 
regulations impacting business investment in the Unit ed States. It operates under strict geographic 
neutrality and does not steer investments towards one U.S. location over another. 
SelectUSA is the single point of contact at the national level to help international and domestic 
firms grow and invest in the United States by pr oviding insights into the U.S. economy, overview WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
  of the U.S. regulatory climate, and helping connect a firm with strategic partners like 
industry/trade associations or regional economic development organizations of its choice. 
Housed in the Department of Commerce, SelectUSA is a part of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial 
Service (USFCS), which is located at U.S. embassies and consulates in over 70 worldwide markets 
and has a robust field operation through US Expo rt Assistance Centers across the United States. 
By coordinating resources across the federal government, SelectUSA provides both information assistance and ombudsman services to the global investment community. 
While the United States has a longstanding open investment policy, SelectUSA serves as 
ombudsman that can help address issues involving federal regulations, programs, or activities that may put an existing or potential investment at risk. With SelectUSA, investors can develop a better understanding of how to navigate U.S. regulations. 
More information can be found at the following website: www.SelectUSA.gov. 
12. How does SelectUSA interact with CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States)? 
RESPONSE: SelectUSA is a separate program of the US Department of Commerce and is not a 
part of the CFIUS review process. SelectUSA re fers questions regarding CFIUS to the Treasury 
Department, as the CFIUS chair. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade; (iii) Government  Procurement: paragraph 128, page 76: 
The Secretariat report provides statistics on U.S. federal spending on federal procurement 
contracts. 
13. Could the United States provide statistics on the value of procurement conducted by state and 
local governments, broken down by state? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not have statistics on the value of procurement conducted by 
local governments or for the states that are no t covered by the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement (GPA). Statistics on the procurement conducted by the 37 states covered by the GPA 
are included in the statistics that the United States submits to the WTO Committee on Government 
Procurement. 
14. Could the United States provide statistics on the value of procurement conducted by the 
Department of Defence under its Balance of Payments Program? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have such statistics. 
15. Could the United States provide statistics on the value of procurement conducted by the 
Department of Defence that is subject to international commitments under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement? In part icular, what is the value of procurement of 
"specialty metals or any goods containing one or more specialty metals" and of goods covered 
by the Berry Amendment 10 U.S.C. 2533a? 
RESPONSE: Statistics on the procurement of the Department of Defense that is covered by the 
GPA is included in the statistics that the United States submits to the WTO Committee on 
Government Procurement. Procurement of "specialty metals or any goods containing one or more specialty goods" is not covered by the GPA and thus is not included in those statistics. 
16. In addition to the Buy American Act, could the United States identify any other federal 
legislation that contains restrictions on the procurement of goods, services or constructions 
services, whether the procurement is conducted di rectly by federal agencies or conducted by 
state or local governments? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have information on "buy American" requirements 
maintained by state or local governments. With regard to federal "buy American" requirements, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 74 - 
 
  the United States does not keep a comprehensive list of federal "buy American" requirements, 
some of which may be limited in scope to funds authorized by a particular legislation which is limited in time (such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). Certain permanent 
provisions include restrictions on Department of Transportation funds (e.g., 49 U.S.C. §§ 24405, 
50101, 5323(j), 23 U.S.C. § 313), others capture miscellaneous limited procurements, such as 
those made with funds obligated under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (10 U.S.C. § 9275(a)) and certain funds used for Indian Health Care Facilities (25 U.S.C. §§ 1631 et seq.) 
17. Could the United States confirm to what extent the Buy American Act applies to the 
procurement of services, including construction services? Other than "construction materials", are there other construction services for which the Buy American Act applies? Could the United States identify any other federal legislation or regulation that imposes discriminatory 
purchasing requirements on the procurement of services by the federal government? 
RESPONSE: The Buy American Act only applies to goods, including construction materials. The 
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits the procurement of services from countries that do not 
provide reciprocal access to their government procurement markets, such as under the GPA. In 
addition, federal law restricts the use of air, and ocean transportation in certain circumstances, to 
U.S. flag carriers (48 U.S.C. § 40118; 10 U.S.C. § 2631; 46 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1241(b)). 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade; (iii) Government  Procurement: paragraph 132, page 77: 
The Secretariat report states that "nearly all federal agencies are required to comply with the 
[Federal Acquisition Regulation], but certain agencies are exempt", for example the US Postal 
Service and Central Intelligence Agency. 
18. Could the United States provide a list all agencies that are exempt from the application of the 
FAR, with reference to the provisions in the FAR or other legislation or regulation that provide 
for such exemption? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have a list of all agencies that are not required to comply 
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR System is established for the codification 
and publication of uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive agencies. 
Executive agencies are required to comply with the FAR. 
19. Could the United States confirm whether or not agencies that are exempt from the FAR are 
subject to the Buy American Act? 
RESPONSE: The Buy American Act applies to all federal procurements of goods. For those 
agencies covered by the FAR, the Act is implemented through the FAR. Agencies not covered by the FAR have their own regulations and policies im plementing the Buy American Act requirements. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade; (iii) Government  Procurement: paragraph 134, page 77: 
It is noted that, under U.S. laws and rules, agencies may reserve contracts exclusively for 
designated groups, known as "set-asides". 
20. Could the United States identify the eligibility requirements for such set-asides, in particular 
what constitutes a "small" business? What factors are considered when determining what constitutes a "small" business? 
RESPONSE: 13 CFR 121 contains SBA's Size Regulations which address size eligibility 
requirements for federal procurements. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&S ID=34088e0cabbbd20029b3c3 b69f716a13&tpl=/ecf
rbrowse/Title13/13cfr121_main_02.tpl . 
Individual eligibility requirements for small business and associated small business participation 
programs can be found in 13 CFR 124, 125, 126, 127. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 75 - 
 
  http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?sid=96f2a 978e3e29a7c707d e9bde4889e75&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfr
browse/Title13/13cfrv1_02.tpl . 
21. The report also notes that the Small Business Administration has a goal of 23% of all federal 
procurement dollars to be awarded for set aside for small businesses. What was the actual 
value of federal procurement set aside for small businesses in fiscal years 2010-11 and 
2011-12? 
RESPONSE: Fiscal Year 2005 thru 2011 Small Business Goaling achievements data can be found 
at: http://www.fpdsng.com/fpdsng_cms/index.php/reports . 
22. In footnote 167 of the report, reference is made to small contracts (less than US$150,000) 
being automatically set-aside. What is the value of contracts set aside for small business that fall into this category? In terms of large procurement contracts (above US$500,000), what is 
the value of the set asides for small businesse s that are subject to subcontracting plans? 
RESPONSE:  There is no individual data run availa ble from SBA for contracts awarded below 
$150,000. That data is included in the Small Business Goaling achievement data at: 
http://www.fpdsng.com/fpdsng_cms/index.php/reports . Prime contracts awarded to Large 
Businesses that individually exceed $650,000 ($1.5 million for public construction) and that have 
subcontracting possibilities, require the submissi on of a Subcontracting Plan for review and 
approval of the Government Contracting Offi cer. Small Businesses awarded a prime federal 
contract are statutorily exempt from the requirement to submit a subcontracting plan and set-asides which are only applicable to small businesses are therefore not subject to this requirement. The United States does not have data on the value of set asides subject to 
subcontracting plans. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade; (iii) Government  Procurement: paragraph 138, page 78: 
The Secretariat report states that procurement at the sub-central (i.e., state) level is a matter of 
state law and that various states may have "buy American" restrictions. 
23. Could the United States provide a list of its stat es that have adopted either "buy American" or 
"buy local" restrictions and provide details on these restrictions for each state? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain such a list. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade; (iv) Trade-related intellectual property rights: paragraph 150, 
page 84: 
IP protection has been flagged as a key element of the US National Export Initiative. 24. How have the National Export Initiative-related IP measures rolled out so far? Are there special 
IP protection measures which are focused on SMEs. If so, could you please describe them? 
RESPONSE: The Administration has introduced a number of IP programs and initiatives that 
support the National Export Initiative by promot ing awareness of IP issues among SMEs and other 
entities. 
The US Department of Commerce Internationa l Trade Administration, the US Patent and 
Trademark Office, and the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center conducted a series of outreach events around the country to increase SMEs' awareness of IPR issues from both 
a law enforcement and a trade perspective. 
The US Department of Commerce International Trade Administration redesigned and launched an 
interagency website – www.STOPfakes.gov – to co nnect US SMEs and others to information and 
resources to help them protect and enforce their intellectual property rights as they begin or 
expand their export activities. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 76 - 
 
  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3) Other Measures Affecting 
Investment and Trade; (iv) Trade-related intellectual property rights: paragraph 163, 
page 89: 
The Secretariat report notes the efforts made by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to 
conduct training and education programmes, including the development of the Intellectual 
Property Awareness Assessment Tool, which is desi gned to assess intellectual property knowledge 
and provide training resources for small an d medium-sized enterprises and inventors. 
25. Approximately what percentage of SMEs do you expect to use this assessment tool, and can 
you tell us what feedback you have received fr om SMEs on the usefulness of this assessment 
tool? 
RESPONSE: We believe a relatively small percentage of SMEs currently use the Intellectual 
Property Awareness Assessment Tool, but we estimate that usage will grow to approximately 
20-25 per cent as additional SMEs become aware of the tool. We understand that many law firms now ask their small business clients to take the time to use the tool. A third, more user-friendly, 
version of the tool is expected to launch in late 2013 and will include advanced features such as 
imbedded video. 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (1) Agricult ure: (ii) Agriculture Policies: paragraph 11, 
page 103: 
The Secretariat report notes that should the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expire 
without enactment of successor legislation or a temporary extension, farm programmes will revert to the permanent legislation, most of which is in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the 
Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948. 
26. Could the United States please give the Members an update as to when successor legislation to 
the current U.S Farm Bill is expected to be passed? Should the 2008 Act expire without 
enactment of successor legislation or a temporar y extension, would the U.S. please explain 
how it would address the potential implications? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is unable to speculate as to when successor legislation or an 
extension to the 2008 Farm Bill will be passed. Th e majority of provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill 
expired at the end of September 2012. In the absence of new legislation by the end of 2012, 
specific legislative steps for price and income support programs will have to be followed. 
27. The US Senate (Farm Bill, Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012) and US House of 
Representatives Agriculture Committee (Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act 
2012) have both passed a "shallow loss" revenue program (i.e. Agriculture Risk Coverage and Revenue Loss Coverage, respecti vely) for grains and oilseeds. Payments are triggered when a 
producer's current revenue falls below a "ben chmark revenue". Using a five-year Olympic 
average (i.e. the preceding 5 years minus the highest and lowest year)  price in the calculation 
ensures that the "benchmark revenue" will remain high (given current price trends), therefore 
even small drops in revenue could trigger signif icant payments. Furthermore, the likelihood of 
payments being triggered is high given the volatility of grain prices in the world market. As these payments would likely be notified under pr oduct-specific AMS, how will the U.S. ensure 
that these programs are implemented in a way that is consistent with its World Trade 
Organization obligations?" 
RESPONSE:  We are not in a position to speculate on the implementation of legislation that has 
not been enacted by Congress. The United States remains fully committed to its WTO Agreement 
on Agriculture obligations. Any new agricultural programs will be notified in an appropriate and 
timely manner. 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sect or: (2) Fisheries; (i) Fisheries in the United States: Table 
IV.6, page 112: 
The data respecting "Commercial landings of selected species" is current only to 2010. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 77 - 
 
  28. Could the United States confirm whether more recent data for this sector is available? 
RESPONSE: Data for this sector covering 2011 is available from the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration publication, Fisheries of  the United States 2011. Relevant excerpts are 
available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/ fus/fus11/02_commercial2011.pdf . 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (2) Servic es; (ii) Financial Services: paragraph 73, 
page 122: 
In the section referencing the Dodd-Frank Act, it is noted that as of June 1, 2012, 110 of the 
rulemaking requirements (27.6%) have resulted in  final rules. Rules have been proposed, but not 
yet finalized for another 144 (36.2%), and rules have not yet been proposed for the remaining 144 
(36.2%). 
29. Could the United States provide an update on the rule-making process for the Dodd-Frank Act? 
RESPONSE: Since June 1, 2012, 12 additional rules have been proposed and 23 additional rules 
have been finalized (as of December 3, 2012). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 78 - 
 
  CHILE 
Documents: WT/TPR/S/275 and WT/TPR/G/275 
Government procurement  (starting on page 76) 
1.  Section (iii) Government procurement (b) states that the main U.S. government procurement 
legislation is the Buy American Act, which requires the US Federal Government to purchase domestic goods. 
Question: Should we understand by the foregoing that this Act only applies at the federal level and 
not to the states? 
RESPONSE:  Yes, the Act only applies to Federal procurement. 
2.  The paragraph goes on to say, "However, the Buy American Act applies to purchases below the 
GPA and FTAs thresholds and to non-covered entities." 
Questions: What are these thresholds? Are they  published somewhere? Are these thresholds 
updated? If so, then why do the government procurement annexes of some FTAs expressly 
provide for an exception to the Buy American Act for construction services (e.g., U.S.–Chile FTA, 
U.S.–Australia FTA)? This seems to contradict the WTO Report by the Secretariat. 
RESPONSE: The thresholds for the GPA and FTAs are set out in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) 25.402. The thresholds are adjusted every two years, with the next adjustments in Dec. 
2013, which will be published in the Federal Register by USTR. The referenced note set out in 
some FTAs clarifies that the Buy American requirements do not apply to goods purchased as part of a construction services contract which is co vered by the agreement. But, that is the same 
situation in all FTA, whether or not it is set out in a note. 
3.  The United States is one of the founding memb ers of the GPA. As such, its market access offer 
is at the three agency levels: federal, sub-central, and other agencies. Thirty-seven U.S. states 
are included at the sub-central level. Only Chile  and Singapore have this coverage, given that 
the other countries that have bilateral agreements with the United States in force have much 
less coverage. 
Question: Given that the United States has so many years of government procurement experience 
as well as a number of international agreements with government procurement chapters, why are 
all 50 states not offered? Are the remaining states not interested? Have they been consulted? 
What is the process for adding states to the agreements on government procurement? Does the USA intend to extend its sub-central coverage  under the GPA or with other trade partners? 
RESPONSE:  The United States covers a state's procurement under the GPA or an FTA only where 
the State has authorized such coverage. States have been asked to authorize their coverage under 
new agreements and revision of the GPA. The re sponses of states have varied by agreement. 
Secure Freight Initiative (Page 31) 
On May 2, 2012, Department of Homeland Security submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Homeland Security its intent to extend the deadline for 100% scanning of all maritime containers shipped to the United States to July 1, 2014. Question : In the end, will this 
initiative be revoked and replaced by the "layered, risk-based approach" for layered cargo? 
RESPONSE:  The deadline has been extended until at least July 1, 2014, and further legislation is 
not needed to extend it again. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to extend the 
deadline again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 79 - 
 
  Prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing (Page 66) 
Question: Given that natural gas is a strategic resource in the energy sector, could you explain the 
procedures for obtaining a shale gas export license and provide more information about this 
market? 
RESPONSE: The US Department of Energy (DOE) has authority over long-term natural gas 
imports and exports of natural gas, including li quefied natural gas (LNG), under the Natural Gas 
Act of 1938 and the DOE Organization Act. The procedures to apply for authorization, which 
govern gas from conventional and unconventional (e .g., shale gas) sources, are governed by U.S. 
regulation 10 CFR 590.  
In light of the significant number of new pending applications for LNG exports, and environmental 
and other issues raised by the public, DOE conducted a two-part export study to examine the 
cumulative impacts of additional natural gas ex ports. Information about the export study, the 
regulations governing exports and imports, the list of pending applications with terminal locations 
and projected LNG export volumes, public comments submitted in response to applications and 
other information about the program is available on the DOE website 
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program s/gasregulation/LNGStudy.html . 
On December 11, 2012, DOE published a notice and requested public comment (Federal Register 
Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012); Pages 73627-73630) on the export 
study. Initial comments regarding the study will be accepted by DOE for 45 days, followed by a reply comment period that will last for 30 days. DOE will evaluate both the study and the comments received prior to making its determinations of the public interest on a case-by-case 
basis, for each of the pending cases. 
Further information about the U.S. natural gas market can be found on the Department of 
Energy's website: http://www.fossil.energy.go v/programs/gasregulation  and on the website of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-gas/overview.asp . 
Trade Policies by Sector 
Even though there is no information about the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in the 
documents under review, given its effect on the financial sector and broad impact outside the USA 
and even in Chile (there have been some press articles on it), we would like to ask the following question: What procedure is Treasury following for negotiating the Intergovernmental Agreement, what are the phases, and which countries are in a final negotiating phase?  
RESPONSE:  The Treasury Department has developed two model intergovernmental agreements 
for implementing FATCA in a partner jurisdiction . Both model agreements are available on the 
Treasury FATCA webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-
policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx . 
Many countries have expressed interest in an in tergovernmental approach to implementing FATCA 
under one of the two model agreements, and the Treasury Department is engaged in discussions 
with those countries. While we do not discuss publicly the status of intergovernmental negotiations 
with various countries, the United States has signed bilateral agreements incorporating the terms of the Model 1 Agreement with the United Kingdom (September 12, 2012), Denmark (November 15), and Mexico (November 19), and has initialed agreements with Ireland, Spain, and 
Switzerland. The text of the initialed agreements will be available after they are signed. In 
addition, on November 8, 2012, the Treasury Department issued a press release announcing that it was engaged in discussions with more than 50 countries and jurisdictions around the world 
about the possibility of entering into a bilate ral agreement based on one of the two models 
(available at: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1759.aspx ). 
The Treasury Department notes that Chile has ex pressed an interest in exploring options for 
intergovernmental engagement, and the Treasury Department welcomes Chile's engagement on 
this important matter. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 80 - 
 
  Intellectual Property 
1. Chile would welcome a more detailed explanation on the statement made in Paragraph 167 
regarding that the U.S. seeks to take advantage of trade policy reviews of its trading partners 
to achieve constructive engagement around the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. 
RESPONSE: An excerpt from the 2009 USTR statement on the WTO Trade Policy Review of Chile 
provides an example of how the United States vi ews the opportunity for constructive engagement 
around the implementation of the TRIPS Agreemen t through trade policy reviews. It is provided 
below.  
There are, nonetheless, specific areas of Chile's regime where action could lead to improved trade 
and investment opportunities and flows. We have referred to them in our questions, but would like to touch on certain of those areas today. 
First, we acknowledge that Chile has made some positive efforts to improve its IPR regime, 
including the creation of a specialized unit within the Chilean police force to handle IPR crimes. In addition, as the Secretariat notes, Chile recently op ened a National Institute for Industrial Property 
to oversee administrative actions related to industrial property. We also understand that Chile 
recently acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty. 
Nevertheless, Chile's IPR performance continues to fall well below our expectations. For example, 
the United States remains concerned about inadequate enforcement against copyright piracy and 
trademark counterfeiting. We understand that Chile's Congress continues to consider legislation that addresses copyright and other IP issues. We would particularly like to learn more about the status of Chile's pending copyright legislation as  w e l l  a s  t h e  g o v e r n m e n t ' s  w o r k  t o  s t r e n g t h e n  
enforcement mechanisms to fight tradem ark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. 
2.  Paragraph 170 states that the USTR sees the TRIPS Council as a forum for sharing experiences 
in order to ensure effective implementation of  the obligations regarding intellectual property 
enforcement. Chile would welcome details on what other areas of the TRIPS Council's work, 
beyond IP enforcement, is considered important by the U.S. 
RESPONSE: U.S. objectives for the TRIPS Council in 2012 provide the U.S. perspective on the 
important multi-faceted work that the Council does, including use of the TRIPS Council to: 
 continue efforts to ensure that developing  country Members fully implement the TRIPS 
Agreement; 
 engage in constructive dialogue regarding the technical assistance and capacity related 
needs of developing countries, and especially  LDCs, in connection with TRIPS Agreement 
implementation; 
 continue to encourage a fact based discussion within the TRIPS Council on enforcement and 
other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement; and 
 ensure that provisions of the TRIPS Agreement are not weakened. 
3.  Chile would welcome more information regarding post-grant procedures considered in the 
"Leahy-Smith America Invents Act". 
RESPONSE: Post-Issuance proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly 
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) , under the America Invents Act (AIA) include 
inter partes  review, post grant review, transitional post grant review for covered business method 
patents, and derivations. 
Inter partes  review is a new trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of 
one or more claims in a patent on only §§ 102 or 103 grounds, and only on the basis of prior art 
consisting of patents or printed publications. The inter partes  review process begins with a third 
party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of the patent or i ssuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 81 - 
 
  review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. The patent owner may file a 
preliminary response to the petition. An inter partes  review may be instituted upon a showing that 
there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner  would prevail with respect to at least one claim 
challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board 
will be issued within one year (extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for 
conducting inter partes  review took effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent 
issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012. 
Post grant review is a new trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of 
one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under § 282(b)(2) or (3). Post grant review process begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is nine months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. The patent owner may file a 
preliminary response to the petition. A post grant review may be instituted upon a showing that it 
is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged is unpatentable. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within one year 
(extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for conducting post grant review took 
effect on September 16, 2012, and generally applie s to patents issuing from applications subject 
to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA. 
The transitional program for covered business me thod patents (TPCBM) is a new trial proceeding 
conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a covered business method patent. TPCBM proceedings employ the stan dards and procedures of a post grant review, 
with certain exceptions. For example, for first-to -invent patents only a subset of prior art is 
available to support the petition. Further, a person may not file a petition for a TPCBM proceeding 
unless the person or the person's real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or charged with infringement under the patent. The procedure for conducting TPCBM 
review took effect on September 16, 2012, but only applies to covered business method patents. 
The program will sunset for new TPCBM petitions on September 16, 2020. 
A derivation proceeding is a new trial proceeding conducted at the Board to determine whether an 
inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in 
the petitioner's application and the earlier application claiming such invention was filed without authorization. An applicant subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding only within one year of the first publication of a claim to an 
invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the 
invention. The petition must be supported by su bstantial evidence that the claimed invention was 
derived from an inventor named in the petitioner's  application. The procedure for derivation will 
take effect on March 16, 2013. 
Further information regarding AIA provisions, including those related to post grant proceedings can 
be obtained through the US Patent and Trademark Office's America Invents Act microsite: 
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_im plementation/index.jsp . 
4.  Paragraph 176 indicates that the new federal legislation now considers, following a long lasting 
policy applied by the USPTO, that directed to or encompassing human organisms are not patentable subject matter. In this regard, we would welcome insights on patentability of other 
organisms in U.S. law. 
RESPONSE: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) restates the long-standing policy that no 
patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. The federal courts 
and the USPTO have issued a number of decisions and guidelines that provide guidance regarding 
the patentability of nonhuman organisms. 
The decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 
(1980), held that microorganisms produced by ge netic engineering are not excluded from patent 
protection by 35 U.S.C. 101. The test set down by the Court for patentable subject matter is whether the living matter is the result of human intervention. 
Following the reasoning in Chakrabarty , the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences determined 
that animals are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In Ex parte Allen , 2 USPQ2d 1425 
(Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), the Board decided that a polyploid Pacific coast oyster could have WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 82 - 
 
  been the proper subject of a patent under 35 U.S. C. 101 if all the criteria for patentability were 
satisfied. Shortly after the Allen decision, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks issued a 
notice (Animals - Patentability, 1077 O.G. 24, April 21, 1987) that the Patent and Trademark Office would now consider non-naturally occurring, nonhuman multicellular living organisms, 
including animals, to be patentable subjec t matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101. 
With respect to plant subject matter, the Suprem e Court has held that patentable subject matter 
under 35 U.S.C. 101 includes newly developed plant breeds, even though plant protection is also 
available under the Plant Patent Act (35 U.S.C. §§ 161–164) and the Plant Variety Protection Act 
(7 U.S.C. § 2321 et. seq.). J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int' l, Inc. , 534 U.S. 124, 
143-46 (2001). 
The USPTO also has issued guidelines regarding the patentability of nonhuman organisms. Please 
see Section 2105 of the Manual of Patent Exam ining Procedure for further explanation: 
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offi ces/pac/mpep/s2105.html . 
5.  Chile sees the "Peer to Patent" program, referred to in paragraph 180 of the report, with 
interest, and would welcome more information about the results of the project. 
RESPONSE: In June 2007, as part of the efforts of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO) to implement its Strategic Plan, the USPTO announced a pilot program to determine the 
extent to which the organized submission of do cuments together with comments by the public 
would be useful to examiners. The stated pu rpose of the pilot was to test whether such 
collaboration could effectively locate prior art th at might not otherwise be located by the USPTO 
during the typical patent examination process. The culmination of the two-year pilot resulted in 
numerous data points that support the premise that  members of the public, when collaborating in 
an organized online fashion, are capable of contributing to the location of prior art of value to the examiner during the examination process. 
In the interest of gathering data from a more diverse pool of patent applications, the USPTO, in 
cooperation with the New York Law School's Center for Patent Innovations, launched a one-year pilot program from October 25, 2010 to September 30, 2011. The last of these applications 
finished review on December 31, 2011. This pilot tested the scalability of the peer review concept 
by expanding the candidate pool of applications to technology areas such as Life Sciences, Telecommunications, Business Methods and Computer Hardware and Software and by significantly increasing the total number of applications that may be accepted into the pilot. 
Additional information related to the above peer-to-patent pilot programs may be obtained at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_ev ents/peerpriorartpilotindex.jsp . 
6.  Regarding Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Chile would welcome more 
information on the copyright status of foreign wo rks that were previously in the public domain 
as a consequence of the US Supreme Court decision in the Golan v Holder case. 
RESPONSE:  The 2012 US Supreme Court decision in Golan v. Holder  upheld the constitutionality 
of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which in 1994 amended the Copyright Act 
to "restore" protection to certain qualified foreign works that were in the public domain in the United States, but were protected in their country of origin. The court's decision did not affect the copyright status of foreign works in the United States. 
7.  In consideration to the priority given by U.S. authorities to effective IP enforcement in foreign 
markets, as stated in Paragraph 192, Chile would welcome information regarding if the promotion of enforcement of US IP rights through mechanisms such as the Special 301 Report, 
considers future adjustments to overcome the methodological constraints showed by actual 
results. 
RESPONSE:  Each year, as required by U.S. law, the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) issues a Special 301 Report cataloguing specific IPR problems in numerous 
countries worldwide. The review of each trading partner's IPR regime is done on a case-by-case basis; all relevant factors are taken into consideration. USTR considers information submitted by interested stakeholders and US Embassies located in foreign capitals. In addition, USTR actively WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 83 - 
 
  encourages foreign governments to submit material which can be taken into account during these 
reviews. A country is placed on the Special 301 list if it is clear that it "denies adequate and effective protection of IPR or fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons that rely upon IP protection." In addition to citing specific concerns, Special 301 also affords an opportunity to give 
credit where it is due, such as by improving th e standing of countries when there are significant 
improvements in IPR protection and enforcement. 
The Special 301 process entails ample opportunities for engagement with individual trading 
partners to discuss IPR concerns and possible ways to address them. Throughout the course of the 
year, the United States meets regularly with our trading partners to discuss IPR concerns. Officers at US Embassies also are engaged actively to convey specific IPR concerns to host-country governments and to discuss potential resolutions. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM CHILE 
Documents: WT/TPR/S/275 and WT/TPR/G/275 
Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Paragraph 48 of the Report by the Secretariat (S ection III Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
(1) Measures directly affecting imports (vi)  Contingency measures (a) Anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures) states that in February 2012 the United States "modified its 
methodology to address the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, expedited, and sunset 
reviews." It also states that, the US Department of Commerce "will grant an offset where the export price exceeds the normal value." 
Questions: What is the offset? Has the offset been assessed for compliance with WTO standards? 
RESPONSE: In investigations and reviews, the Department of Commerce normally will compare 
weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant offsets for all such comparisons that show export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the 
weighted-average margin of dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rate. The offset 
referred to is the so-called negative margin of dumping for that comparison which the WTO Appellate Body has found must provide a reduction to the amount of dumping used to determine 
the weighted average margin of dumping for an exporter/producer. 
Paragraph 50 of the Report by the Secretariat (S ection III Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
(1) Measures directly affecting imports (vi)  Contingency measures (a) Anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures) states that, "in June 20 12...the US Department of Commerce announced 
a methodological change under which it will now reduce the export price or constructed export 
price by the amount of any export tax, duty or other charge in proceedings involving China and Viet Nam." 
Question: Are these reductions made for market economies, given that they are needed to 
calculate dumping and subsidies? 
RESPONSE: Yes, the types of deductions at issue in the Department of Commerce's 
June 2012 announcement, "Methodological Change for Implementation of Section 772(c)(2)(B) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, In Certain Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings," are also made in market economy dumping margin calculations when the export sales price includes export duties or taxes. 
Paragraph 53 of the Report by the Secretariat (S ection III Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
(1) Measures directly affecting imports (vi)  Contingency measures (a) Anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures) states that decisions by the US Department of Commerce include the 
decision to apply countervailing duty measures and anti-dumping measures simultaneously to 
non-market economy countries. 
Question: Is applying countervailing duty measures and antidumping measures simultaneously 
compatible with WTO standards when they are applied for the same reason? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 84 - 
 
  RESPONSE: In United States — Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Products from China (DS379), the WTO Appellate Body considered the simultaneous application of 
countervailing and antidumping measures and did not find  that Members are precluded from 
concurrently applying countervailing and antidumping measures on the same imported goods. 
Instead, the WTO Appellate Body determined that overlapping remedies may occur in situations 
where antidumping and countervailing duties are applied concurrently to goods imported from a non-market economy country (NME) because the NME antidumping duty calculation methodology 
may offset some of the countervailed subsidy. The WTO Appellate Body found that any such 
"double remedy," if present, would be inconsis tent with Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 85 - 
 
  CHINA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
SUMMARY 
Page ix (Para 2) 
Since its last Review, United States has moved ahead with the legislative approval of three 
free-trade agreements and the extension of two la psed preference programmes (the Generalized 
System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA)).... According to the 2012 
Trade Policy Agenda, the United States is working toward the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership regional trade agreement and towards extending permanent normal trade relations 
with Russia. 
Questions: 
1. How will the United States deal with the relationship between its bilateral and regional 
agreements and the WTO multilateral trading system? How does the US view the future direction of the Doha Round negotiations and the multilateral trading system? 
RESPONSE:  The core objective of U.S. trade policy is to open markets and to advance the rule of 
law through the multilateral trading system, as it  has been since before the founding of the GATT. 
A strong and vital World Trade Organization (WTO) is central to that task. The United States also 
pursues bilateral and regional free trade agreem ents (FTAs) that are complementary to and 
compatible with advancing the goals of the multilateral trading system. US FTAs, because of their comprehensive duty-elimination and breadth of commitments, produce significant benefits for its partners, and, through the economic growth this brings, for other trading partners as well. This 
also strengthens and expands the forces working towards global trade reforms. The liberalization 
undertaken by many of our FTA partners has often led those Members to increased participation in 
liberalizing efforts at the WTO. 
The United States is very willing to continue to make progress wherever possible on the Doha 
mandate, based on common efforts. But "business as usual" has not worked, and will not work 
going forward. We believe that now is the time to craft credible, innovative approaches to the WTO's work as an institution that liberalizes trade and creates and applies meaningful rules to trade. But all major players must do their parts. 
Page ix (Para 3) 
Foreign direct investment continues to play an important role in the U.S. economy by making 
important contributions to U.S. employment, R&D, and exports. … in June 2011, new steps were 
taken to facilitate and attract inward FDI into the United States by creating the first 
government-initiated centralized investment pr omotion body through the SelectUSA initiative. 
Questions: 
2. How will the US explain the fact that the investment attempts in the US of companies of 
Huawei, ZTE and Sany from China ha ve been repeatedly frustrated?  
RESPONSE: The United States has a longstanding policy of openness to foreign investment and 
provides foreign investors non-discriminatory treatment both as a matter of law and policy. The Executive Order establishing the SelectUSA initiative recognizes that business investment, by both domestic and foreign firms, is a major engine of economic growth and job creation in the 
United States. 
Page ix (Para 5) 
The United States is one of the most well established and mature IP jurisdictions, however, the 
legal, economic, and trade policy context of IP co ntinued to evolve signif icantly in the review WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 86 - 
 
  period, notably through major legislative developmen ts, significant judicial decisions, regulatory 
legislation, strengthened domestic enforcement, an enhanced policy focus on the role of IP, and 
consolidation of a trend towards development of markets in IP. 
Questions: 
3. In the review period, what changes in the legislative and judicial context have occured in 
respect of commercial secrets? 
RESPONSE: As explained in other responses to questions regarding trade secret enforcement, 
there have been a number of prosecutions and court cases under the Economic Espionage Act 
during the review period, as well as civil litigation regarding trade secrets at the district and circuit court level. 
4. Please provide the number of cases concerning commercial secrets during the review period. 
RESPONSE:  There were eleven trade secret (18 U.S. C. § 1832) prosecutions, and two economic 
espionage (18 U.S.C. § 1831) prosecutions in FY 2011. 
Page x (Para 10) 
There have been no major changes to agriculture policies in the United States since its last 
Review, and The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 remains the basis for most agricultural programmes until it expires. 
Questions: 
5. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 will expire in 2012. In June and July 2012, 
the House of Representatives and the Senate of  the US approved Agriculture Reform, Food, 
and Jobs Act and Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act respectively. When 
will the new agriculture acts be submitted to the President? And how will the new acts 
achieve the policy goals of protecting farmers' income and supporting the high prices of domestic agricultural products? 
RESPONSE:  The US Senate passed a version of the Farm Bill earlier this year. The House 
Agriculture Committee has also passed legislation to replace the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). This proposed legislation must still be taken up by the full House of 
Representatives. Once the House passes legislation, it must be reconciled with the legislation that 
the full Senate passed. The final legislation, once  approved by both bodies, would be submitted to 
the President for his signature. Because of the uncer tainty that remains in the legislative process, 
the United States cannot speculate as to when the legislation will be finalized or what provisions 
the final legislation will contain. 
6. The subsidy programs in all previous agriculture acts enacted in the US are not consistent 
with WTO's domestic support classification. Could the US give the description according to the 
classification of yellow box, blue box and green box when describing the subsidy programs in 
the agriculture acts? 
RESPONSE: U.S. domestic support notifications are fully compliant with US WTO 
obligations. Please see the U.S. domestic support notifications to the WTO Committee on 
Agriculture for a detailed listing of U.S agricultural programs and how they are classified under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
Page xi (Para 13) 
The initiation of AD investigations increased from 3 to 15 cases in 2011 after only a few initiations 
in 2010. There have been no particular trends in the overall number of CVD investigations initiated in recent years, but as with AD investigations, th e majority of CVD investigations initiated during 
the past five years involved imports from Asian countries (92%). During the review period, the 
United States adopted or proposed several modifi cations to its methodology for the calculation of 
dumping margins in the case of non-market economies. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 87 - 
 
  Questions: 
7. Given the frequent anti-dumping and countervailing investigations launched by the US 
against Chinese export products, how does the US view China's market economy status? 
RESPONSE: China is considered a non-market economy country for purposes of the U.S. 
antidumping law. As a result, any dumping by Chinese exporters is determined through the use of 
the non-market economy methodology set forth in U.S. law for cases involving such countries. China's non-market economy status has no relevance outside the context of antidumping 
proceedings. China's status as a non-market econ omy can only be reevaluated by the Department 
of Commerce in the context of an antidumping pr oceeding and in accordance with the relevant 
statutory guidelines, based upon a formal request made or supported by the Chinese government. Commerce has not received such a request since 2006. 
8. In anti-dumping investigations, concerning the issue of China's market economy status, the 
United States often ignored the actual situatio n of the industry involved in the case and 
selected third country prices for alternative prices. As a result, Chinese companies have 
repeatedly been treated unfairly. Taking the US anti-dumping investigations on the solar cell 
products exported from China as an example, in this case, what evidence did the United 
States have to prove the objectivity and impartiality of its selection of "the third country as 
alternative"? 
RESPONSE: We do not agree with China's assertion that its companies have been treated unfairly. 
As explained above, China is designated a non- market economy country under U.S. antidumping 
law. Therefore, Chinese prices and costs are not considered to be meaningful measures of value 
for purposes of antidumping calculations. Rather, the Department of Commerce relies on the use 
of surrogate values as defined in its law regarding non-market economies, which is also explicitly provided for in China's Protocol of Accession. In  selecting an appropriate surrogate country, U.S. 
law requires that the Department of Commerce select a surrogate that is both economically 
comparable to the non-market economy country and a significant producer of comparable merchandise. U.S. law further requires that the Department of Commerce make its decisions 
based on the best available information on the record of a particular proceeding, allowing all 
interested parties a full opportunity to defend their rights and interests in an open and transparent process. With respect to the antidumping investigation involving Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 
Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China , 77 FR 63791 
(October 17, 2012), the reasoning for the Department of Commerce's selection of the surrogate 
country is described in detail in the Final Decision Memorandum that can be found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2012-25580-1.pdf . 
9. Would the United States explain in detail the so-called modifications to its methodology for 
the calculation of dumping margins in the case of non-market economies as said in the Secretariat Report? What is the timetable for the implementation of these modifications? 
RESPONSE: Over the past few years, the Department of Commerce has proposed and 
implemented a number of modifications to our regulations with regard to both market and non-market economies. Detailed explanations  of these modifications can be found at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/index.html . In some cases, the Department of Commerce is still 
considering comments on its proposals. A number of these proposals strengthen the Department 
of Commerce's enforcement of the unfair trade laws without directly addressing the manner in which we calculate antidumping or countervailing duties. For other proposals, there may be an 
impact on margins, but any such impact will necessarily be case-specific. Whether the impact of 
that change is to increase or decrease the margin will depend not only on the change in methodology, but the facts of any particular case to which the methodology is being applied. 
10. The GPX bill signed by President Obama on 13 March 2012 stipulates the applicability of 
countervailing duty investigations to non-market economies including China and the retroactivity of its effectiveness. This is contra ry to the Tariff Act of the United States and the 
basic spirit of modern rule of law. What are the explanations of the United States on this 
issue? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 88 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The "GPX bill", also referred to as Public Law 112-99, became part of the Tariff Act 
upon its enactment and, as such, is fully consistent with the Tariff Act as well as the rule of law. Public Law 112-99 was enacted in accordance with standard legislative procedures and in 
accordance with the requirements of Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution. Rather 
than changing the law, Public Law 112-99 simp ly reaffirmed the Department of Commerce's 
obligation to impose countervailing duties on merchandise from countries designated as non-market economy countries upon a determination by the Department of Commerce that a 
government is providing countervailable subsidies with respect to such merchandise and a 
determination by the USITC that such subsidies materially injure, or threaten to materially injure, an industry in the United States.  
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
Page 3 (Para 5) 
From a peak in 2002, the U.S. dollar deprecia ted gradually by about 25% until 2008, stabilized 
temporarily in 2008-09, and then resumed its down ward trend in 2009 to mid-2011, depreciating 
by around 16%. More recently, it appreciated by about 5% in the second half of 2011, and then 
resumed its downward trend in early 2012.  
Questions: 
11. Although the US dollar appreciated slightly in early 2012, it resumed its downward trend in 
August. What are the main reasons behind these sharp movements? To what extent have QEs played the role in this? What kind of dollar policy does the US intend to maintain in the 
future? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. dollar exchange rate is market-determined. The United States continues to 
pursue the following policies: (1) we do not interv ene in foreign exchange markets, except in the 
rare circumstance of disorderly markets, and (2) we also publish the currency composition of our 
reserves (3) as well as amounts of any intervention that we undertake – and this is supported in 
the public data. We also are pressing ot her countries to follow these policies. 
The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, an independent agency, is guided by the Federal 
Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies to promote effectively the goals of maximum 
employment and price stability. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently commented that "all 
of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisi ons are guided by our dual mandate to promote 
maximum employment and stable prices." Information on the Federal Reserve's policies is 
available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/ . 
12. Since the adoption of QEs, how much of a role  has the continuous depreciation of the US 
dollar played in stimulating US export? 
RESPONSE: The dollar has not continuously depreciated since the start of quantitative easing. The 
real exchange rate of the dollar is essentially unchanged from its level in July 2008 prior to the 
start of quantitative easing. 
13. Will the easy monetary policy become an important policy tool for the United States to reduce 
debt ratio and boost economy in future? 
RESPONSE: The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, an independent agency, is guided by the 
Federal Reserve Act, which requires it to pursue policies to promote effectively the goals of 
maximum employment and price stability. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently 
commented that "all of the Federal Reserve's mone tary policy decisions are guided by our dual 
mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices." Information on their policies is 
available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/ . 
Page 4 (Para 8) 
During the past two years in particular, and since the Obama administration took office, the theme 
of "rebalancing", both domestically and internat ionally, has been at the core of U.S. economic WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 89 - 
 
  policy. It was recognized that the United States, with long-term current account deficits, has relied 
heavily on domestic consumption and construc tion of real estate for growth which is 
unsustainable; and a more balanced pattern of growth is needed, which relies less on consumption and more on exports and investment for growth. Do mestically, reforms are also needed in order to 
increase investment, raise revenue s, and cut unnecessary spending. 
Questions: 
14. Please elaborate on policy direction and thinking of the US on stimulating export and reducing 
trade deficit. Are such policies likely to lead to explicit or implicit trade barriers against other 
surplus countries? 
RESPONSE: Our policies are consistent with the Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced 
Growth, adopted by the Leaders of the G-20 at the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit. The United States 
has reduced its current account deficit from 6.5 per cent of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2005 to 
3.0 per cent of GDP in the second quarter of 2012. The household saving rate has risen and the government deficit has narrowed. 
The National Export Initiative is aimed at reducing barriers to the sale of U.S. goods and services 
abroad, including by negotiating the opening of new and expanding markets, and vigorously enforcing our trade rules both domestically and internationally, fully consistent with its WTO 
obligations. 
15. With high unemployment rate, will the government's  plan to cut spending be difficult to move 
forward because of the influences from public  opinions? Are there quantified evaluation 
indicators for the plan of spending cut? 
RESPONSE: G-20 economies have committed to putting their public finances on sustainable 
paths. The Obama Administration is committed to a deficit reduction plan that would support the 
recovery in the near term, while restoring fiscal sustainability through a balanced approach to 
medium-term deficit reduction. 
16. What "rebalancing" measures have the US  adopted and what are the results their 
implementation in the past few years? 
RESPONSE: The G-20 has agreed that rebalancing is at the core of the group's agenda and that 
deficit countries need to save more and surplus countries need to boost domestic demand growth. The United States is doing its part. The U.S. current account deficit has declined from a peak of 6.5 per cent of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2005 to 3.0 per cent in the second quarter of 2012. 
The household saving rate has risen, and the federal budget deficit has declined from 10.1 per 
cent of GDP in fiscal year 2009 to 7.0 per cent in fiscal year 2012. Current account surplus economies need to do their part to foster global rebalancing by accelerating the pace of domestic 
demand growth in their economies. 
Page 4-5 (Para 9) 
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 targeted financial stability, especially as 
concerns banking, credit, and support of certain in dustries. Although funding expired at the end of 
2010, approximately one quarter of the funds are outstanding and still supporting certain programmes, including U.S. government investments in the auto industry, American International Group (AIG), and 460 U.S. banks (end 2011). However, these investments and support are 
gradually being reduced and eliminated. 
Questions: 
17. When will the funding and support finally be te rminated? Please elaborate on the legal basis 
confirming the termination. 
RESPONSE:  Treasury's authority to invest money through TARP ended on October 3, 2010, in 
accordance with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), the legislation that 
created TARP. As of November 30, 2012, Treasury has recovered almost 90 per cent of the funds WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 90 - 
 
  invested through the various TARP programs. Se veral programs have al ready been completely 
closed, and more are in their wind-down phases. EESA did not set a date by which the programs will be fully shut down, however, the government is focused on winding down TARP programs as quickly as possible, while ensuring financial stability and maximizing returns to the taxpayer. 
Page 5 (Para 12) 
Further reductions of US$1.2 trillion to US$1.5 trillio n are also scheduled to follow. In addition, the 
2010 Pay-as-you-go Act contains a rule of budget neutrality, meaning that new laws should not be 
introduced that would increase budget deficits. A number of expiring tax cuts, and lower defence 
operation spending will also aid the budgetary situation in the near term. Revising U.S. tax policy has also been high on the agenda with a number of proposals from the Administration and from Congress, especially regarding corporate taxes. 
Questions: 
18. How will the US deal with the contraction pressu re on economy exerted by budget deficit cut? 
RESPONSE: At the time of drafting, the Obama Administration is engaged in discussions with the 
United States Congress regarding the budget. We, therefore, are not in a position to comment on 
the outcome of the negotiations. 
Page 6 (Para 13) 
The fed has been very active in recent times, us ing a wide range of policies, some unconventional, 
to aid economic recovery, while it has also been affected by new legislation. From late 2010 to mid-2011, the Fed conducted a second round of quantitative easing due to the financial crisis and its aftermath.… In January 2012, the Fed announced its policy for a long-run goal of maintaining 
inflation at 2%. 
Questions: 
19. How does the US evaluate the results of the Fe d's three rounds of quantitative easing and 
their spillover impact? In its statement made in October, the Fed said that if the outlook for 
the labor market does not improve substantially, it will continue its purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate. What are the 
criteria for the labor market not to "improve substantially"? Are there any observable 
quantitative criteria? What are the "other policy tools"? 
RESPONSE: We do not comment on the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. The monetary 
policy of the Federal Reserve, an independent agency, is guided by the Federal Reserve Act, which 
requires it to pursue policies to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment and price 
stability. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently commented that "all of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions are guid ed by our dual mandate to promote maximum 
employment and stable prices." Informat ion on their policies is available at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ . 
20. Is the potential inflation risk brought by continuous quantitative easing a concern for the Fed 
and how will it be dealt with? If inflation keep s rising without significant improvement of the 
labor market, how will the Fed strike a bala nce between price stabilizing and employment 
fostering? 
RESPONSE: Since quantitative easing began in 2008, the U.S. year over year core inflation rate 
has averaged 1.75 per cent. Available data indicate that inflation expectations remain low. 
21. How does the United States consider the global inflation that might result from its long-term 
low interest rate policy? 
RESPONSE: The International Monetary Fund's October 2012 World Economic Outlook (WEO) 
projects declining global inflation in the coming years. While these are projections, the WEO shows 
global inflation for 2012 of 4 per cent, declining to 3.7 per cent in 2013, and 3.6 per cent in 2014. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 91 - 
 
  Page 6 (Para 14) 
The U.S. administration has taken two major initiatives in recent years aimed at increasing 
exports. In 2010, President Obama set a goal of doubling exports in five years through his National Export Initiative. The National Export Initiative aims at improving trade advocacy, increasing 
access to credit, removing trade barriers, enforcing trade rules, and pursuing policies to promote 
growth. 
Questions: 
22. As a major policy adopted by the US to promote economic growth, in what way are the Fed's 
quantitative easings related to the plan of doub ling export in five years? Depreciation of the 
US dollar as a result of quantitative easings has created very favorable conditions for export. How does the US evaluate the role played by QEs in stimulating its export? 
RESPONSE: There is no connection between the announced U.S. goal of doubling exports in 
5 years and U.S. monetary policy. The goal fo r doubling U.S. exports was announced by the 
President in January 2010 and deals with a variet y of efforts from negotiating trade agreements, 
promoting exports (through non-monetary policies such as increasing trade advocacy), and 
enforcing U.S. rights under trade agreements. U.S.  monetary policy is conducted by the Federal 
Reserve Board, which is an independent agency, and not under the purview of the President. As 
the Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, remarked recently that "since mid-2008, in fact, before 
the intensification of the financial crisis triggered wide swings in the dollar, the real multilateral value of the dollar has changed little, and it has fallen just a bit against the currencies of the emerging market economies." 
23. The "financial cliff" will not only drag down economic growth in the US, but also become a 
major uncertainty for the global economy. When will this problem of "financial cliff" be solved? What concrete measures are being considered by the US government in order to 
solve this problem? 
RESPONSE: Major changes in tax and spending policies are set to take effect in January 2013 
under current law. These changes include the following: expiration of tax cuts initially enacted in 
2001 and 2003 and extended in 2010; expiration of the payroll tax cut first enacted in 2010; 
automatic budget cuts established by the Bu dget Control Act of 2011 as an enforcement 
mechanisms for deficit reduction; and reductions in Medicare payment rates for physicians' services. The [United States] is diligently working to replace this "fiscal cliff" with a deficit 
reduction plan that would support the recovery in the near term while restoring fiscal sustainability 
through a balanced approach to medium-term deficit reduction. 
24. Please introduce the US' supporting policies and measures for the financing of small and 
medium-sized enterprises. 
RESPONSE:  Small businesses play a special role in U.S. job creation, innovation, and 
entrepreneurship. Since the beginning of 2009, th rough the Recovery Act and the Small Business 
Jobs Act, the Small Business Administration (SBA ) has supported over $93 billion in lending to 
more than 166,000 small businesses nationwide. A dditional information on the Administration's 
supporting policies for small business, including access to capital, may be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/econo my/business/small-business . 
Recovery Act: http://www.recovery.gov/Abo ut/Pages/The_Act.aspx . 
Small Business Jobs Act: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/27/president-obama-signs-
small-business-jobs-act-learn-whats-it . 
Small Business Administration: http://www.sba.gov/ . 
25. How will the US balance between providing supp ort to small and medium-sized enterprises 
and solving financial cliff problem? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 92 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The President and Congress are discussing measures to address the 'financial cliff', 
and we are not in a position to comment on any possible outcome at this time. The Administration recognizes that small businesses are the backbone  of the U.S. economy and create two out of 
every three new private-sector jobs in America. A summary of actions taken to assist small 
businesses may be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/snapsho ts/supporting-small-business-
and-entrepreneurs . 
Page 7 (Para 21) 
Technological developments and innovation in the U.S. energy sector are credited with improving 
the trade balance (in volume terms), with falling import volumes. 
Questions: 
26. Can the United States share with other WTO Members details of these technological 
developments and innovation? 
RESPONSE:  Some of the most notable technological developments have occurred in the 
production of natural gas and oil from shale. While a summary of all the technological 
developments is not possible, the following webpages provide a great deal of information: 
http://energy.gov/natural-gas , http://energy.gov/science-innovation/innovation . 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
Page 14 (Para 1) 
The US Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and authority to 
establish rates of duty. The Executive branch under  the President also has certain roles in trade 
policy. 
Questions: 
27. In the Executive branch, what are the roles re spectively played by NSC, NEC, TPRG, TPSC, 
USTR, and various government departments including in particular the NTIA under the 
Department of Commerce, in the development of  trade policies related to telecommunication 
services? Also, what is the function and the we ight of the FCC as an independent regulatory 
authority? 
RESPONSE:  The submission by the United States to the WTO for this Trade Policy Review 
(WTO/TPR/G/275), describes the role of various Ex ecutive Branch entities in the development of 
U.S. trade policy – Paragraph 36 to Paragraph 39. 
As indicated in that submission, the Department of Commerce is a participating agency in the 
development of U.S. trade policy. As one constitu ent part of the Department of Commerce, NTIA's 
perspectives are factored into Commerce Department positions on matters of relevance to its telecommunications-related responsibilities. As no ted in the penultimate sentence in the U.S. 
submission, "(r)epresentatives of other agencies also may be invited to attend meetings 
depending on the specific issues discussed". The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be one such agency that may be invited to share its expertise when the matters under 
consideration relate to its statutory responsibilities. 
28. On the Congress side, under the Senate and the House of Representatives, which 
sub-commissions have a bigger say in introducing trade policies relating to telecommunication services? 
RESPONSE:  The House Ways and Means committee and the Senate Finance committee have 
direct jurisdiction over USTR and its trade policy activities, and thus a direct role in telecommunications trade policy. However, given the breadth of policy that can affect 
telecommunications trade, many different committees are relevant, and thus identifying which has 
a "bigger say" depends on the issue. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 93 - 
 
  29. During President Obama's previous term, the relationship between Congress and the 
Administration was stiff. Please inform whether this relationship will be improved during President Obama's second term. How will this affect the introduction of or adjustment to the US trade policies of the telecommunication services? 
RESPONSE:  The United States Government is divided into three branches: Executive, Legislative, 
and Judicial – each with its own set of powers and responsibilities. The Administration and Congress have a close collaborative relationship on trade policy, with many notable 
accomplishments over the past four years e.g. th e approval and entry into force of the Korea, 
Colombia, and Panama trade agreements, extending permanent normal trade relations to Russia and Moldova, launching the TransPacific Partnership, and others. We expect this close collaboration on trade policy (including that related to telecommunication services) to continue in 
the future. 
Page 16 (Para11) 
Since its last Trade Policy Review, the United Stat es has moved ahead with the legislative approval 
of three free-trade agreements and the extension of  two lapsed preference programmes. To date it 
has put into effect its trade agreements with the Republic of Korea and Colombia, and is working with Panama to put that agreement into effect. The United States has also extended two 
preference programmes (Generalized System of Pr eferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act 
t h a t  h a d  l a p s e d ) .  F u r t h e r m o r e ,  a s  p a r t  o f  t h e  President's 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, important 
priorities were announced with respect to concluding a bold and ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and building better export markets through regional economic integration.  
Questions: 
30. What are the negative impacts of the US regional and bilateral agreements? What problems 
came up in the US in the implementation of these agreements? 
RESPONSE:  The United States pursues bilateral and re gional free trade agreements (FTAs) that 
are complementary to and compatible with advancing the goals of the multilateral trading system. US FTAs, because of their comprehensive duty-e limination and breadth of commitments, produce 
significant benefits for its partners, and, through the economic growth this brings, for other trading 
partners as well. This also strengthens and expands the forces working towards global trade reforms. The liberalization undertaken by many of our FTA partners has often led those Members to increased participation in liberalizing efforts at the WTO. 
As noted, the United States has enacted legislat ion to implement each of our FTAs, including the 
United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, which entered into force on October 31, 2012. The United States and its FTA partners work to gether on the ongoing implementation of our 
respective agreements. One of the key benefits of our FTAs is that it provides a forum for 
communication and cooperation on trade issues. We are not aware of problems in the United 
States regarding implementation of our FTAs. 
31. How will the government provide assistance or aid when domestic industries, enterprises, 
workers, and farmers are affected negatively by these agreements? Have there been such cases since 2010? If any, please elaborate on the legal basis of such aid and the amount of 
the aid. Please provide statistics of the aid acco rding to industries and enterprises, and also 
statistics of the aid directly to workers and farmers. Apart from financial aid, are there any 
other assistance measures? Please introduce. 
RESPONSE: Trade Adjustment Assistance programs for workers, farmers and firms are authorized 
under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq.). See 
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2012-0  (p.184) for more 
information. 
The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers (T AA), Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA), and Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assist ance (RTAA) programs, collectively referred to 
as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for workers,  provide assistance to workers who have been 
adversely affected by foreign trade. The TAA program currently offers the following services to WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 94 - 
 
  eligible workers: training; weekly income su pport; out-of-area job search and relocation 
allowances; case management and employment services; assistance with payments for health insurance coverage through the utilization of th e Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC); and wage 
insurance for some older workers. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, $704,005,680 was allocated to state 
governments to fund and administer TAA for workers benefits. See 
http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact / for more information. 
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) reauthorized and modified the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers program. The legislation provided $90 million per year 
for FY 2009-2010 and $22.5 million for the first quarter of FY 2011. The program officially expired on February 12, 2011. On October 12, 2011, Congress passed the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011, which reauthorized the pr ogram through the first quarter of FY 2014. 
However, Congress has not appropriated funding fo r the program to accept new participants in 
FY 2012, 2013, or 2014. See http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/  for more information. 
The US Economic Development Administration's (EDA) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms 
Program (the TAAF Program) is authorized through December 31, 2014 (P.L. 112-40). The TAAF 
Program supports a national network of 11 non-profit or university-affiliated Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers to help U.S. manufacturing, pr oduction, and service firms in all 50 States, the 
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Pu erto Rico. In FY 2011, EDA awarded a total of 
$15,415,300 in TAAF Program funds. See http://www.eda.gov/  for more information. 
32. In the light of the present negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, 
there are quite a lot of differences of intere st among parties due to the fact that the 
negotiating standards are too high. How will the US resolve such differences? President 
Obama once announced to conclude the TPP negotiations by the end of 2012, which now seems to be impossible. What is the new time schedule of the US? 
RESPONSE: The United States and its TPP partners have affirmed that we seek to establish a 
comprehensive, next-generation regional agreem ent that liberalizes trade and investment, and 
addresses new and traditional trade issues and 21st-century challenges. We believe this is the 
most effective way to increase trade and investment and deepen regional economic integration. 
We are confident that this goal is achievable and continue to work expeditiously towards that end. 
Page 25 (Para 28) 
Trade data are not available for U.S. trade with U.S. insular possessions (US Virgin Islands, Guam, 
American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands). 
Questions: 
33. Why are such trade data not available? 
RESPONSE:  The Census Bureau of the US Department of Commerce publishes information on 
exports to and imports from Puerto Rico and the US  Virgin Islands, as well as imports from Guam, 
American Samoa, and Northern Mariana: http://www.census.gov/pro d/www/abs/foreign.html . 
US Foreign Trade Regulations require that export documentation is filed for those goods going to 
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but not the other U.S. possessions. 
Page 27 (Para 33) 
The US Government took steps to facilitate and attract inward FDI into the United States by 
creating the first government-initiated centralized investment promotion body. 
Questions: 
34. What are the basis and background for this substantial adjustment by the US government to 
its foreign investment policy? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 95 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Establishment of the SelectUSA Initiative does not represent a change in the foreign 
investment policy of the United States, but is rather an effort to advance long-standing U.S. policy objectives. The Executive Order establishing the Initiative notes that the United States Government lacks the centralized investment promot ion infrastructure and resources that is often 
found in other industrialized countries, and therefore establishes an initiative to enhance 
coordination of federal activities and to increase the impact of federal resources that support business investment in the United States. 
35. What are the specific measures adopted under the "SelectUSA initiative" to attract 
investment into the United States? How long will these measures be effective? Will the barriers encountered by enterprises from developing countries in their investment (merges and acquisitions) in the US be relaxed accordingly? 
RESPONSE: The functions of the SelectUSA Initiative are defined within Executive Order 13577 
(June 2011), and are limited to: (1) coordinating outreach and engagement by the federal government to promote the United States as the premier location to operate a business; (2) 
serving as an ombudsman that facilitates the resolution of issues involving federal programs or 
activities related to pending investments; (3) providing information to domestic and foreign firms on the investment climate in the United States, federal programs and incentives available to 
investors, and state and local economic development organizations; and (4) reporting to the 
President, to describe outreach activities, requests for information received, and efforts to resolve issues. The Initiative will engage in these functions on an ongoing basis. 
36. What is the scope of work for "SelectUSA initiative" and the Federal Interagency Investment 
Working Group? How are they divided from CF IUS and NISP in terms of responsiblities? 
RESPONSE: The functions of the SelectUSA Initiative are defined within Executive Order 13577 
(June 2011), and are limited to: (1) coordinating outreach and engagement by the federal 
government to promote the United States as the premier location to operate a business; (2) 
serving as an ombudsman that facilitates the resolution of issues involving federal programs or activities related to pending investments; (3) providing information to domestic and foreign firms 
on the investment climate in the United States, federal programs and incentives available to 
investors, and state and local economic development organizations; and (4) reporting to the President, to describe outreach activities, requests for information received, and efforts to resolve issues. The Initiative will engage in these functions on an ongoing basis. 
37. What results have the initiative achieved after being implemented for more than one year? 
How much funding is annually provided by the US government for this initiative? 
RESPONSE: Since its establishment in June 2011, SelectUSA has reached key milestones, 
including: Training of key personnel across th e US&FCS to assist firms and U.S. economic 
development organization on business investment promotion; Providing investors customized, timely, and accurate information about the U.S. investment climate; On a case-by-case basis, 
working across the U.S. federal government to ad dress investor issues and needs; and Assisting 
states, regions, counties, and local economic development organizations across the United States in their efforts to promote business investment. 
38. Chinese enterprises face many obstacles when investing in the US, and China's direct 
investment in the US has been at a very low level. What are the views of the US on this 
situation? Does the United States really treat Chinese enterprises and those from other WTO Members equally when they invest in the US? 
RESPONSE: The United States has a longstanding policy of welcoming foreign investment and 
provides foreign investors non-discriminatory treatment both as a matter of law and policy. Recognizing that international investment is to the benefit of all economies, the United States 
takes active steps to encourage increased investment into the United States and to reduce barriers 
to U.S. investment in markets overseas. In the bilateral context, these efforts include the negotiation of international investment agreements , such as the investment treaty currently under 
negotiation between the United States and China. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 96 - 
 
  39. What are the US government's policies towards FDI in high-technology industries such as 
new energies, biomedicine and new materials? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not have a general policy of economic planning, nor is U.S. 
international investment policy developed on a sector-specific basis.  
Page28 (Para 35) 
According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report, a number of federal laws or 
regulations act as barriers or otherwise restrict fo reign investment in several areas, i.e. maritime, 
aircraft, mining, energy, lands, radio communi cations, banking, and investment company 
regulations. 
Questions: 
40. Does the US government have restrictive policies towards cross-border investment, 
cross-border merger and acquisition, factory bu ilding, technological cooperation, and equity 
participation with technology made by foreign enterprises in high technology areas such as new energies, biomedicine and new materials?  
RESPONSE: Foreign investors are generally free to either establish or acquire investments in the 
United States, subject only to non-discriminatory, generally-applicable laws and regulations. Federal-level measures treat foreign and domestic investors and investments differently in only a 
small number of sectors. In most cases, the extent of differential treatment is narrow and does not 
prohibit foreign investment in the particular sector or subsector. A full description of each of these measures is available in the non-conforming measures annexes of recent US BITs and FTAs, available at: http://www.ustr.gov/ . Without knowing how sectors such as "new energies" and "new 
materials" are defined, the sectors cited above ar e not subject to specific reservations in the 
non-conforming annexes of recent U.S. agreements. 
41. In the field of communications, which federal laws or regulations in the United States limit or 
hinder foreign investment? Please provide and specify related provisions. 
RESPONSE: Section 310 of the Communications Act of  1934, as amended, governs the foreign 
ownership of spectrum licensees. Section 310(a) states that a foreign government may not directly 
hold a spectrum license. Sections 310(b)(1) and (2) state that foreign individuals and business 
entities may not directly hold any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route license. Under section 310(b)(3) a foreign en tity is limited to a 20% ownership interest in 
any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. Pursuant to 
section 310(b)(4), a foreign entity is limited to a 25 per cent ownership interest in a U.S. 
corporation that directly or indirectly controls any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), however, has 
the discretion to allow foreign ownership in excess of 25 per cent under section 310(b)(4) of the 
Act unless such ownership is inconsistent with the public interest. In the case of common carrier and aeronautical fixed and aeronautical en route licenses, the FCC presumes that foreign 
investment from WTO member countries does not pose competitive concerns to the U.S. market 
and is in the public interest. In an August 2012 Order, the FCC adopted a policy to forbear from the application of the 20 per cent foreign ownership limit set forth in section 310(b)(3) to common carriers in which the foreign ownership in the licensee is held through U.S.-organized entities that 
do not control the licensee. The text of the August 2012 Order is available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-12-93A1.pdf . 
42. Does the United States intend to modify them? 
RESPONSE:  On August 9, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that initiates a review of the FCC's policies and procedures that apply to foreign ownership of common carrier spectrum licensees and of aeronautical en route and 
aeronautical fixed spectrum licensees pursuant to section 310(b)(4). The text of the NPRM is 
available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-11-121A1.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 97 - 
 
  Page 28 (Para 36 and 37) 
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an interagency committee 
authorized to review transactions that could re sult in control of a U.S. business by a foreign 
person, in order to determine the national security effects of such transactions. CFIUS is 
authorized to negotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the risks cannot be mitigated, recommend to the President that he suspend or  prohibit the transaction. CFIUS operates 
essentially on a voluntary basis, but has the authority to initiate a review of any transaction that 
may raise national security concerns. Between 2009 and 2011, the number of notices received and investigations undertaken by CFIUS have increased steadily (Table II.11), although notices remain 
below the 2008 pre-recession level. 
… A separate, but parallel mechanism established through Executive Order is the National 
Industrial Security Program (NISP) for the protection and safeguarding of classified information 
that may be released to industry. 
Questions: 
43. In addition to Foreign Investment and Nati onal Security Act of 2007 and Regulations 
Pertaining to Mergers, Acquisitions, and Takeovers by Foreign Persons, what are other laws 
or regulations that are related to the national security review of foreign investment in the 
United States? Please specify.  
RESPONSE: In addition to the CFIUS review process, foreign investment in the United States may 
trigger requirements under other statutes and regula tions with national security purposes, such as 
export control laws administered by the Departments of State and Commerce and review under the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) relating to companies with 
classified contracts. 
44. How will CFIUS apply the revised national securities standards in Foreign Investment and 
National Security Act of 2007 and Regulations Pertaining to Mergers, Acquisitions, and 
Takeovers by Foreign Persons during specific re views? In addition to these standards, under 
what situations will foreign investment involve a breach of national security? 
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determining whether a transaction raises national security 
concerns, and a general description of the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that 
have presented national security considerations, is available in the official guidance that Treasury 
published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  (and available on our webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ). The CFIUS process is fully described in statutes, executive orders, regulations, and in 
the guidance document noted above, all of which are available at www.treasury.gov/cfius. 
45. After CFIUS implemented the revised national security standards, did the percentage of 
foreign transactions rejected rise? Did the number of cases initiated by CFIUS increase? 
RESPONSE: Please refer to CFIUS Annual Reports available at www.treasury.gov/cfius for 
information that CFIUS has made publicly available on covered transactions notified to CFIUS. 
46. Please provide country-specific percentages of all the investigations initialed and handled on 
grounds of national security and also the main areas involved. Among the investment 
transactions reviewed annually from 2009 to 2011, what is the percentage of the transactions that failed in the review? Since 2009, how many cases under national security review have involved the banking or financial sector? How many foreign banks have failed in the national 
security review? 
RESPONSE:  Please refer to the CFIUS Annual Report available at www.treasury.gov/cfius for 
information that CFIUS has made publicly available on the number of cases by country and 
industry. 
47. Which government departments or agencies does the US national security review of foreign 
investment involve? Which of them are permanen tly involved? Which of them are involved in 
individual cases? Please specify. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 98 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices: 
1. Department of the Treasury (chair). 
2. Department of Justice. 
3. Department of Homeland Security. 
4. Department of Commerce. 
5. Department of Defense. 
6. Department of State. 
7. Department of Energy. 
8. Office of the US Trade Representative. 
9. Office of Science & Technology Policy. 
The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS's activities: 
1. Office of Management & Budget. 
2. Council of Economic Advisors. 
3. National Security Council. 
4. National Economic Council. 
5. Homeland Security Council. 
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio  
members of CFIUS with roles as de fined by statute and regulation. 
48. Please elaborate on CFIUS's specific review process of investment transactions. 
RESPONSE: Please see the CFIUS website at www.treasu ry.gov/cfius for a detailed overview of 
the CFIUS review process. 
49. Please inform in detail the "National Industrial Security Program (NISP)". In CFIUS's review, 
does it also consider the impact of classified information on the transaction and national security? 
RESPONSE: Executive Order 12829, as amended, "National Industrial Security Program" (the 
"NISP"), was established to achieve cost savings and protect classified information held by contractors, licensees, and grantees of the United States Government. Further information can be 
found at http://www.archives.gov/isoo/oversight-groups/nisp . 
As discussed in the Guidance Concerning the National Security Review Conducted by CFIUS, 
published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2008 and available at  www.treasury.gov/cfius, 
foreign control of U.S. businesses that have access to classified information or sensitive 
government or government contract information, including information about employees, is among 
the national security considerations that CFIUS examines. However, pursuant to Executive Order 11858, CFIUS may exercise its mitigation authority only where the risk posed by the transaction is 
not adequately addressed by other provisions of law, such as the NISP. 
50. What measures does the United States plan to adopt to enhance the transparency of the 
review by CFIUS? 
RESPONSE: The process is fully described in statute, executive order, and regulations, all of which 
are available on CFIUS' website, www.treasury.gov/cfius. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 30 (Para 1) 
Pursuant to this "informed compliance" approach, i.e. the shared responsibility between CBP and 
the import community, importers are expected to apply "reasonable care" in their importing operations. They are expected to exercise reasonab le care to classify, value, and determine origin 
of goods so that CBP can apply the necessary import rules, assess duty rates, and collect 
statistics. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 99 - 
 
  Questions: 
51. Please elaborate on the specific meaning and cr iteria of "reasonable care" and the treatment 
of importers that do not satisfy this requirement. 
RESPONSE: On December 8, 1993, Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 20 57), also known as the Customs Modernization 
or "Mod" Act, became effective. 
Two new concepts that emerged from the Mod Act were "informed compliance" and "shared 
responsibility," which are premised on the idea that in order to maximize voluntary compliance 
with laws and regulations of US Customs and Bord er Protection, the trade community needs to be 
clearly and completely informed of its legal obligations. Accordingly, the Mod Act imposes a greater obligation on CBP to provide the public with improved information concerning the trade 
community's rights and responsibilities under cu stoms regulations and related laws. In addition, 
both the trade and US Customs and Border Protec tion share responsibility for carrying out these 
requirements. For example, under Section 484 of the Tariff Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1484), the 
importer of record is responsible for using reasonable care to enter, classify and determine the 
value of imported merchandise and to provide any other information necessary to enable US Customs and Border Protection to properly assess duties, collect accurate statistics, and 
determine whether other applicable legal requirements, if any, have been met. CBP is then 
responsible for fixing the final classification and value of the merchandise. An importer of record's failure to exercise reasonable care could delay release of the merchandise and, in some cases, could result in the imposition of penalties. For additional information, see: 
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp021.ctt/icp021.pd
f. 
Page 30 (Para 2) 
C-TRAT . In addition to importers, the programme co vers carriers, brokers, consolidators, and 
certain manufacturers who agree to work to help protect the supply chain and implement security measures and best practices. 
Questions: 
52. Does "certain manufacturers" refer to domestic or overseas manufacturers? Is there plan to 
include domestic exporters in C-TPAT? If not, w ill it be considered in future? At what time? 
Besides, what measures will CBP take to ensure the safety of export goods? 
RESPONSE: The C-TPAT program for manufacturers is op en to active manufacturer's incorporated 
in Canada and Mexico. For more information about manufacturer participation in the C-TPAT program, see: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/ca rgo_security/ctpat/c tpat_application_mate rial/ctpat_security
_guidelines/foreign_manufacturers/ . 
At this time there are no current plans for CBP to certify U.S. domestic manufacturer's in the 
C-TPAT program. 
SFI. Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), initiated in response to the Security and Accountability for 
Every (SAFE) Port Act to evaluate the feasibility of requiring 100% scanning of maritime cargo containers. The SAFE Port Act, as amended, requ ires 100% scanning of all maritime containers 
shipped to the United States by 1 July 2012. 
Questions: 
53. Will the Initiative hinder normal international trade? What measures does the United States 
plan to adopt to reduce the adverse impact of the Initiative? 
RESPONSE: The deadline for the 100% scanning requirement has been extended and will not go 
into effect until July 1, 2014. The Secretary of Ho meland Security has the authority to extend the 
deadline again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 100 - 
 
  Page 31 (Para 4) 
U.S. laws only allow licensed  customs brokers to transact customs business on behalf of others 
(i.e. importers, purchasers)… 
CBP regulations prescribe eligibility requirements (age , citizenship, etc.) and qualifications (licence 
exam, fees, and approval by CBP) to become a licensed customs broker . 
Questions: 
54. Does the above-mentioned two "customs broker" mean the same? In the US, does a customs 
broker engage in customs business in his own (personal) name or do he or she need to set 
up a company and engage in customs business in the company's name? 
RESPONSE: Yes, "customs broker" has the same meaning in both references. US Customs 
brokers are individuals, partnerships, associatio ns, or corporations licensed and empowered by 
CBP to assist importers and exporters in meet ing Federal requirements governing imports and 
exports. An owner or purchaser of imported good s need not be or set up a customs brokerage to 
enter their goods in its own name. 
Page 33 (Para 8) 
This proliferation of differing rules of origin, thei r complexity, and lack of transparency continues to 
be of concern for some. 
Questions: 
55. The complexity of the US rules of origin affe cts the transparency of these rules, and has 
triggered the concerns of some WTO Members. Does the United States have any improvement plan? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not currently have any plans to change its rules of origin. 
Page 35 (Para 9) 
The U.S. preferential rules of origin have not been notified to the WTO Committee on Rules of 
Origin since 1997. 
Questions: 
56. Has the US notified its non-preferential rules of origin to the WTO? If yes, please provide the 
reference number of these notifications. 
RESPONSE:  The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
57. In the previous Trade Policy Review of the United  States, the United States, at the request of 
Members, agreed to submit to the Secretariat it s updated preferential rules of origin, but the 
WTO Secretariat seemingly has not received them yet. When will the United States notify the WTO the latest preferential rules of origin? 
RESPONSE:  As noted above, the United States submitte d its notification on the U.S. preferential 
rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
Page 38 (Para 17) 
To date (noting the deadline of 30 September 2012), the United States had not yet submitted its 
documentation to the WTO in order to make the necessary changes to its WTO tariff schedule.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 101 - 
 
  Questions: 
58. When will the United States submit the aforesaid documentation? 
RESPONSE: With regards to the HS2012 changes, the United States acknowledges the need to 
delete subheadings 3702.91 to 3702.95 and to replace those with new subheadings 3702.96, 
3702.97 and 3702.98. The failure to make this change was an accidental omission and steps are 
being taken to rectify the situation. The United States intends to make these changes and submit the necessary documentation to the WTO as soon as possible. 
Page 39 (Para 18) 
During the period under review, the United States implemented other nomenclature changes to its 
tariff schedule (HTSUS) by presidential proclamati on. There were 11 sets of changes involving the 
footwear sector (i.e. footwear with textile outers oles). The United States has not notified these 
changes as a rectification or modification to its tariff schedule, thus the nomenclature of the 
HTSUS and the US WTO schedule differ fo r these 11 sets of footwear changes. 
Questions: 
59. The 11 inconsistencies between HTSUS and the US WTO tariff schedule may lead to double 
standards for the importation of these 11 categories of goods. Could the United States explain on this situation? 
RESPONSE: On October 31, 2011, the President issued Proclamation 8742 to modify the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States with respect to certain footwear, in conformity 
with United States obligations under the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. These changes became effective on December 3, 2011. 
Page 41 (Para 24) 
The WTO tariff bindings do not yet reflect HS changes from 2007 and 2012, as is the case with 
most Members, or some other changes that the United States has made domestically but has not 
yet notified. 
Questions: 
60. What does the "some other changes" made domestically of the US tariffs refer to? Do they 
refer to the changes described in Para 18 in Page 39 in the Secretariat Report? When does 
the United States intend to notify them to the WTO? 
RESPONSE: Correct. That language refers to the changes specified in Para 18 on Page 39. The 
United States will be notifying the Committee on Market Access of modifications to Schedule XX of 
the United States to reflect these changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
as soon as possible. 
Page 42 (Para 32) 
The Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) was created in 1986, and since 1990 has been applied 
differently depending on whether the import is an informal or formal entry. 
Questions: 
61. Please provide the definitions of "i nformal entry" and "formal entry". 
RESPONSE:  In general, an informal entry involves the importation of merchandise that does not 
exceed $2,000 in value. Informal entries do no t require filing a CBP Form 7501 (Entry Summary), 
or posting of a Customs bond, and are liquidated at  the time of release. Informal entries are used 
for both personal and commercial importations. The form used for an informal entry is CBP Form 
3461, which is completed by the importer and submitted to CBP. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 102 - 
 
  Formal entry of merchandise involves the import ation of commercial merchandise valued over 
$2000. Formal entries require the filing of a CB P Form 7501 and a customs bond, and are subject 
to formal liquidation. 
Note, a final rule raising the informal entry limit to $2500 was adopted on December 6, 2012. The 
final rule will go in effect in January 2013.  For more information on this change, see: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/ articles/2012/12/06/ 2012-29193/informal-entry-limit-and-remov
al-of-a-formal-entry-requirement . 
Page 44 (Para36) 
Since 1986, the United States has charged a fee on certain merchandise arriving by vessel in order 
to maintain the navigation channels. 
Questions: 
62. Please elaborate on the consistency of this fee with Article XIII of GATT1994. 
63. Section 11214 of the Budget Law adopted in 1990 stimulated that the Harbour Maintenance 
Tax is 0.125% of the value of the goods. It came into effect on 1 January 1991. On 
5 October 2011, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) decided to investigate whether the 
Harbour Maintenance Tax levied by the United States was the major reason for the transfer of US-bound cargo vessels to Canadian and Mexican ports. What are the findings of the 
investigation of the FMC? Does the United States plan to improve in this respect to reduce 
the adverse effects on trade? 
RESPONSE: The amount of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), also called the Harbor 
Maintenance Fee, is set by statute (26 U.S.C. § 4461 and 4462). Funds collected through this fee 
are used for improvements to and maintenance of ports. Fees are structured to help offset the 
costs of maintaining the ports for commercial trade and funds collected through this fee are intended for improvements to and maintenance of ports. The United States considers this fee or 
tax, and the uses for which it is collected, as GATT VIII compliant. 
Please see a copy of the study released in 2012: 
http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/New s/Study_of_US_Inland_Contain erized_Cargo_Moving_Through_
Canadian_and_Mexican_Seaports_Final.pdf . 
Page 48 (Chart III.5) 
Questions: 
64. In 2012, electronic products make up for 20% of all the anti-dumping cases. What specific 
electronic products are involved? How about Chinese electronic products in these cases?  
RESPONSE:  Although not typically considered to be "electronics," the Department of Commerce 
initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of Large Residential Washers, 
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, and Utility Scale Wind Towers during 2012, which may be 
included in the category "machinery and electrical equipment" referenced on page 48. The antidumping/countervailing duty investigations of Utility Scale Wind Towers and Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Cells involved China.  
Page 50 (Para50) 
During the review period, the United States has adopted or proposed several modifications to its 
methodology for the calculation of dumping margins for non-market economies. 
Questions: 
65. Are there any other changes apart from the calculation methodology mentioned in para 50? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 103 - 
 
  RESPONSE: There are no other changes currently being considered or implemented other than 
those described in the answer to question 9 above. 
66. Are there special calculation methodology for certain specific areas such as high technology 
and new energies? 
RESPONSE: There are no such special calculation methodologies. 
Page 67 (Para 100) 
Exports and re-exports of certain goods, tec hnology, and software that have commercial and 
military or proliferation applications ("dual-use" items) are controlled through the Export 
Administration Act (EAA) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which is administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in  the Department of Commerce. The EAR includes a 
list of products, the Commerce Control List (CCL), which may require a licence from the BIS before 
they may be exported or re-exported. The rules are frequently updated and changes posted on the 
BIS website. The need for a licence depends on th e item, the country of destination, its end use, 
and the end-user and it is up to the exporter to find out if a licence is needed (unless informed 
directly by the BIS). 
Questions: 
67. The US CCL coverage is too wide, including many products or technologies that are not used 
for military purposes or can be obtained from a country other than the United States. How 
does the United States view this? Is the US strict control on high-tech exports to China in line with the spirit of free trade? 
RESPONSE:  The US CLL is predominantly based on the control lists of the four multilateral 
regimes. The United States Government views export controls as a national security issue. The 
United States is committed to facilitating normal trade with China for commercial items for civilian 
end uses and end users. 
68. The United States, as a science and technology power, maintains a large trade deficit with 
China in terms of high-tech products. Does the United States agree that its export control on high-tech products is one of the main reasons behind the Sino-US trade imbalance? 
RESPONSE: No. Only a small amount of bilateral trade for civil end uses is affected by U.S. export 
controls. Of the $103.9 billion in U.S. exports to China in 2011, only 0.6 per cent ( i.e., less than 
one per cent) was exported under a Commerce license. Moreover, Commerce licenses usually are granted for commercial items destined for civil end uses and end users in China. In 2011, the 
Department of Commerce approved over 2,300 such license applications for U.S. exports to the 
China. 
69. Has the United States assessed the impact of its export control policies on domestic 
industries and employment? If yes, can it share the assessment and analysis with the 
Members? 
RESPONSE:  On April 20, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates discussed the Administration's 
interagency review of the U.S. export control system, which calls for fundamental reform of the 
current system in order to enhance U.S. national security and strengthen our ability to counter threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 
For more information on the Export Contro l Reform, please visit www.export.gov/ECR. 
70. While requesting China to open up more markets and more areas, the United States 
intensifies its control on exports to China. Could the United States explain the reasons for so doing? 
RESPONSE: The United States Government views export controls as a national security issue. The 
Department of Commerce has repeatedly stated th at the US Government's export control reform WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 104 - 
 
  effort will not alter U.S. export control policy toward China. That policy continues to encourage 
trade in commercial items with civil end users fo r civil end uses but not for military end-uses. 
Page 70 (Para 110) 
Under the Agreement on Agriculture, the United St ates has the right to provide export subsidies 
for 14 agricultural products, subject to limits on the quantities that may be exported with subsidies 
in any year, and limits to the budgetary outlay for exports of each of these products. 
Questions: 
71. Does the United States provide similar export su bsidies to other industries, especially in the 
sector of renewable energies?  
RESPONSE: No. 
Page 70 (Para 112) 
Under Executive Order 13534 of 11 March 2010, the President set out the National Export 
Initiative (NEI) with the goal of doubling exports over five years …The NEI addresses several issues intended to increase exports, including:  developing programmes that improve information 
and other technical assistance to first-time export ers, and assist current exporters in identifying 
new export opportunities in international markets; promoting existing federal resources for export assistance… 
Questions: 
72. What are the specific policies and measures und er NEI? What is the overall implementation 
situation to date? What specific policies and measures adopted by the US government have been most effective? Which sectors and industries are the biggest beneficiaries? 
RESPONSE: The President launched the NEI during his State of the Union address on January 27, 
2010 and established a national goal of doubling U.S.  exports by the end of 2014. The NEI has five 
main components. First, the Administration seeks to improve advocacy and trade promotion efforts 
on behalf of U.S. exporters. Second, the Admini stration seeks to increase access to export 
financing. Third, agencies will reinforce their efforts to remove barriers to trade. Fourth, the United States will robustly enforce trade rules, ensuri ng America's trade partners live up to their 
obligations. Fifth, the Administration will pursue policies at the global level to promote strong, 
sustainable, and balanced growth so that the world economy grows. The annual National Export 
Strategy tracks and measures the Federal Government's progress in implementing the NEI recommendations including the effectiveness of policies and measures undertaken. The United 
States has export-competitive products and services across a wide range of industries. For full 
details see the 2011 National Export Strategy at: http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf .The 2012 National Export Strategy is 
expected to be publically released at the end of the year. 
73. How has "promoting existing federal resources for export assistance" in NEI been 
implemented? What does the "federal resources"  specifically refer to? What are the executive 
bodies of NEI? What are their respective roles? 
RESPONSE: The NEI is designed so that US Government agencies are focused and working 
together to ensure that U.S. companies have access to markets and can compete on a fair and level basis with foreign competitors, consistent with global trading rules. Federal resources may 
include programs, policies and information prov ided by Export Promotion Cabinet agencies. 
As established by Executive Order 13534 of Ma rch 11, 2010, the Export Promotion Cabinet 
consists of: 
 the Secretary of State; 
 the Secretary of the Treasury; WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 105 - 
 
   the Secretary of Agriculture; 
 the Secretary of Commerce; 
 the Secretary of Labor; 
 the Secretary of Energy; 
 the Secretary of Transportation; 
 the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
 the United States Trade Representative; 
 the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; 
 the National Security Advisor; 
 the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; 
 the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; 
 the Administrator of the Small Business Administration; 
 the President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and 
 the Director of the United States Trade and Development Agency. 
The Trade Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC) established by Executive Order 12870 of 
September 30, 1993 is tasked with helping to impl ement the NEI and serves as the secretariat for 
the Export Promotion Cabinet. Its role is to impl ement the eight priorities identified in the NEI 
Executive Order: 
Priority 1: Exports by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) 
Priority 2: Federal Export Assistance 
Priority 3: Trade Missions 
Priority 4: Commercial Advocacy Priority 5: Increasing Export Credit 
Priority 6: Macroeconomic Rebalancing 
Priority 7: Reducing Barriers to Trade Priority 8: Export Promotion of Services 
74. Are the measures adopted under NEI consistent with WTO rules on subsidies? Please describe 
in detail. 
RESPONSE: Yes. Many of the components of NEI are intended to remove barriers to trade, 
enforce existing trade rules and promote sustainabl e growth of trade worldwide. Other aspects of 
NEI are largely designed to provide information on exporting to  help small businesses explore 
international markets and obtain financing at market-based rates. These policies are similar to those of other WTO Members. 
75. In regard to NEI and other export promotion policies, does the United States have specific 
plans to relax high-tech export restrictions? 
RESPONSE : The United States Government views export controls not as an economic issue but a 
national security issue. The United States is committed to facilitating normal trade for commercial 
items for civilian end uses and end users. 
76. Does the US Export Control Reform Initiative have concrete measures for implementation?
 
Please introduce in detail relevant plans and expected timetable, if any. 
RESPONSE:  The United States has deployed a thr ee-phase implementation plan. While the 
United States is still in the process of implementing reforms much has been achieved.  
 The United States has developed and applied a methodology for rebuilding the control lists, 
has already published a series of proposed rules for public comment in 2012, will publish the 
first final rules in early 2013, and will continue to publish the remaining proposed and final rules on a rolling schedule throughout 2013. Rebuilding the control lists is the cornerstone of the initiative, as what is controlled impacts the other three parts of the U.S. system 
(licensing, enforcement, and the information technology (IT) management of the system). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 106 - 
 
   The President issued Executive Order 13558 to create the Export Enforcement Coordination 
Center (E2C2), which formally opened in March 2012. All U.S. departments and agencies with export enforcement responsibilities are wo rking side-by-side to coordinate enforcement 
actions. 
 The Administration and Congress partnered to pass legislation in the summer 2010, the 
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability , and Divestment Act (CISADA), to increase 
the disparate criminal law enforcement penalties to a standardized maximum. 
 CISADA also provided the Department of Commerce with permanent law enforcement 
authority that had lapsed. 
 An electronic consolidated list of parties was developed to assist small- and medium-sized 
companies screen transactions to ensure items are exported in compliance with licensing and other export control requirements. In the most recent month for which statistics are 
available, October 2012, there were more than 35,000 downloads that month. 
 Four U.S. departments are already migrating to a single secure IT system administered by 
the Department of Defense; other departments will follow. 
The United States will need to enact legislation to implement a government reorganization that 
would consolidate the U.S. system into a single control list, single licensing agency, single primary 
enforcement coordination agency, and a single IT system. 
To follow developments on the reform initiative, visit www.export.gov/ecr where details on all 
actions on the initiative are posted. 
77. Please elaborate on the detailed measures of President Obama's National Export Initiative 
(NEI) to provide SMEs with export credit. 
RESPONSE:  With regard to the NEI and export credits for SMEs, US Ex-Im Bank created Global 
Access for Small Business, a multi-pronged initiati ve that draws on the resources of other U.S. 
government export promotion agencies and enhances existing programs with new products and 
access. Specifically, in addition to its basic expo rt credit programs of export credit insurance, 
pre-and post-shipment guarantees and direct  loans, Ex-Im introduced a number of new 
complementary products aimed at the financing needs of small exporters. Details on these specific programs can be found at www.exim.gov. 
Page 71 (Para 114) 
Ex-Im Bank provides export financing through various programmes including: 
-  direct loans to foreign buyers of exports from  the United States, normally for capital-intensive 
 goods such as commercial aircraft, heavy equipment, and project finance; 
-  special financing programmes such as aircraft finance, project finance, and supply chain 
 finance. 
Questions: 
78. Please describe in detail whether there are sp ecific requirements on potential national 
interests from the export programs when the US Ex-Im Bank provides loans and guarantees 
referred to in the aforesaid Para 114? 
RESPONSE: US Ex-Im Bank's mandate from Congress is to support U.S. jobs through exports 
with export financing. Hence, the national intere st served by Ex-Im Bank is supporting U.S. jobs. 
79. In the face of the current global economic do wnturn, when the US Ex-Im Bank provides loans 
and guarantees, does it have special considerations in respect of key industries, underwriting ratio, underwriting size and relevant costs? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 107 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank has several key strategic initiatives mandated by Congress – 
including small business, environment and Sub-Saharan Africa – that the Bank promotes globally. In all activities, Ex-Im follows international guidelines that specify the terms and conditions applicable. Hence, there are no differences in our underwriting or acceptable costs. 
80. Please describe in detail specific operation procedures of the US Ex-Im Bank when providing 
guarantee for liquidity financing? How does this product support SMEs? 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank has established several liquidity focused programs for SME exporters. 
Specifically, the Bank introduced the Global Credit Express product as a pilot this past year. It is 
designed to offer short term working capital lo ans directly to creditworthy small business 
exporters. Exporters can receive either a 6 month or 12 month revolving line of credit of up to $500,000. This product is available through several originating financial institutions nationwide. 
Ex-Im also introduced the Supply Chain guarant ee program which provides U.S. small companies 
supplying U.S. exporters with liquidity and a more stable cash flow. 
81. How does the US Ex-Im Bank manage the concentration of a single country and a single 
industry? When providing loans and guarantees, are there country-specific limits in terms of 
the value? If it has to go beyond the limit, does the US Ex-Im Bank have a special mechanism in place to address it? 
RESPONSE:  The Bank has an overall exposure limit set by Congress that Ex-Im financing cannot 
exceed. If the Bank reaches this limit, it woul d need to request an increase from Congress. 
Otherwise, US Ex-Im Bank does not operate under any country or industry limits.  
82. Please elaborate on the Ex-Im Bank's financing cost for its export buyer's credit. 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank borrows funds from the U.S Treasury in order to fund direct loan 
commitments. Ex-Im Bank is required to pay interest, based on current rates and terms, on the funds borrowed from the US Treasury. 
83. Please describe the factors that affect the granting of credit line in export buyer's credit. 
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank follows standard underwriting procedures and criteria when asked to 
consider financing for a transaction. In addition to conducting a thorough credit analysis of the 
obligor/guarantor, Ex-Im also undertakes careful due diligence on the participants in the deal and 
ensures that the transaction is in compliance with all Ex-Im policy (e.g., environmental guidelines, economic impact, etc.) and statutory requir ements and that it is OECD-consistent. 
84. Please explain the difference between direct loan provided to commercial plane buyers and 
special financing programs for aircrafts in the export credit operations of the Ex-Im Bank. 
How are the terms of export credit provided to capital-intensive exports and to special 
financing programs determined?  
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank authorizes all aircraft tr ansactions based on the rules set out for 
loans and guarantees in the OECD Aircraft Sector Understanding (ASU). Consequently, any differences between the two financings are dictated by the OECD ASU, not Ex-Im Bank internal 
procedures. Regarding capital-intensive exports,  US Ex-Im follows the terms and conditions 
dictated in the OECD Arrangement and its Sect or Agreements, such as Nuclear Power Plants, 
Renewable Energy Projects and Project Finance.  
Page 71 (Para 115) 
Ex-Im Bank operates in 186 countries around the world and has identified nine key markets 
(Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, and Viet Nam) 
Questions:  
85. Please elaborate on the US Ex-Im Bank's mode of doing business abroad. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 108 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank has business development officers who work to educate foreign 
procurement buyers about opportunities to purchase from U.S. suppliers. 
86. When providing loans and guarantees to buyers in developing countries, does it have special 
policies? Will it provide targeted export fi nancing programs and targeted export credit 
insurance policies for key markets? 
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im does not have any special policies when providing loans and guarantees to 
buyers in developing countries. While the Bank has a strategic focus on the nine key markets and 
focuses business development efforts in those markets, this does not preclude Ex-Im from 
financing transactions in other markets. 
87. Will it include more emerging markets in the aforesaid list? 
RESPONSE:  At this time, no additional  countries have been added. 
Page 71 (Para 116) 
To the extent necessary, Ex-Im borrows from the US Treasury to finance medium- and long-term 
loans. However, in the past five years, Ex -Im Bank has generated US$1.9billion in excess 
revenues over its costs of operations. 
Questions: 
88. Please elaborate on the sources of the fund and its structure of the Ex-Im Bank. Why does 
US Treasury give financial support to Ex-Im Bank? Is such support unlimited? What is the 
mechanism for Ex-Im Bank to receive financial support from the government and how does it operate? In order to receive financial support from the US Treasury, Ex-Im Bank needs to pay the cost of the capital to the US Treasury? What is the relationship between such 
financial support and rules of WTO and OECD? 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank is a self-sustaining agency where the fees charged borrowers as well as 
the interest rates charged (on direct loans) is used to offset expenses. Ex-Im Bank transactions 
carry the full faith and credit of the US Government, but as a self-sustaining agency it does not 
need or receive annual appropriations from the US  Treasury to cover expenses. The Bank's fees 
and interest income (on direct loans) are used to pay for its expenses. With regard to the OECD 
and the WTO, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) incorporates by 
reference the OECD Arrangement. Whether viewed independently or taken together, Ex-Im operates in full compliance with both the ASCM and OECD rules. 
89. How does the US Ex-Im Bank determine the cycle of capital increase and its amount? 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank determines necessary capital requirements prior to the disbursement of 
approved direct loans. 
90. In terms of risks, how do the US private sect or and Ex-Im Bank determine the boundaries of 
the risks that they respectively undertake? Are there specific and objective criteria for the 
division? 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank has a mandate to find that a transaction has a reasonable assurance of 
repayment prior to approval. Beyond normal considerations of creditworthiness, it is difficult to 
generalize as to how U.S. private sector entities determine the boundaries of risk they may undertake. 
Page71 (Para 116) 
To the extent necessary, Ex-Im borrows from the US Treasury to finance medium- and long-term 
loans. However, in the past five years, Ex -Im Bank has generated US$1.9billion in excess 
revenues over its costs of operations. According to the authorities, the Ex-Im Bank's fees are set in 
accordance with the OECD Arrangement on Officia lly Supported Export Credits. The Bank typically 
covers up to 85% of the value of eligible goods and services in a U.S. supply contract or all of the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 109 - 
 
  U.S. content of eligible goods and services in th at contract. Certain ocean-borne cargoes financed 
by Ex-Im Bank direct loans and long-term guarantees exceeding US$20 million or with a repayment period of more than seven years must  be transported on U.S. flag vessels, unless a 
waiver is obtained from the US Maritime Administration. According to MARAD, 10 waivers were 
granted in 2010 and 16 in 2011 
Questions: 
91. Please elaborate on the pricing mechanism of the interest rates of the Ex-Im Bank. Does 
Ex-Im Bank charge risk fee or risk premium when providing export credit? If so, how is it 
charged? What costs are to be covered by the risk fee or risk premium? 
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank issues direct loans following the terms and conditions of the OECD 
Arrangement. Ex-Im charges the fixed-rate Commerc ial Interest Reference Rates (CIRR) for such 
loans. Ex-Im Bank charges a risk premium for all export credit transactions and is consistent with 
OECD pricing modalities. The Bank typically charges the fee on an upfront basis, but for some transactions, such as direct loans, the fee ca n be collected on a per annum basis. The risk 
premium is charged to cover the risk of non-payment by the foreign buyer. 
92. In certain circumstances, one of the preconditi ons of Ex-Im Bank's support is the use of US 
flag vessels to transport exports. Is this consistent with WTO rules? Why? 
RESPONSE:  As a matter of policy, cargo benefitting from Ex-Im Bank programs should be 
transported on U.S.-flag vessels, unless a suitable U.S.-flag vessel is not availble at a reasonable rate. We further note that the United States has not undertaken services commitments in regard to maritime services.  
Page 71 (Para 117) 
The "efforts at Ex-Im Bank are focused on supporting President Obama's National Export Initiative 
(NEI) and the goal of doubling U.S. exports by 201 5." …Under the NEI, the Bank has increased its 
efforts to provide export financing for small businesses, through the Small Business (Global 
Access) initiative, launched in 2011, and the development of new products, such as express insurance and an online application process. 
Questions: 
93. What role does Ex-Im Bank play in promoting President Obama's National Export Initiative 
(NEI)? Are there any changes to the main terms of  export credit (including but not limited to 
term and interest rates) after the adoption of the NEI? If so, please elaborate on the 
changes. Are these changes consistent with WTO rules? 
RESPONSE:  In fiscal year 2010, Ex-Im Bank began implementing a strategic plan that reinforces 
the Bank's ability to accomplish its mission, serve a prominent role in the Obama Administration's 
National Export Initiative, and meet its Congressional mandates in future years. The Bank's vision 
is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by substantia lly increasing the number of companies it serves 
and expanding their access to global markets. While Ex-Im Bank has not changed any of its 
financing terms (e.g., interest rates, premia, etc.) in support of the NEI, the Bank has introduced a 
number of new products aimed at providing a full menu of financing options to U.S. exporters (see responses to previous questions and go to www.exim.gov for more details). 
94. What is the "express insurance" in the new products? Could the United States please provide 
more information on this new product? 
RESPONSE:  Express Insurance is a simplified version of Ex-Im's short term insurance product. Its 
characteristics include a streamlined on-line applic ation that provides a policy quote and credit 
decisions on deals of up to $300,000 within 5 work days or less. Transactions in amounts greater 
than $300,000 require additional time. More details on this product can be found on Ex-Im's website at www.exim.gov. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 110 - 
 
  Page 73 (Para 123) 
The growth of small businesses has been a priority  for economic growth in the United States as 
small businesses account for approximately half of private-sector non-farm employment. Through the Small Business Administration (SBA), loans, loan guarantees, procurement opportunities, 
contracts, counselling sessions, and other forms of assistance are offered to small businesses. 
Questions: 
95. Please describe in detail the US targeted policies and measures for SMEs. For innovation and 
employment concerning SMEs, does the United States have further specific supportive 
policies and measures? Please assess the effects of these policies and measures. 
RESPONSE: Small businesses are the engines of job growth and innovation in America. A 
summary of actions taken by the Administration to support small businesses may be found at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/snapshots/suppo rting-small-business-and-entrepreneurs . 
Page 77 (Para 131) 
U.S. procurement legislation also has specific rule s on what qualifies as an American good, i.e. 
specific origin rules that differ from rules of origin and marking for importation purposes.  
96. What are the major items in the US government procurement of services? In what specific 
form does the government provide these items (provided by the community, provided within 
the department, or by the government itself)? How do the departments implement the 
procurement?  
RESPONSE:  The top five categories of services procured by the US Federal government are: 
architecture and engineering; IT services; testing services; medical services; education services; 
and construction, maintenance and repair services. Federal agencies procure these service 
consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements. 
We do not understand the second question so are not able to provide a response. 
97. The United States includes R&D in the government procurement, but does not seem to 
include R&D in its GPA offer. Please describe whether the US government decides services 
providers by way of tendering when it procures R&D services. How will the Government do 
the procurement if it wants to procure a new technology or product just successfully 
developed by an institution or enterprise?  
RESPONSE:  The United States excludes research and development (R&D) services from its GPA 
coverage. The key purpose of contracted R&D programs is to advance scientific and technical 
knowledge and apply that knowledge to the exte nt necessary to achieve agency and national 
goals. Unlike contracts for supplies and services, most R&D contracts are directed toward objectives for which the work or methods cannot be precisely described in advance. It is difficult to 
judge the requirement need, the probabilities of success or required effort for technical 
approaches, some of which offer little or no early assurance of full success. The contracting process is used to inspire the best sources from the scientific and industrial community to become 
involved in the program and must provide an environment in which the work can be pursued with 
reasonable flexibility and minimum administrative burden. In R&D acquisitions, the precise specifications necessary for sealed bidding are generally not available, therefore, negotiations are necessary. Also, the nature of development work often requires a cost-reimbursement completion 
arrangement. The solicitation will be advertised in the https://www.fbo.gov/  so vendors can 
compete on the R&D solicitation. An R&D contract is generally awarded to the organization, 
including any educational institution, that offers the best ideas or concepts and has the highest 
competence in the specific field of science or technology involved. See Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) Part 35 for the policies and procedures of special application to R&D contracting. 
This part specifically covers work statements for R&D contracts, contracting methods and contract 
type, solicitations, evaluation for award, subcontr acting research and development efforts, data, 
patent rights, and scientific reports, etc. It also includes guidance to federal agencies on how to WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 111 - 
 
  establish contracts for research and development with educational institutions and nonprofit 
organizations. 
98. Please illustrate how government entities includ ed in the US GPA offer distinguish what types 
of procurements are commercial sale and resale procurements in the actual procurement 
process.  
RESPONSE: The United States procures goods for commercial resale in limited circumstances. For 
example, the United States may procure goods for resale in a commissary on a military base or in 
a gift shop in a national park or museum. 
99. Which law stipulates the inclusion of concession projects into the US government 
procurement? Please briefly illustrate the administration system, procurement procedures of government procurement of concession projects. Please also provide data on the actual size 
of the procurement.  
RESPONSE:  The United States does not undertake concession projects. However, it may use 
build-operate-transfer contracts. In such cases, it would follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations 
generally applicable to federal procurement. The United States does not have data for such 
procurement. 
100.  Please inform the scope of engineering contra ct as stated in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009. 
RESPONSE:  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included a provision that 
applied to the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in "project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or publ ic work". If an engineering contract funded by 
the ARRA fell into that category, the Buy American provision applied. For federal procurements, 
"public building or public work" is defined as "a building or work, the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of which is carried on directly or indirectly by authority of, or with funds of, a 
Federal agency to serve the interest of the general public regardless of whether title thereof is in a 
Federal agency. These buildings and works may incl ude, without limitation, bridges, dams, plants, 
highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, pumping stations, 
heavy generators, railways, airports, terminals, do cks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, 
jetties, breakwaters, levees, and canals, and the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of such buildings and works." 
101.  Does the implementation of the Regulation im plementing the "buy American" provisions in 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 contradict with the US obligations 
under the Agreement on Government Procurement? Do the Regulation exclude other WTO members?  
RESPONSE:  The "Buy American" requirement in ARRA did not apply to government procurement 
covered by the WTO GPA. 
Page 77 (Para 134) 
Under U.S. laws and rules, agencies may reserv e contracts exclusively for certain designated 
groups. These provisions are known as set-asides. There are five set-aside categories: (i) small business; …  
Questions: 
102.  Please describe how the United States uses government procurement policies to support the 
development of small businesses. How to ensure the effective implementation of these policies?  
RESPONSE: The US Congress, by statute, has established a 23% federal contracting goal for 
small businesses, measured in dollars of contract awards. In addition, Congress has established through statute, several initiatives that encourage federal agencies to identify capable small 
businesses for awards of prime contracts. Further,  separate small business subcontracting goals, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 112 - 
 
  where applicable, have been statutorily mandated for large businesses receiving prime federal 
contracts. The Small Business Administration and federal agencies have a staff who oversee agencies' efforts in reaching the 23% prime contra cting goal and the small business subcontracting 
goal. There are also resource to assist small businesses in identifying prime and subcontracting 
opportunities , and in business and entrepreneurial development. 
Page 78 (Para 136) 
WTO GPA Members recently reached consensus on a revision of the GPA and re-negotiation of the 
specific commitments contained in the annexes pertaining to each Member. 
103.  Please confirm whether the United States includes BOT and concession in its offer in the 
revision of the GPA and re-negotiation of the specific commitments in 2012. If yes, please 
describe which stage of a BOT project is subject to the GPA, and whether it allows companies 
of parties to the GPA to participate in the BOT, or rather that these companies may 
participate in the bidding in the procurement of  the enterprise that has won the BOT project.  
RESPONSE:  The United States did not include BOT contracts in its coverage under the Revised 
GPA and does not undertake concession contracts. 
Page 79 (Para 140) 
Subsidies, as defined and notified under GATT Article XVI:1 and Article 25 of the Agreement on 
Subsides and Countervailing Duties are reported to the WTO by Members including the 
United States. According to the latest notification in October 2011, the United States reported 50 federal programmes, and over 500 sub-federal programs (Table III.22). 
Questions:  
104.  A number of the US polysilicon and PV module s enterprises enjoy government subsidies and 
special tariffs for electricity. Does the Unites States believe that they have constituted specific subsidies as defined in the WTO? Are they included in the US latest notification on subsidies? 
Please specify the US supporting policies and budget scheme for the polysilicon industry and 
the photovoltaic industry. 
RESPONSE: As noted, the United States submitted its most recent subsidy notification in 
October 2011 (see G/SCM/N/220/USA). Currently, China is conducting a countervailing duty 
investigation against imports of polysilicon from the United States. Numerous subsidies were alleged by the domestic polysilicon industry in China and are currently being investigated. As part of this investigation, China's administering authority issued detailed questionnaires to the United 
States Government and the relevant producers and exporters in the United States. Responses to 
these questionnaires have been provided. If China's administering authorities have additional questions in the context of the investigation, the Un ited States is prepared to provide responses to 
those questions.  
Page 80 (Para 143) 
T h e  T A R P  p r o v i d e d  g o v e r n m e n t  s u p p o r t  t o  A I G ,  the automotive industry, banks, and financial 
institutions. On 31 May 2012, the lifetime cost of TARP was estimated at US$63 billion… As 
concerns the Automotive Industry Financing Program, TARP has received US$40 billion of its approximately US$80 billion investment. Chrysler exited the programme in July 2011, but GM and 
Ally Financial (former GMAC financing) remain  included, as US$37.2 billion of reimbursement 
remains outstanding. 
Questions: 
105.  In respect of the US automobile industry, wh at are the assistance standards, conditions, 
decision-making procedure of TARP? Why are the assisted enterprises all US automobile 
companies? Why did non-US brand manufacturers not obtain the assistance? Please inform in detail the background.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 113 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP) was begun in December 2008 to 
prevent a significant disruption of the U.S. auto motive industry, because the potential for such a 
disruption posed a systemic risk to financial mark et stability and would have had a negative effect 
on the economy. In 2008, the auto industry lost nearly 35 per cent of its sales volume and almost 
400,000 jobs, and both GM and Chrysler were on th e verge of disorderly liquidations. This could 
have caused millions of additional job losses. 
Recognizing the danger, Treasury extended temporary loans to GM and Chrysler in 
December 2008. After the Obama Administration took office, it agreed to provide additional 
investments conditioned on each company and its stakeholders participating in a fundamental restructuring. In total, Treasury invested approx imately $80 billion in the automotive industry. As 
of November 30, Treasury has recovered more than $40 billion, and expects to recover additional 
funds over time. 
Page 83 (Para 146) 
In addition to the main federal laws, most states have antitrust laws, often modelled after the 
federal laws. 
Questions: 
106.  In addition to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission as well as their 
local offices, do the states have other anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies? 
RESPONSE:  Each State has an office of attorney genera l, which is the chief law enforcement office 
for that state. Most attorney general offices have one or more staff responsible for enforcement of the state's antitrust laws (or related laws). States may also enforce the federal antitrust laws on 
behalf of their citizens or bring direct action s for antitrust injuries suffered by the state. 
107.  How do the US federal antitrust law and state antitrust laws coordinate in specific 
implementation and application? 
RESPONSE:  The FTC and DOJ have developed a close relationship with state antitrust enforcers 
through a variety of mechanisms, including through the Executive Working Group for Antitrust, which includes the Chairman of the FTC, the Assist ant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust 
Division, and several State Attorneys General. Both the DOJ and FTC coordinate with State 
attorneys general as appropriate on investigations  conducted by both a federal and state enforcer, 
and refer cases to each other when the other enforcer would be better suited to handle the investigation. In addition, the DOJ has a formal protocol to allow for cooperation on criminal 
antitrust matters. 
Page 83 (Para 148) 
While the three pillars of antitrust legislation prov ide the basic structure, there are other U.S. laws 
or regulations that could facilitate anticompetitive practices. In the area of international trade: … 
the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 provides certain antitrust immunity for export trade and 
export trade activities; and the Webb-Pomerene Act provides immunity for associations of 
otherwise competing businesses to engage in collective export sales. 
Questions: 
108.  Please elaborate on the main contents of the Policy Guide to Merger Remedies issued by the 
US Justice Department in June 2011. What are the main changes compared to the previous 
version? 
RESPONSE:  The 2011 revision of the Merger Remedies Guide was intended for use by Division 
enforcement staff and by the public. The 2011 revision adjusts previous guidance to take into 
account the increasing numbers of transnational mergers and complex vertical transactions, and 
aims at remedies that result in eliminating any competitive harm from a particular transaction. Effective remedies typically include structural or conduct provisions, or a combination of both. For 
more details, see the Guide itself, at http://www.justice.gov/atr/pu blic/guidelines/272350.pdf  or WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 114 - 
 
  the accompanying Division press release, at 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2011/272365.htm . 
109.  Does summary procedure apply to the US merger reviews? What are the criteria for the 
application? What is the percentage of cases on which summary procedure is applied? 
RESPONSE:  If the FTC or DOJ wish to take action with regard to a pre-merger notification made 
pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (15 U.S.C. § 18a), they must act within 30 days (15 days in the case of cash tender offers). If they do not request additional information or, in limited 
circumstances, bring an enforcement action within 30 days, then the merger may proceed. 
Although the figures vary somewhat each year, in most years DOJ or FTC requests additional information for less than 5% of the merger notifications. In addition, parties submitting a notification may request "early termination." If early termination is requested, then the FTC and 
DOJ may inform the parties before the end of the 30-day waiting period that neither agency will 
seek additional information in which case the parties are free to close their transaction immediately. In Fiscal Year 2011, parties requested early termination in approximately 82% of 
Hart-Scott-Rodino filings, of which 77% were granted. Similar data for the past 10 years is 
available in Appendix A of the FTC and DOJ Hart -Scott-Rodino Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, 
available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/20 12/06/2011hsrreport.pdf . 
110.  What is the relationship between the anti-trust review and national security review in the US? 
In terms of procedures, do they connect with ea ch other? If yes, how do they connect? What 
are the similarities and differences in terms of criteria when the reviews are applied? 
RESPONSE:  Antitrust reviews and national security reviews are two separate processes in the 
United States with differing criteria. CFIUS national security review is unrelated to and 
independent of antitrust review. 
111.  How does the US review the cross-border investment and mergers made by foreign 
enterprises and foreign financial institutions? Is a higher threshold adopted for cross-border 
investment and mergers in areas such as energy and high technology? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. antitrust agencies review cross-border and domestic mergers and 
acquisitions in the same manner, applying the same processes and legal standards and review 
thresholds and approaches regardless of the nation ality of the parties or the sectors affected by 
the transaction. Please see the CFIUs website at www.treasury.gov for a detailed overview of the 
CFIUS process. CFIUS does not maintain a "sector list" or apply differential treatment to 
investments in some sectors.  
112.  According to the US national security review , how do Chinese enterprises such as Huawei, 
ZTE and Sany threat the US national security? 
RESPONSE: By law, information filed with CFIUS may not be disclosed by CFIUS to the public. 
Accordingly, CFIUS does not comment on information relating to specific CFIUS cases, including whether or not certain parties have filed notices for review. 
113.  Could the United States provide actual cases of exemption under the two Acts? 
RESPONSE:  We do not understand what is meant by "actual cases of exemption under the two 
Acts." 
Page 84 (Para 149) 
Additionally in 2010, the Department of Just ice and the FTC amended the Horizontal Merger 
Guidelines. 
Questions: 
114.  Please elaborate on the main content of the Ho rizontal Merger Guidelines amended in 2010. 
What are the amendments compared to the prev ious version? What are the reasons for the 
amendment?  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 115 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (the "Guidelines") outline how the federal 
antitrust agencies evaluate the likely competitive impact of mergers and whether those mergers 
comply with U.S. antitrust law. They are intend ed to help the agencies identify and challenge 
competitively harmful mergers while avoiding unnecessary interference with mergers that either 
are competitively beneficial or likely will have no competitive impact on the marketplace. To 
accomplish this, the guidelines detail the techniques and main types of evidence the agencies 
typically use to predict whether horizontal mergers may substantially lessen competition. 
The Guidelines were developed after extensive public consultations, including with non-US 
agencies, and updated the 1992 guidelines in several important ways. The Guidelines: 
 Clarify that merger analysis does not use a single methodology, but is a fact-specific process 
through which the agencies use a variety of tools to analyze the evidence to determine 
whether a merger may substantially lessen competition. 
 Introduce a new section on "Evidence of Advers e Competitive Effects." This section discusses 
several categories and sources of evidence that the agencies, in their experience, have 
found informative in predicting the li kely competitive effects of mergers. 
 Explain that market definition is not an end itself or a necessary starting point of merger 
analysis, and market concentration is a tool that is useful to the extent it illuminates the 
merger's likely competitive effects. 
 Provide an updated explanation of the hypothetic al monopolist test used to define relevant 
antitrust markets and how the agencies implement that test in practice. 
 Update the concentration thresholds that determine whether a transaction warrants further 
scrutiny by the agencies. 
 Provide an expanded discussion of how the agen cies evaluate unilateral competitive effects, 
including effects on innovation. 
 Provide an updated section on coordinated effe cts. The guidelines clarify that coordinated 
effects, like unilateral effects, include conduct not otherwise condemned by the antitrust 
laws. 
 Provide a simplified discussion of how the agen cies evaluate whether entry into the relevant 
market is so easy that a merger is not likely to enhance market power. 
 Add new sections on powerful buyers, mergers between competing buyers, and partial 
acquisitions. The Guidelines are available at 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2 010/08/100819hmg.pdf . 
The Guidelines were amended to take into account the legal and economic developments since the 
1992 guidelines were issued. They are not intended  to represent a change in the direction of 
merger review policy, but to offer more clarity on the merger review process to better assist the business community and, in particular, parties to mergers and acquisitions.  
Page 93 (Para 177) 
The Act established several mechanisms aimed at boosting competitiveness of U.S. markets and at 
supporting innovative firms, particularly small businesses. For example, it establishes a new 
category of applicant known as a "micro entity",  in recognition of the substantial contributions 
made by small businesses and independent inventors that are resource-challenged to economic growth and innovation, and accordingly, grants them a 75% discount of certain fees. 
Questions: 
115.  What are the criteria for identifying "micro entity"? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 116 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The USPTO has proposed rules for the criteria to identify a "micro entity." Please see 
the following link for these proposed rules: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2012-05-30/html/2012-12971.htm . 
116.  Can foreign applicants enjoy these incentives equally? 
RESPONSE:  Yes. 
117.  What materials need to be provided in order to get the fee discount? Are there special 
requirements for foreign applicants? 
RESPONSE:  Please see the following link for the proposed rules: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2012-05-30/html/2012-12971.htm . 
Page 93 (Para 178) 
The Act also includes provisions for the establ ishment of a prioritized examination process, 
whereby examination of an application may be ex pedited upon payment of a fee. In addition, 
Congress required the USPTO to produce a study on how USPTO can best help small businesses 
with patent protection overseas, such as whether a loan or grant programme should be established 
to help small businesses cover the costs of app lication, maintenance, and enforcement fees or 
related technical assistance. 
Questions: 
118.  Is the prioritized examination process mentioned in para 178 the same as the Green 
Technology Pilot Program mentioned in para 180? If not, what are the differences? 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO discontinued the Green Technology Pilot Program because the USPTO 
now has a program that permits the acceleration of any patent application. Known as "Track One," 
this program was implemented by a rulemaking to implement the "prioritized examination" 
provisions of the America Invents Act. More information on the program is available here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-23/html/2011-24467.htm . 
119.  Is the total amount of applications entering prioritized examination process limited? If so, 
how is it distributed? For example, are there quotas for different technology areas? Are there quotas for domestic and foreign applications? 
RESPONSE:  Yes. The limit is 10,000 applications. There are no quotas for different technology 
areas or for domestic and foreign applications. 
120.  Does this prioritized examination process have review cycle requirements? For example, 
should USPTO conclude the case within certain time after accepting the application for 
prioritized examination process? 
RESPONSE: Yes. The USPTO provides for a final disposition of the case within 12 months of 
prioritized status being granted. Please see th e following link for information on prioritized 
examination: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-23/html/2011-24467.htm . 
121.  Has USTPO adopted measures to help small businesses with patent protection overseas as 
required by the Congress? If so, please provide information on these measures. 
RESPONSE: Yes. Congress directed the USPTO to study international patent protection for small 
businesses. The report examines how USPTO and other federal agencies can best help small businesses with patent protection overseas. http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implemen tation/20120113-ippr_report.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 117 - 
 
  Page 93 (Para 180) 
Against a goal of reducing this period to 20 months by 2015, pendency in the review period varied 
between 33.5 and 33.9 months. The USPTO also undertook a range of initiatives during the review period to further improve quality and timeliness, including through international cooperation… 
worksharing initiatives with other patent offices on patent examination, notably the Patent 
Prosecution Highway, which speeds up patent examination and reduces costs by allowing examiners to reuse search and examination result s for corresponding applications filed in other 
participating countries. There was a significant increase in the number of international partners 
during the review period, and the petition fee for use of this pathway was eliminated; 
Questions: 
122.  We know that the pendency in the review pe riod varies between 33.5 to 33.9 months. Does 
USPTO have a time limit on its patent application review? For example, how long can a 
review last for the maximum? Or, if the revi ew has exceeded the time limit, are there any 
measures to urge the reviewer to close the case as soon as possible? If so, are applications in 
different technology areas treated equally? Are domestic and foreign applications treated 
equally? 
RESPONSE: No, the USPTO does not have a time limit on its patent application review, and 
applications in all technologies and from both domestic and foreign applicants are treated equally. 
If an applicant is having problems with the application process, they can use the Ombudsman Program. Please see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/ombudsman.jsp  for more information. 
123.  Are there conditions and requirements for reviewers' utilization of other countries' search and 
examination results? 
RESPONSE: No, there are no conditions or requirements for reviewers' utilization of other 
countries' search and examination results. 
124.  For applications that have used Patent Prosecution Highway or other countries' search and 
examination results, is there requirement on th e time limit of a review? For example, within 
what time limit must the case be concluded? 
RESPONSE:  PPH status affects only when a case is taken up for action, not the period within 
which the case must be concluded. Furthermore,  once a PPH application has been taken up for 
action, that application will not enjoy any further precedence over any other application. 
125.  Compared to patents of the same type which have not applied for faster examination, how 
much time has been saved on average for th e 1,062 patents that were authorized through 
the Green Technology Pilot Program? 
RESPONSE: The USPTO does not have that data available at this time. 
126.  Could the US please provide more detailed information on "Peer to Patent project"? How will 
the public participate in the patent review process? 
RESPONSE: In June 2007, as part of the efforts of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO) to implement its Strategic Plan, the USPTO announced a pilot program to determine the 
extent to which the organized submission of do cuments together with comments by the public 
would be useful to examiners. The stated pu rpose of the pilot was to test whether such 
collaboration could effectively locate prior art th at might not otherwise be located by the USPTO 
during the typical patent examination process. The culmination of the two-year pilot resulted in 
numerous data points that support the premise that members of the public, when collaborating in an organized online fashion, are capable of contributing to the location of prior art of value to the 
examiner during the examination process. 
In the interest of gathering data from a more diverse pool of patent applications, the USPTO, in 
cooperation with the New York Law School's Center for Patent Innovations, launched a one-year 
pilot program from October 25, 2010 to September 30, 2011. The last of these applications WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 118 - 
 
  finished review on December 31, 2011. This pilot tested the scalability of the peer review concept 
by expanding the candidate pool of applications to technology areas such as Life Sciences, Telecommunications, Business Methods and Computer Hardware and Software and by significantly increasing the total number of applications that may be accepted into the pilot. 
Additional information related to the above peer-to-patent pilot programs may be obtained at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_ev ents/peerpriorartpilotindex.jsp . 
127.  Could the US please give more detailed inform ation on the "new metrics for patent quality"? 
RESPONSE: The USPTO continues to focus on delivering high-quality patents to innovators. More 
than two years ago, the agency developed a new work credit system that gives examiners more 
time to review the merits of an application befo re making a decision. The USPTO has continued to 
improve its hiring practices to recruit experience d professionals, and it provides comprehensive 
training to new as well as experienced examiners. In providing more effective training, the USPTO 
further enhances patent examination fundamentals, communication, and cooperation between the examiner and applicant. The USPTO utilizes a hi ghly successful compact prosecution training and 
refresher training program that encompasses over 20 training modules designed to enhance 
examiners' knowledge and skills in procedural and legal topics pertaining to patent examination. In addition, the USPTO has also implemented the Patent Examiner Technical Training Program 
(PETTP) which provides patent examiners with direct access to experts who are able to share their 
technical knowledge on prior art and industry st andards in areas of emerging technologies and 
established technologies. The PETTP provides an  opportunity for communication between patent 
examiners and the experts who work in the various technologies that are examined throughout the 
USPTO. This enhanced communication contributes to improving overall patent quality and 
decreasing patent pendency. The USPTO has also instituted a new program, the Site Examiner 
Education (SEE) program. This program allows examiners to travel to companies and educational 
institutions to learn about updates on technology or new technologies and experience how 
technologies operate in the field. 
In the pursuit of improving performance and quality management, the USPTO's Office of Patent 
Training (OPT) received recertification for the International Standard ISO 9001:2008 and the 
Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) received its first certificate of registration for ISO 9001:2008. The ISO 9001 quality standard is the most widely recognized and established quality management system framework in the world, outl ining requirements that provide the foundation 
for OPQA's mission and to meet customer expectat ions and achieve customer satisfaction. One of 
the quality management principles of ISO 9001 is the continual improvement of overall performance. In achieving ISO 9001:2008 certification by OPQA, the USPTO has ensured that 
well-defined and documented standards and proce sses are in place, demonstrating its dedication 
to providing consistent quality products and services. 
In addition, the USPTO has recently adopted new procedures for measuring and improving the 
quality of patent examination. The new composite quality metric is designed to reveal the presence 
of quality issues arising during examination, and to aid in identification of their sources so that problems may be remediated by training, and so that the presence of outstanding quality procedures may be identified and encouraged. The composite quality metric is composed of factors 
that take into account stakeholder comments, including three factors drawn from the USPTO's 
previous quality measurement procedure, and four new factors that focus upon data never before 
acquired and/or employed for quality measurement purposes, for a total of seven factors. The 
factors that have been modified from previous USPTO procedures measure: (1) the quality of the 
action setting forth the final disposition of the application; (2) the quality of the actions taken during the course of the examination; and (3) the perceived quality of the patent process as 
measured through external quality surveys of applicants and practitioners. The newly-added 
factors measure: (1) the quality of the examiner's  initial search; (2) the degree to which the first 
action on the merits follows best examination practices; (3) the degree to which global USPTO 
data is indicative of compact, robust prosecution; and (4) the degree to which patent prosecution 
quality is reflected in the perceptions of the examination corps as measured by internal quality 
surveys. Additional information about the new metrics can be found on the USPTO website at 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/in it_events/qual_comp_metric.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 119 - 
 
  For more information on USPTO's quality improvement initiatives, please see USPTO's Performance 
and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2012 at: http://www.uspto.gov/about/st ratplan/ar/USPTOFY2012PAR.pdf . 
128.  Could the US please give more detailed information on "Patents for Humanity"? For example, 
what is the objective of this program? What is the main content of this program? What 
privileges will be available for the applicants after they participate in this program? What 
obligations do they undertake? What is the current implementation status of this program? 
RESPONSE: Patents for Humanity  is a voluntary awards competition for patent owners and 
licensees, which is open to anyone in the world who owns or licenses a U.S. patent. The program recognizes patent owners who apply their patented technology to address humanitarian needs. Patents for Humanity advances the Administration's global development agenda by rewarding 
companies that bring life-saving technologies to underserved people of the world, while showing 
how patents are an integral part of tackling global challenges. 
Each Patents for Humanity  application must involve technology that is the subject of one or more 
claims in an issued U.S. utility patent or a pend ing U.S. utility patent application owned or licensed 
by the applicant. The program is technology-neutr al, meaning applications may be drawn from any 
field of technology. 
Successful Patents for Humanity  participants receive accelerated processing of select matters at 
the USPTO on any technology in their portfolio. They will also get recognition of their valuable work at a public awards ceremony. 
Patents for Humanity  is a voluntary program. Being selected for an award does not create any 
obligations on the recipient. 
The application period ended October 31, 2012. Now in the selection phase, awards are expected 
to be made early next year. 
Further information may be found at the following website: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_ev ents/patents_for_humanity.jsp . 
129.  Since the last review, does the US have any new measures to regulate intellectual property 
rights abuses and to balance the interests of in tellectual property right holders and the social 
and public welfare so as to prevent intellectua l property rights abuses from hampering free 
competition and technology innovation? 
RESPONSE: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) develop 
antitrust policy and enforce the antitrust laws in the United States. The FTC and DOJ recently held 
a public workshop to explore the impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities on innovation and competition and the implications for antitrust enforcement and policy. Section 34 of the 
America Invents Act also mandates that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a 
study into the consequences of patent litigation by non-practicing entities or patent assertion entities. 
Page 94-96 (Para 182-188) 
Questions:  
130.  Please explain how USPTO requires applicants/registrant to submit proof of trademark use 
during trademark application, registration and renewal process. What is the legal requirement 
for the proof of trademark use? What ki nd of proof is regarded effective? 
RESPONSE: The Trademark Act of 1946, (as amended), requires that, in order to be protected, a 
trademark, service mark, collective mark or certification mark must ultimately be used in a type of 
commerce that the US Congress regulates. These types of commerce include interstate, territorial 
and foreign commerce. Proof of use in commerce is  by submission of specimens supporting such 
use. The timing for a showing of use in co mmerce depends on the basis under which the 
application is filed.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 120 - 
 
  There are five bases for filing applications for tr ademarks and service marks in the United States: 
(1) use of the mark in commerce regulated by the US Congress; (2) bona fide intention to use the mark in such commerce; (3) priority filing under the Paris Convention; (4) Paris Convention registration; and (5) the Madrid Protocol. US Nationals can only file under the first two bases; 
foreign applicants can file under all five bases. 
Before registration can be effected under the first two bases, the applicant must provide a 
specimen showing use of the mark in US Commerce regulated by Congress. For use-based 
applications, the specimen is provided at filing; for intent-to-use applications, the specimen is filed 
prior to registration with a document supporting an allegation of use of the mark in commerce. 
For the other three bases, there is no requirement for specimens to be filed before registration. 
That is because the owners of these registrations do not need to provide proof of use of the mark 
in the United States until any of the following occurs: After three years, the registration can be 
challenged for non-use by a third party; and betwee n the fifth and sixth year of registration (and 
an additional grace period of 6 months) the registrant must file an affidavit of continuing use. 
Specimens evidencing use must also be filed every ten years (plus grace period) for the life of the 
registration. 
Examples of acceptable specimens for goods include labels, hang tags, and displays associated 
with the sale of the goods. For services, acce ptable specimens include advertisements, business 
cards and letterhead. For non-traditional marks such as sound marks and motion marks, the 
specimen may be in the form of a WAV, MP3, AVI, or MPEG. All documents requiring submission of specimens can be submitted electronically. 
131.  According to Section 103 of the US Copyright Act, the objects under copyright protection 
include compilation and interpretation works, but if a work uses an original work protected by 
copyright, the protection does not extend to the part of the original work illegally used. Could 
the United States clarify whether this means that unauthorized translated works in the 
United States are not protected under the US Copyright Act? 
RESPONSE: Under the United States Copyright Act, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to 
prepare a derivative work based on the copyright work or to authorize others to do so. A derivative 
work is a work based on or derived from one or more already existing works. One common form of derivative work is a translation of a work into another language. Section 103 of the United States 
Copyright Act states that the subject matter of copy right includes derivative works, "but protection 
for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part 
of the work in which such materials has been used unlawfully." Any derivative work in which the additions, changes, or other modifications represent,  as a whole, an original work of authorship is 
protectable as such. The copyright in a derivative  work covers only the additions, changes, or 
other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material. In any case where a protected work is 
used unlawfully, that is, without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright will not be 
extended to the illegally used material. 
132.  Section 1101 of the US Copyright Act provides protection for music performers, but does not 
provide protection for other types of performers. Could the United States clarify whether this 
means that other types of performers (such as the Chinese comic dialogue) in the United 
States are not protected by the US Copyright Act? 
RESPONSE:  The United States protects performers' rights under statutory authorities as well as 
the common law. Section 1101 of the US Copyright Act prohibits the fixation of a live musical 
performance without the authorization of the pe rformer. Moreover, other types of performers 
receive additional protections under certain state statutes and common law. For example, the 
US Supreme Court, in the case of Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co.,  433 U.S. 562 (1977), 
held that a television station was not permitted to broadcast the performance of a fifteen second human cannonball act without the performer's authorization. 
133.  Please provide data on the US IPR enforcement in 2011. For example how many cases of 
infringements were handled? How many were  criminal cases? How many people were WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 121 - 
 
  charged with criminal liability? How many cases of IPR infringements involved foreigners' 
interests? 
RESPONSE:  Approximately 95 per cent of U.S. federal co urt cases concerning intellectual property 
are civil; criminal IP prosecutions account for only approximately five per cent of total federal 
intellectual property-related cases. Statistics regarding federal intellectual property criminal cases 
in Fiscal Year 2011, including the number of criminal investigative matters received by prosecutors, and the number of defendants charged, can be found in the Department of Justice 
"PRO-IP Act Report for 2011", available at http://www.justice.gov/dag/iptaskforce/proipact/doj-
pro-ip-rpt2011.pdf . In FY2011, 215 defendants were charged, and 208 were sentenced. Statistics 
for recent prior years are available in previous PRO-IP Act reports. These figures include only 
federal prosecutions, and do not include state prosecutions for trademark counterfeiting or other 
IP-related crimes, which numbers in the hundreds or thousands. 
IV．TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Page 103 (Para 12)  
Tariff rates vary considerably from one tariff line to another and range from zero, for 620 tariff 
lines, up to 350%, for some tobacco products. The highest tariffs are on tobacco, sugar, peanuts, 
and dairy products, followed by beef, cotton, and certain horticultural products (such as 
mushrooms). 
Questions: 
134.  The tariff peaks on tobacco, sugar, peanuts and dairy products have already constituted 
prohibitive tariffs. Please explain how the US will cut down the tariff peaks to increase market 
access opportunities in response to the call of the Doha Round negotiations? 
RESPONSE: The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) nego tiations are not complete. Therefore, 
discussion of possible DDA commitments would be premature at this point. 
Page 103 (Para 13)  
Fill-rates vary significantly from one quota to another and have been particularly low for cotton 
and high for some dairy and sugar products. 
Questions: 
135.  Please explain why the fill-rate of cotton is particularly low. What measures will be taken for 
improvement? If the current import tariff quota for cotton cannot be filled, is there any plan 
to lift the import limit on cotton? 
RESPONSE: U.S. imports of cotton were low in 2010 and only slightly increased in 2011. 
Additionally, demand for cotton imports is low. U.S. consumption is falling as the U.S. textile 
industry shrinks and as textile production moves to other countries. Other than country-specific 
quotas, no special administrative procedures are required for cotton imports under the WTO TRQ. 
Page 103 (Para 14)  
However, the price-based safeguard has been applied more frequently…. in many cases the SSG is 
applied to small quantities such as 4 kg of fresh cheddar cheese or 3 kg of chocolate bars. 
Questions: 
136.  Please explain why price-based safeguard is used more often than volume-based one? 
RESPONSE: The United States automatically applies price-based special safeguards (SSGs) on all 
products that were subject tariffication in the Uruguay Round. The safeguard rates and trigger prices are published in the tariff schedule of the Unit ed States, so that there is transparency as to WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 122 - 
 
  when the safeguard duty will be applied. The safeguard is applied in this manner for ease of 
administration and is fully consistent with the provisions of Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which does not include an injury test. The quantity-based SSG is not automatically applied and requires a decision by the US Government to apply when the trigger is met. 
137.  Please explain in detail why SSG is frequently us ed for small import quantities? Does it mean 
that the current SSG is not well designed? What measures will be taken for improvement? 
RESPONSE: The United States automatically applies price-based special safeguards (SSGs) on all 
products that were subject tariffication in the Uruguay Round. The safeguard rates and trigger 
prices are published in the tariff schedule of the Unit ed States, so that there is transparency as to 
when the safeguard duty will be applied. The safeguard is applied in this manner for ease of administration and is fully consistent with the provisions of Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture, which does not include an injury test. The quantity-based SSG is not automatically 
applied and requires a decision by the US Government to apply when the trigger is met. 
Page 103 (Para 16)  
For the year ending 30 September 2011, the Export Credit Guarantee Program registered 
guarantees stood at US$4.1 billion, mostly for exports of wheat, maize, soybeans and soybean 
products, and cotton. 
Questions: 
138.  What is the increase range in terms of value for export competition measures including the 
Export Credit Guarantee Program in recent years? How will the US gradually reduce the 
export subsidy elements in all these measures? 
RESPONSE:  Program utilization by commodity and region is available at the USDA FAS website: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/exc redits/Monthly/ecg.html . 
139.  Please explain the rules in terms of repayment pe riod and funding channels of existing export 
credit programs. Do they comply with the modalities of the Doha Round agricultural 
negotiations? 
RESPONSE: The authorizing statute allows for guarantees on credit terms for up to 3 years. By 
policy the maximum credit term has been reduced from 3 years to 2 years maximum down to 1 
year maximum based on the risk of the country. 
The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations  are not complete. Therefore, discussion of 
possible DDA commitments would be premature at this point. The United States is complying and 
will continue to comply with its commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  
Page 104 (Para 19)  
Under the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEI P) the CCC may provide subsidies (bonuses) for 
exports of some dairy products… the budgetary outlay for export subsidies under the DEIP in the 
year ending 30 June 2010 was US$2.1 million for 15,607 tonnes of butter and butteroil and 
US$0.2 million for 1,691 tonnes of cheese. 
Questions: 
140.  The US has committed to remove all export subsidies in agriculture in the Doha Round 
negotiations. In view of that, please provide explanations on the resumption and continuous 
use of export subsidy for dairy products. How does the US assess the implementation of the 
policy and its impact on agricultural negotiations in the Doha Round? 
RESPONSE: The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) nego tiations are not complete. Therefore, 
discussion of possible DDA commitments would be pr emature at this point. In the interim, the 
continued operation of export subsidies for U.S. dairy products remains consistent with US WTO 
commitments. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 123 - 
 
  Page 104 (Para 20) 
About two thirds of aid is for emergencies, a bi t less than one third for project aid… Since 2006, 
the structure of aid has changed noticeably as dire ct transfers have declined while local purchases 
and triangular purchases have increased. 
Questions: 
141.  What is the percentage of cash assistance in the non- emergency food aid? Please explain 
how the US will raise the proportion of cash assistance so as to minimize the aid in kind? 
RESPONSE: The US Government notes that the WTO's repo rt (Table IV.4) appears to be incorrect. 
The US Government extracted similar informatio n from the WFP's Food Aid Information System, 
and the tonnages in the WTO report do not match the WFP's data. 
Based on the US Government's data for 2010, about one per cent of the non-emergency food aid 
was provided through local and regional procurements. Additionally, the United States has used 
cash resources to improve food security. The United States has increased its bilateral and multilateral investments in food security since the L'Aquila Summit, where the United States 
committed to "act with the scale and urgency needed  to achieve sustainable global food security." 
Feed the Future, the US Government's global hunger and food security initiative, is establishing a 
foundation for lasting progress against global hunger. With a focus on smallholder farmers, 
particularly women, Feed the Future supports partner countries in developing their agriculture 
sectors to spur economic growth that increases incomes and reduces hunger, poverty, and undernutrition. Feed the Future is part of the U.S. contribution to broader G-8 and G-20 commitments to increase investment in agriculture and strengthen global food security. For more 
information on this Presidential Initiative visit http://feedthefuture.gov . 
142.  Please explain in detail the sources of direct tr ansfer, local purchase and triangular purchase 
of the donating food. 
RESPONSE:  Based on the US Government's data, food was purchased from U.S. suppliers, as well 
as suppliers in Central America,  Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia. 
143.  The modalities in the Doha Round agriculture negotiations contain strict rules on food aid, 
especially non-emergency food aid. Please expl ain whether the food aid practices in the US 
can meet the rules. 
RESPONSE: The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) nego tiations are not complete. Therefore, 
discussion of possible DDA commitments would be premature at this point. 
Page 105 (Para 22) 
Outlays for SNAP and other domestic food-aid prog rammes have been increasing steadily over the 
past few years, rising from US$45.9 billion in FY 2004 to US$94.9 billion in FY 2010. Most of these 
funds go towards providing vouchers for purchases of  food in retail outlets (including imported as 
well as domestic products) by people and families with low incomes. 
Questions: 
144.  What is the definition of "people and families with low incomes"? 
RESPONSE: Income eligibility standards for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are 
set by law. Gross monthly income eligibility limits are set at 130 per cent of the poverty level for the household size. Net monthly income limits are set at 100 per cent of the poverty level. 
Page 105 (Para 23) 
Payments are not linked to production or prices, except for some limits to planting fruits, 
vegetables, and wild rice, although a pilot project has been developed to allow planting of selected 
vegetables for processing in seven States for the 2009-12 crop years. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 124 - 
 
  Questions: 
145.  Please explain why fruits, vegetables and wild rice are exceptions? 
RESPONSE: These restrictions have been a long-standing feature of U.S. policy and have been in 
place since the 1990 Farm Bill. 
146.  Please explain the details of the pilot project for 2009-2012 crop years. Please provide proof 
that this is in line with the WTO rules on direct payment. 
RESPONSE: The Planting Transferability Pilot Program (PTPP) was introduced under the 2008 
Farm Act. Under the program, crop producers in seven Upper Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) may plant select vegetables for processing with an acre-for-acre loss in the Direct and Countercy clical Program (DCP), rather than the market 
value loss under regular fruit, vegetable, and wild rice (FAV) planting restrictions. Eligible PTPP 
acreage is capped at specific levels for each participating state, but the overall total cannot exceed 
75,000 annually. Based on data from the 2009-2010  period, the average number of acres planted 
under the program equaled 13,075 annually, abou t 17 per cent of total allowable acres. This 
program is part of the regulations to implement the Direct Payments program, which has been 
notified under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Page 105 (Para 24) 
Farmers with base acres for peanuts and upland cotton have been the most consistent recipients 
of counter-cyclical payments… 
Questions: 
147.  What are the amounts of counter-cyclical payments for upland cotton and peanut producers 
respectively in recent years? What are the impacts of the payments on the production and 
price of these two products? 
RESPONSE: Countercyclical payments are reported as non-product specific amber box because 
payments are based on fixed historical area and yields, not current production. Countercyclical 
payments do not require production of any specific crop, or any production at all, for a recipient to 
receive a payment. Therefore payments on historic al base acres of upland cotton and peanuts do 
not necessarily go to current producers of those commodities, and the United States is unable to 
provide data on payments to producers of a specif ic commodity. The United States refers China to 
its recent domestic support notifications to the Committee on Agriculture for total outlays. 
148.  Counter-cyclical payment is correlated to the price of a single product. Does it fall under the 
yellow box for specific products? Please explain in which category the US put it in its recent 
notification to the WTO. Please also provide justification. 
RESPONSE:  Please see the answer to the previous question. 
Page 106 (Para 27) 
The ACRE programme remains in operation as an alternative to counter-cyclical payments for 
producers of cereals, oilseeds, upland cotton, peanuts, and some pulse crops. 
Questions: 
149.  ACRE subsidy is calculated on the basis of stat e or farm-level revenues, and is related to the 
prices and output of related products. Does it  fall under the yellow box for specific products? 
RESPONSE: The United States notifies ACRE program payments as product-specific amber box 
payments. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 125 - 
 
  150.  The Doha Round calls for slash of trade-distorting domestic support. However, ACRE was 
implemented after the 2008 Agricultural Act came into effect. Is this a setback in the course of trade liberalization? 
RESPONSE: The ACRE program was implemented as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. The program was 
designed as an alternative to the countercyclical payments program. A producer who elects the 
ACRE program is not eligible for countercyclical payments and must also take a reduction in direct payments and a reduction in the loan rate under the marketing assistance loan program. 
Payments under the program have been small, and the United States remains well within its 
commitments on amber box support. 
Page 107 (Para 28) 
Insurance coverage is available for over 100 different crops under a wide variety of insurance 
policies covering production, price and/or reve nue risks, under the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program. Insurance coverage is provided by the pr ivate sector at subsidized rates under terms set 
by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and administered by the USDA Risk Management 
Agency (RMA). Most of the policies available from the RMA are for crops, although livestock 
policies are available for cattle, pigs, lambs, an d milk to insure against declining prices or 
differences between sale price and feed costs, an d policies are available for forage, grazing, and 
rangelands. The subsidies provided by USDA are on  producer premiums paid to private insurance 
companies for providing the insurance policies, as well as on a portion of the companies' operating costs and underwriting losses. The premium subsidy to producer s was US$4.7 billion in CY 2010 
and is expected to be about US$7.2 billion for CY 2011. The value of crops protected by insurance 
also increased, from US$67 billion in 2007 to $114 billion in 2011, representing about 80% of area 
planted to principal crops. 
Questions: 
151.  Which types of agriculture insurances enjoy US government subsidies? How are the insurance 
types determined to be eligible for the subsidies? How is the proportion for subsidy determined for each type of the insurance? 
RESPONSE: The amount of subsidy available for a given insurance plan or policy is generally 
specified within the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act), with the exception of livestock insurance policies in which case the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board of Directors has latitude within certain constraints of the Act to establish. The amount of subsidy for each insurance 
plan may be found on the RMA website using the Actuarial Information Browser tool at the 
following URL: http://webapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/actuarialinformationbrowser/ . 
152.  How did the United States decide agricultural insurance rates and terms? What is the role of 
the government in it? Is the rate of subsidized insurance pure risk rate (excluding operating 
costs)? Does it comply with the principle of principal guaranteed with meagre profit? 
RESPONSE: The Federal Crop Insurance Act requires the RMA to set premium rates in a manner 
to cover expected losses and a reasonable reserve. RMA periodically reviews and publishes 
premium rates annually for the administration of the federal crop insurance program. The companies are paid an administrative and operating subsidy separately under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) as compensation fo r administering the policy. In addition, any 
"profits" from the sharing of risk is also provided within the terms of the SRA. 
153.  In regard to reinsurance and risk diversification of major natural disasters, how does the US 
government respond to risks caused by major natural disasters to agricultural production and 
agricultural insurance? Does the government suppo rt risk diversification of major agricultural 
disasters through reinsurance or directly sharing agricultural insurance liabilities? 
RESPONSE: The primary safety net for agricultural production disasters is the federal crop 
insurance program. The program is delivered by private insurance companies through a Standard 
Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) between the companies and the government (FCIC). The terms of reinsurance are specified in the SRA which can be found on the RMA website at http://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/ra/ . For crops not insured, the government does provide WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 126 - 
 
  additional assistance through the Non-Insured Crop  Assistance Program administered by the Farm 
Service Agency. 
Page 107-108 (Para 30-31) 
The program supports U.S. sugar prices above comp arable levels in the world market…. Federal 
milk marketing orders (FMMOs) set minimum prices that processors or manufacturers are required 
to pay for fluid milk in the ten regions covered by the system. 
Questions: 
154.  The US maintains high tariff and high subsidy policies for dairy products and sugar. Please 
explain the impact of these policies on the prices of dairy products and sugar.  
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes the market price support component of its dairy and 
sugar policies, which are compliant with our WTO and other international trade commitments. For 
more information on U.S. domestic price support for sugar and dairy, including the applied 
administered prices, please see the US Domestic Support notifications to the WTO Committee on Agriculture, most recently G/AG/N/USA/89. 
Page 121 (Para 68) 
At end-March 2012, foreign banks from 57 countries and territories had offices in the 
United States.… 
Questions: 
155.  What is the US regulatory authorities' attitu de towards mergers and acquisitions and other 
financial operations by Chinese financial institutions in the United States? 
156.  Comprehensive Consolidated Supervision (CCS) is  required for each Chinese bank at every 
time when it applies to set up a branch in the United States, and the approval process is 
complex and time-consuming. Why does the US authority not re-use the results of the CCS 
assessment already conducted to simplify proced ures and speed up the approval process? 
RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 155 & 156: Under the Bank Holding Company Act, the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System ('Board") must find comprehensive consolidated supervision ("CCS") when approving a merger or acquisition involving a foreign bank. See 12 
U.S.C. § 1842(c)(3)(B). The Board found CCS for Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited 
on May 9, 2012. See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509a.pdf .  
Under the Board's Regulation Y, the Board determines whether a foreign bank is subject to 
consolidated home country supervision under the standards set forth in the Board's Regulation 
K. See 12 CFR 225.13(a)(4). Regulation K provides that a foreign bank is subject to consolidated home country supervision if the foreign bank is supervised or regulated in such a manner that its 
home country supervisor receives sufficient information on the worldwide operations of the foreign 
bank (including the relationships of the bank to any affiliate) to assess the foreign bank's overall 
financial condition and compliance with law and regulation. 12 CFR 211.24(c)(1)(ii). In assessing 
this standard under section 211.24 of Regulation K, the Board considers, among other indicia of 
comprehensive, consolidated supervision, the extent to which the home country supervisors: (i) ensure that the bank has adequate procedures for monitoring and controlling its activities worldwide; (ii) obtain information on the condition of the bank and its subsidiaries and offices 
through regular examination reports, audit reports, or otherwise; (iii) obtain information on the 
dealings with and relationship between the bank and its affiliates, both foreign and domestic; (iv) receive from the bank financial reports that are consolidated on a worldwide basis or comparable 
information that permits analysis of the bank's financial condition on a worldwide consolidated 
basis; (v) evaluate prudential standards, such as  capital adequacy and risk asset exposure, on a 
worldwide basis. No single factor is determinative, and other elements may inform the Board's 
determination. Under U.S. law, the Board's CCS determination is specific to the particular banking 
organization applying to acquire a U.S. bank.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 127 - 
 
  157.  The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) unilaterally requires non-US financial 
institutions including Chinese banks to sign an agreement with the US government to fulfil the disclosure of information, to withhold taxes and fulfil other obligations in respect of the "US account". Otherwise the related income directly generated in the United States of the 
bank is subject to a 30% withholding tax. For this purpose, the information system 
renovation alone will have Chinese banks to pay a very high cost. Does the United States intend to consider a more reasonable way to ac hieve the policy purposes behind this Act? Can 
it exempt Chinese banks from the withholding tax obligation? 
RESPONSE: The Administration is committed to continued cooperation with other governments in 
addressing offshore tax evasion, and the Treasury Department is engaged in a dialogue with interested foreign governments regarding the implementation of FATCA. The proposed regulations 
released in February reflect consideration of the comments received and reduce compliance 
burdens in a manner consistent with the goal of addressing the misuse of foreign accounts in order to evade U.S. taxation. Treasury and the IRS will continue to work closely with businesses and 
foreign governments to implement FATCA in a manner that reasonably balances the administrative 
burdens with the compliance goals. A blanket exemption for Chinese banks from obligations under FATCA, however, would be inconsistent with the purposes of the statute.  
158.  Please provide the number of the US banks with a foreign stake, the stake amount and equity 
ratio, and also the situation of foreign-owned banks and foreign bank branches in the United States; especially the situation since 2010. 
RESPONSE: Foreign owned or controlled banking institutions operating in the United States are 
listed in detail at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/iba/201209/bytype.htm . 
159.  Could the United States provide a comprehens ive summary of the access and regulatory 
requirements on foreign equity participation in the US banks? How is the implementation 
status of these access and regulatory requirements? 
RESPONSE: Under the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq .), any company, 
including a foreign bank, that seeks to acquire a controlling interest in a U.S. bank must receive 
the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. A controlling interest exists if the company seeks 
to acquire 25 per cent or more of any class of voting securities of the bank or seeks to control a majority of the board of director s of the bank. In addition, the Fe deral Reserve's approval must be 
received before a company exercises a controlling influence over the bank. Whether a "controlling 
influence" exists is subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. See the Board's Policy 
Statement of September 22, 2008. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/bcreg/bc reg2008092 2b1.pdf . 
In addition, the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) generally requires any person 
(including a natural person or a company) that seeks to acquire a noncontrolling interest of between 10 per cent and 24.9 per cent of the voting  shares of a bank or bank holding company to 
file prior notice with the appropriate federal ba nking agencies before making such acquisition. 
Similar rules apply to the acquisition of interests in a savings association or a savings and loan 
holding company. 
The following is an indicative list of the changes to the worldwide organizational structure of bank 
holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan hold ing companies (SLHCs), member banks, Edge 
and agreement corporations, and to the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations (FBOs) that need to be reported to the Federal Reserve Board: 
 information about the Reporter itself; 
 acquisition of interests in BHCs, SLHCs, FBOs, banks organized under U.S. law and savings 
associations; 
 acquisition of interests in nonbanking companies that are owned by BHCs, SLHCs, and 
non-qualifying FBOs, and nonbanking companies conducting business in the United States that are owned by qualifying FBOs; WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 128 - 
 
   transfer, sale, or liquidation of such interests; 
 merger of companies; 
 internal reorganization; 
 commencement of new activities; 
 certain merchant banking or insurance company investments establishment in the 
United States of branches, agencies, and representative offices of FBOs and activities through managed non-U.S. branches; 
 opening, closing, or relocation of foreign branches of member banks, BHCs, or Edge or 
agreement corporations and of their foreign subsidiaries; and 
 opening, acquisition, sale, closing or relocation of domestic branches of U.S. subsidiary 
depository institutions of top-tier BHCs or SLHCs, of unaffiliated state member banks, and of 
Edge and agreement corporations. 
See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/rep ortforms/slhc/FR Y10_201212_i.pdf .  
160.  Please elaborate on the progress of the impl ementation of the "Basel III" by the US 
regulatory authorities, and describe the measures taken and main considerations behind 
them. 
RESPONSE:  In June 2012, the Federal Reserve, along with the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpor ation (banking agencies) issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, titled Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of 
Basel III, Minimum Regulatory Capital Ratios, Capi tal Adequacy, Transition Provisions, and Prompt 
Corrective Action , would apply to all depository institutions, bank holding companies with total 
consolidated assets of $500 million or more, and all savings and loan holding companies 
(collectively, banking organizations). Consistent with the international Basel framework, this NPR would: 
 increase the quantity and quality of capita l required by proposing a new minimum common 
equity tier 1 ratio of 4.5 per cent of risk-wei ghted assets and a common equity tier 1 capital 
conservation buffer of 2.5 per cent of risk-w eighted assets, and raising the minimum tier 1 
capital ratio from 4 per cent to 6 per cent of risk-weighted assets; 
 revise the definition of capital to improve the ability of regulatory capital instruments to 
absorb losses; 
 establish limitations on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if 
additional specified amounts, or "buffers," of common equity tier 1 capital are not met; and 
 introduce a supplementary leverage ratio for internationally active banking organizations 
based on the Basel leverage standard. 
See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/new sevents/press/bcreg/20120808a.htm . 
The banking agencies simultaneously released tw o notices of proposed rulemakings that would 
implement changes to risk-weighted assets consistent with changes to the Basel framework as well 
as the Dodd-Frank Act. 
The comment period was subsequently extended period until October 22, 2012 and the Board is 
drafting a final rule based on the comments received. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 129 - 
 
  Page 122 (Para 72 and 73) 
The Act does not introduce market access or national treatment limitations, but establishes a new 
and comprehensive regulatory framework and extend s regulation over new markets, entities, and 
activities…As of 1 June 2012, 110 of the rulemaking requirements (27.6%) have resulted in 
finalized rules; rules have been proposed, but not yet finalized for another 144 (36.2%); and rules 
have not yet been proposed for the remaining 144 (36.2%). 
Questions: 
161.  Please comment on the problems existing in  the financial regulatory system and the 
implementation results of the Act. 
RESPONSE: A comprehensive list of ongoing rulemaking under the Act can be found at: 
http://www.stlouisfed.org/regreformrules/ . 
162.  How will the the regulatory system set up acco rding to the Act affect the establishment of 
branches of foreign securities institutions in the United States, and foreign investors to invest in the US capital markets? Prior to the completi on of all supporting legislation, are there any 
transitional arrangements in place? 
163.  Please describe related conditions, regulatory requirements and approval procedures for 
foreign securities services providers' equity participation in the US asset management 
institutions or for the establishment of asset management institutions in the United States. 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 162 & 163:  The following citation references all the rules that the 
Commission has proposed or adopted in connection with the Dodd-Frank Act: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd-frank.shtm . That Act contains more than 90 provisions that 
require SEC rulemaking, and dozens of other provis ions that give the SEC discretionary rulemaking 
authority. Of the mandatory rulemaking provisio ns, the SEC has proposed or adopted rules for 
more than three-quarters. 
To date, the Commission has put in place a foundation for a framework that will support an 
entirely new regulatory regime designed to bring greater transparency and access to the 
securities-based swaps market, adopted rules that will result in increased oversight and 
transparency around hedge fund and other privat e fund advisers, gave investors a say-on-pay 
advisory vote regarding executive compensation and established a whistleblower program which offers incentives for individuals with information regarding securities law violations to come forward. The SEC also has proposed a series of ru les designed to improve the practices of credit 
rating agencies. SEC staff from the Division  of Investment Management summarized U.S. 
regulation of investment advisers in the following April 2012 report: 
http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oi a/oia_investman/rplaze-042012.pdf . 
164.  Does the Act have certain regulatory requirements on the US investors trading foreign 
futures, options and other derivatives? If yes,  please describe the regulatory requirements 
concerning income from foreign transactions. 
RESPONSE: On November 20, 2012 the Treasury issued a final determination exempting foreign 
exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards from the definition of "swap" under the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"). On October 28, 2010, the Treasury previously solicited public 
c o m m e n t  o n  a  w i d e  r a n g e  o f  i s s u e s  r e l a t i n g  to whether foreign exchange swaps and foreign 
exchange forwards should be exempt from the defi nition of the term "swap" under the CEA (75 FR 
66426). The notice of proposed determination s eeking to exempt foreign exchange swaps and 
foreign exchange forwards from the definition of  the term "swap" under the CEA was published on 
May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25774). 
The final rule in its entirety can be found at: http://www.stlouisfed.org/regreformrules/Pdfs/2012-
11-20_Treas_Final_determination_foreign_swaps_exempt.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 130 - 
 
  Page 122 (Para 74) 
Section 173 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Access to United States financial market by foreign 
institutions) introduces 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. The amended International 
Banking Act 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 United States 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 for the financial system of such home country to mitigate such risk. The new amendments also allow the Board to order the termination of the activities of U.S. offices of such foreign banks in the absence of these criteria. 
Questions: 
165.  What is the basis for the United States to judge that a foreign institution impacts the stability 
of the US financial system?  
166.  What is the legal basis and what is the procedure of the US investigations into the financial 
 regulatory system of a country of origin? What is the content of the investigation?  
167.  How to determine whether the country of origin has taken any measure to eliminate such risk 
and what measures have been taken?  
RESPONSE FOR QUESTIONS 165-167: Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in 
assessing the financial stability factor generally may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, 
FRB Order No. 2012-2 (February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . Discussion of the 
financial stability criteria specific to an application by a foreign bank to establish a U.S. office may 
be found at Bank of China Limited, FRB Order No. 2012-6 (May 9, 2012), at page 16; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509c.pdf . 
Page 124 (Para 82) 
According to Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, in vestments made "for the trading account" of a 
covered banking entity would be deemed propriet ary trading and therefore prohibited. However, 
there are exemptions. 
Questions: 
168.  The Volcker rule still has some impact on the proprietary trading of foreign banks with a 
branch in the United States. Please describe the implementation status of the rule. 
RESPONSE: The OCC, Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC (the Agencies) proposed rules to implement 
section 619 of the Dodd Frank Act, known as th e Volcker Rule. The comment periods on the 
proposed rules have closed, and the Agencies are currently analyzing the comments that were 
submitted, including comments regarding the application of the rule to non-U.S. banking entities, and are working to develop a final rule. See: 
http://www.stlouisfed.org/regrefo rmrules/Pdfs/2011-11- 7_OCC-FRS-FDIC-SEC_P rohibitions_restri
ctions_on_proprietary_trading.pdf . 
Page 126 (Para 90) 
Under Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC may determine that a U.S. or a foreign 
non-bank financial company 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. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 131 - 
 
  Questions: 
169.  How does the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System regulate foreign non-banking 
financial companies that may threaten the financial stability of the United States?  
RESPONSE: Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in assessing the financial 
stability factor generally may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, FRB Order No. 2012-2 
(February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . Discussion of the 
financial stability criteria specific to an application by a foreign bank to establish a U.S. office may 
be found at Bank of China Limited, FRB Order No. 2012-6 (May 9, 2012), at page 16; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509c.pdf . 
Page 127 (Para 95) 
Section 722(d) provides that the CFTC's jurisdiction will apply to activities outside the 
United States if those activities have "a direct an d significant connection with activities in, or effect 
on, commerce of the United States". 
Questions:  
170.  Please describe the CFTC's criteria to determine whether an activity has "a direct and 
significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States". 
171.  How does the CFTC regulate foreign swaps or securities-based swaps activities that have "a 
direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States"? 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 170 & 171: Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, amending § 2(i) 
of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"), provides that swaps provisions of the CEA shall apply to 
activities outside the United States that have a "direct and significant" connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce in the United States or when they contravene CFTC rulemaking. 
Proposed Guidance: 
The CFTC has issued Proposed Interpretive Guidance , setting forth its interpretation of section 2(i) 
of the CEA as applicable to Title VII's swap prov isions to activities outside the United States 
(http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfede ralregister/documents/file/2012-16496a.pdf ). 
Under the Proposed Guidance, the issue of whether swap activities outside the United States have 
the requisite "direct and significant" connection with activities in, or effect on, U.S. commerce within the meaning of CEA § 2(i) depends on the nature of the counterparties involved in those 
swap activities. Consequently, the CFTC proposed a definition of the term "U.S. person," which 
encompasses persons located within the United States and those located outside the United States but whose swap activities, nonetheless, have a "d irect and significant" effect, or connection with, 
the United States within the meaning of CEA sect ion 2(i). Therefore, the "U.S. person" definition 
helps to identify transactions or activities that - individually or in the aggregate - satisfies the jurisdictional nexus of CEA § 2(i). 
Assuming that such nexus is satisfied, in conj unction with the satisfaction of the relevant 
definitional tests promulgated by the CFTC under its joint rulemaking with the SEC, firms are required to register with the CFTC as either swap dealers ("SDs") or major swap participants 
("MSPs"). Under the Proposed Guidance, SDs and MSPs, once registered, are required to comply 
with all of the requirements applicable to SDs an d MSPs for all of their swaps transactions. Such 
requirements are categorized as: (i) Entity-L evel Requirements: capital adequacy, chief 
compliance officer, risk management, swap data re cordkeeping, swap data reporting, and physical 
commodity swaps reporting; and (ii) Transact ion-Level Requirements: clearing and swap 
processing, margining and segregation for uncle ared swaps, trade execution, swap trading 
relationship documentation, portfolio reconciliation and compression, real-time public reporting, 
trade confirmation; daily trading records, and external business conduct standards. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 132 - 
 
  Proposed Exemptive Order: 
Separately, the CFTC has issued a Proposed Exempt ive Order pursuant to section 4(c) of the CEA 
(http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfederalr egister/documents/file /2012-16498a.pdf). The 
Proposed Exemptive Order would permit non-US SDs and non-US MSPs to delay compliance with 
certain Entity-Level Requirements of the Dodd-Fr ank Act and the CFTC's regulations, subject to 
certain conditions. 
With respect to relief under the Proposed Exem ptive Order, non-U.S. registrants would be 
permitted to delay compliance with most of the Entity-Level Requirements until July 2013, 
provided that they: file an application with the Na tional Futures Association ("NFA") to register as 
a SD/MSP and, within 60 days of filing a registra tion application, file with the NFA a compliance 
plan detailing good faith adherence with the applicable Entity-Level and Transaction-Level 
Requirements under the CEA. 
This issue is a subject of a joint final rule and guidance for further defining the terms "swap," 
"security-based swap," and "security-based swap agreement", regulation of "mixed swaps" and 
security-based swap agreement recordkeeping. See: 
http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/F ederalRegister/FinalRules/2012-18003 . 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
Page 6 (Para 9) 
Like the predecessor 2004 model BIT, the 2012 model BIT continues to provide strong investor 
protections while preserving the government's ability to regulate in the public interest. Finalizing the updated model BIT has enabled the United States to advance its ongoing BIT negotiations with 
partners such as China, India, and Mauritius, and to consider launching additional BIT negotiations 
with other potential partners. 
Questions: 
172.  What are the major changes to the 2012 model BIT if compared to its predecessors? 
RESPONSE: The 2012 Model BIT maintains language from its immediate predecessor, the 2004 
Model BIT, in particular that text's carefully ca librated balance between providing strong investor 
protections and preserving the government's ability to regulate in the public interest. The 
Administration did however make targeted changes to the 2004 text to advance three policy objectives: (1) enhancing transparency and public participation; (2) strengthening protection of labor and the environment; and (3) enhancing discip lines to address challenges posed by State-led 
economies. Information about specific revisions made to the Model with respect to each of these 
objectives is available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm . 
173.  How does the United States look at the identity  of the three major operators of China Mobile, 
China Telecom and China Unicom? Has the US government set special negotiation principles 
and policies for state-owned enterprises or state-controlled enterprises in BIT negotiations? 
RESPONSE: The United States has a longstanding policy of welcoming foreign investment and 
provides foreign investors non-discriminatory treatment both as a matter of law and policy. 
The US Model BIT contains a number of tools to address the challenges posed by State-led 
economies. Revisions to the Model BIT in 2012 sought to enhance these tools through new provisions that: (1) discipline the imposition of domestic technology requirements; (2) ensure 
opportunity for participation in standards-setting; and (3) clarify the application of BIT obligations 
to state-owned enterprises and other entities exercising delegated government authority. 
Additional information about these and other revisions in the 2012 Model BIT text can be found at: 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 133 - 
 
  Page 9 (Para 20) 
The United States is firmly committed to putting federal finances on a sustainable trajectory. The 
Budget Control Act, passed in August 2011, was a significant first step in this direction, committing the United States to US$2.1 trillion in defi cit reduction over the next 10 years. The 
Administration's FY2013 Budget proposal would re duce the deficit by an additional US$2.8 trillion 
over the next decade, cutting the deficit in half as a share of the economy and putting the debt on 
a declining path by the middle of the decade. By FY2018, the budget deficit would be less than 3% 
of GDP, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be on a declining path, and the primary deficit would be 
eliminated, so that spending is no longer adding to the national debt. 
Questions: 
174.  The United States has adopted a series of measures to reduce government debt. While this is 
conducive to the long-term development of the economy, in the short term it may bring fiscal 
tightening effect, result in fluctuations in the economy and affect the economic recovery process. How Will the US government balance reducing the debt ratio in the long term and 
maintaining stable economic growth in the short term? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is firmly committed to putting Federal finances on a sustainable 
trajectory. The Obama Administration is committed to a deficit reduction plan that would support 
the recovery in the near term, while restoring fiscal sustainability including reducing the debt to GDP ratio through a balanced approach to medium term deficit reduction. 
Page 20 (Para 84) 
During their November 2011 Summit meeting, President Obama and EU leaders established a High 
Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG) and charged it with identifying and assessing 
options for generating new transatlantic trade and investment that would support job creation and 
growth. The U.S. government and the European Commission are working internally, with domestic 
stakeholders, with legislators, and with each other to assess potential challenges for a negotiation, with the aim of developing final recommendations  by the end of the year for generating new 
transatlantic trade and investment in support of increased exports and jobs. 
Questions: 
175.  Could the United States provide more information on the above-mentioned HLWG? 
RESPONSE: The HLWG is continuing its work to identify potential ways forward for the U.S.-EU 
trade relationship. The Working Group needs to do ad ditional work on several issues before it will 
be ready to issue final recommendations. The date on which the Working Group will issue its final report is still under consideration. 
Page 25 (Para 112) 
In August 2011, the United States and Israel finalized a work plan that addresses the remaining 
barriers to bilateral trade, including in the areas of agriculture and services. As initial steps under 
the work plan, the two sides agreed to pursue ne gotiations towards implementation of a Mutual 
Recognition Agreement for assessing conformity in telecommunications equipment and to facilitate trade by reviewing existing customs procedures an d regulations. The two sides also made progress 
on a number of market access issues related to standards, customs classification, and technical 
regulations. 
Questions: 
176.  Please briefly describe the contents of the bilateral Mutual Recognition Agreement reached 
with Israel concerning telecommunications equipment. Are there any provisions of 
reservations? 
RESPONSE: The U.S.-Israel MRA has not yet entered into force. Once both parties take the steps 
necessary for the agreement to enter into force, th e United States will notify the WTO consistent WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 134 - 
 
  with its WTO obligations. More information including a copy of the text of the agreement can be 
found at the following website: http://gsi.nist.gov/global/index.cfm/L1-7/L2-35/A-665 . 
Page 34 (Para 158) 
A testament to the WTO's important negotiating role is the landmark 2011 agreement to revise the 
text of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and expand the procurement that it covers, 
which was successfully concluded last year. 
Questions: 
177.  In regard to government procurement entities, we noted that in addition to projects of 
central government departments, sub-central government entities (states) and other entities (government holding companies), telecomm unications projects initiated by rural 
infrastructure services departments are also covered by the GPA. Please explain the reason 
and relevant considerations.  
RESPONSE:  The coverage that the United States offere d in the revision of the GPA was based on 
negotiations with other GPA Parties. 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
As early as in 2004, China and the United States began negotiations on the recognition of China's 
market economy status. In the past 8 years, although the United States has repeatedly pledged to 
resolve this issue as soon as possible, it failed to take concrete actions. 
Questions: 
178.  Why does the US delay its recognition of China's market economy status? What is the US 
plan in respect of "recognizing China's market economy status as soon as possible"? 
RESPONSE:  China's status as a non-market economy can only be reevaluated by Commerce in 
the context of an antidumping proceeding and in accordance with the relevant statutory 
guidelines, based upon a formal request made or supported by the Government of China. 
Commerce has not received such a request since 2006. In 2006, Commerce determined that, 
despite many positive economic reforms, China remained a non-market economy for purposes of the U.S. antidumping law. Commerce determined that there were significant areas of China's 
economy where fundamental reforms were incomplete and that deeply rooted problems remained, 
for example, with respect to property rights, the ru le of law, and the government's role in resource 
allocations. 
A review of China's non-market economy country status, as in the case of all such reviews, would 
involve a comprehensive, fact-based analysis of publicly available, expert, third-party sources 
concerning all aspects of China's economy and ongoing economic, legal, and institutional reforms. The public and all interested parties would have  a n  o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  c o m m e n t  o n  a n y  a s p e c t  o f  
China's economy or ongoing reforms; they would have full access to all information on which 
Commerce based its determination, and Commerce would hold a public hearing, if requested, to provide the public and interested parties an opportunity to raise any matter of concern with the 
decision-maker.  
Chinese export of poultry to the US In September 2010, WTO ruled that China won the case of United States — Certain Measures 
Affecting Imports of Poultry from China. However, the US has not yet taken any substantial 
measure for improvement. According to OIE standards, China's cooked poultry and raw poultry 
produced in epidemic-free areas are safe. Therefore, the US shall immediately resume import of cooked poultry from China and lift the ban on im portation of chilled poultry from epidemic-free 
areas in China in accordance with the WTO ruling and OIE standards. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 135 - 
 
  Questions: 
179.  Please explain in detail the timetable of the US to resume import of cooked poultry and to lift 
the ban on importation of chilled poultry from epidemic-free areas in China. 
RESPONSE:  For cooked poultry (poultry slaughtered in  a country already deemed equivalent by 
the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and then processed in China), FSIS will permit 
China to list establishments and export processed poultry products produced from eligible sources to the United States under the existing rule after FSIS completes an on-site audit of China's 
facilities and issues a final report that does not identify any serious issues of concern. FSIS has 
proposed sending a team to China at the end of January 2013 to conduct the audit. 
For fresh/frozen or raw poultry of Chinese origin, FSIS will be able to move forward with the 
rulemaking phase to add China to the list of count ries eligible to export Chinese–origin poultry to 
the United States after successful completion of th e FSIS audit of the slaughter inspection system 
and completion of a final report. 
China must also fulfill the necessary poultry disease-related criteria in order to export fresh/frozen 
or raw poultry meat and meat products to the United States. The poultry disease regionalization 
evaluation process and subsequent rulemaking must be completed before fresh/frozen or raw poultry products from specific zones in China can be exported to the United States, regardless of 
FSIS's equivalence determination. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
recently completed an on-site evaluation of China's poultry disease regionalization request for a part of Shandong province. An initial report of the findings of the on-site evaluation is expected in early 2013. 
Chinese export of aquatic products to the US 
In 2007, China and the US agreed on the principl e of "lifting ban on pilot basis followed by 
complete ban-lifting" to address the US automati c detain of 4 types of aquatic products from 
China. With joint efforts, 14 Chinese enterprise s have been freed from the automatic detain. 
Questions: 
180.  Could the US please explain in detail the timetable for further steps to lift the ban till the final 
elimination of the measure? 
Import Alert 16-131 Detention Without Physical Examination of Aquacultured Catfish, Basa, 
Shrimp, Dace, and Eel from China- Presence of New Animal Drugs and/or Unsafe Food Additives can be found at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_33.html . 
On June 28, 2007, FDA imposed a countrywide import restriction on all farm-raised catfish, basa, 
shrimp, dace (related to carp), and eel from Ch ina (Import Alert 16-131). FDA is concerned about 
long-term exposure as well as the possible development of antibiotic resistance. FDA is detaining 
these products at the border until the shipments are proven to be free of residues from drugs that 
are not approved in the United States for use in farm-raised aquatic animals. The import restrictions are intended to last as long as needed. In July 2008, FDA auditors conducted an 
on-site review of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine's 
(AQSIQ) inspection system of processors of aquacultured products currently under the FDA import restriction. Thirteen establishments were evaluated during the course of the audits to determine if the firms demonstrated an ability to consistently  produce a compliant product with respect to the 
control of aquaculture drugs, whether a suitable traceback system was in place, and whether 
significant violations in areas other than the control of aquaculture drugs existed. As a result of the comprehensive review, the firms audited were exempted from the FDA import restrictions. 
Meanwhile, other Chinese processors of aquaculture products listed on the Import Alert 16-131 are 
still under the FDA import restrictions, as they have to provide evidences (i.e., testing for residues of an unapproved animal drug) that their products offered or intended for the U.S. market comply 
with FDA requirements. 
Although the FDA was able to exempt those thir teen establishments after the audit, the FDA 
auditors concluded that Chinese inspectors failed to follow the proper inspection procedures and WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 136 - 
 
  regulatory policies pertaining to potential seafood hazards, particularly unapproved animal drug 
hazards in seafood products of aquaculture origin. FDA is committed to working together with its Chinese partners on the issues raised during the on-site review in a cooperative and constructive manner through training and technical assistance. 
FDA continues to work with AQSIQ to address residue issues in aquacultured seafood from China. 
In September 2011, FDA and AQSIQ held a joint workshop in China on aquaculture food safety and prevention techniques targeted at AQSIQ regu lators and the seafood industry. A team of FDA 
aquaculture experts returned to China (Shantou) on November 27-29, 2012 to engage AQSIQ and 
CIQ in a 2-day workshop and information exchange followed by a 1-day technical working group meeting. Both sides agreed to engage in a process of continued dialogue and information exchange to facilitate assessment of the AQSIQ system for aquaculture safety, including a recently 
implemented on-farm supervision program targeted at control of unapproved drug use in China. 
Chinese export of horticultural products to the US Since 1990s, Chinese export of horticultural products to the US has always encountered 
quarantine barriers. China has followed the US  requirements to provide documentation for 
quarantine analysis, but the progress is still protracted on the US side. 
Questions: 
181.  Could the US please explain in detail the timetable for completing the quarantine process for 
apple, pear, miniascape and phalaenopsis seedling, and also the timetable for release of the draft regulation on import of Asian pear from China? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. promulgates import requirements for foreign-origin fruits and vegetables 
and plants in media in a science-based manner in accordance with U.S. plant health regulations, 
the US Administrative Procedures Act, and internat ional obligations. Due to the inter-active nature 
of the U.S. process, and the need for cooperation from Chinese regulatory counterparts, we are 
not able to provide a timeframe for when the regula tory process will be completed. With regard to 
Chinese-origin Asian pears, the proposed rule was promulgated in December 2011 and the work 
plan was initialled by both the United States and China in September 2012. We anticipate that the 
final rule will be published and the work plan formally signed in the near future. 
The US mandatory inspection of catfish and catfish Products In March 2011, the US Food Safety and Inspecti on Service of the Department of Agriculture 
drafted the Mandatory Inspection of Catfish an d Catfish Products (G/SPS/N/USA/2171), putting 
catfish and its products under the regulation of Fe deral Meat Inspection Act. China considers that 
the US practice lacks sufficient justification, an d certain provisions of the regulation are not 
consistent with the SPS Agreement of the WTO. 
Questions: 
182.  Please explain the current status of the regula tion, and provide further explanation based on 
the comments made by China in 2011. 
RESPONSE: The USDA published a proposed rule on February 24, 2011, notified to the WTO SPS 
Committee, and secured comments until the June 24, 2011 closing date. USDA is currently reviewing the comments. When the catfish inspec tion program rules are issued in final form, 
implementation dates for key provisions will be specified and notified to the WTO SPS Committee 
as an addendum to the original notification. 
The US residual tolerance standard on freshwater fish In 2011, the US set a residual tolerance of bisp yribac-sodium (0.01ppm) on skin and inside of 
freshwater fish. It is learnt that the US EPA set the tolerance of bispyribac-sodium at 0.02 mg/kg 
for kernel, straw and processed products, and the residual tolerance for ruminant and poultry is not determined yet. CAC also has no residual tolerance standard of bispyribac-sodium for fishery 
products. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 137 - 
 
  Questions: 
183.  China considers that the residual tolerance of bispyribac-sodium on freshwater fish is not fully 
justified, and calls for the US to lift such a lim it. If the US insists on the tolerance standard, 
please provide further risk assessment information including deposition, depletion and 
residual level of bispyribac-sodium on the sk in and inside of freshwater fish, and the 
exposure dose and risk level of human intake through food chain. 
RESPONSE: On February 2, 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a tolerance 
for bispyribac-sodium on fresh water fish at 001 parts per million (ppm). The associated final rule 
and a copy of the risk assessment can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/f dsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-
02/html/2011-2266.htm . As background, the EPA received a pesticide petition by Valent U.S.A 
Corporation requesting to establish tolerances for residues of the herbicide bispyribac-sodium, 
sodium, 2,6-bis[(4,6-dimethoxy-pyrimidin-2-yl)oxy]b enzoate, in or on fish, freshwater at 0.01 
ppm. This petition was notified in the Federal Register  of January 6, 2010 and provided 60 days for 
public comment. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Prior to 
establishing this tolerance, there were no legal tolerances for bispyribac-sodium on freshwater fish 
in the United States. Currently, there are no tolerances (maximum residue limits) established for bispyribac-sodium by the Codex Alimentarius. 
The Amended Lacey Act 
The amended Lacey Act adopted in 2008 gives huge pressure on importers and exporters of wood 
and wood products and wood-processing companies an d has heavy impact on global trade in forest 
products. 
Questions: 
184.  China hopes that the US reduces the cove rage of the Act and works out detailed 
implementation measures. Please explain whether such measures have been taken by the 
US. 
RESPONSE:  The United States considers the Lacey Act to be an important tool in U.S. efforts to 
combat illegal logging and associated trade. We understand that China and many other WTO 
Members share the objective of combating illegal trafficking in wildlife and plants, including the 
specific objective of combating illegal logging and associated trade. The United States is continuing to work to implement the requirements of the La cey Act in a careful, measured manner. To date, 
the United States has taken several administrative actions to implement the Act. Detailed 
information on these actions is available on th e website of the United States Department of 
Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): http://www.aphis.usda.gov/p lant_health/lacey_act/ . APHIS is also considering issuing 
implementing regulations. APHIS published an Ad v a n c e  N o t i c e  o f  P r o p o s e d  R u l e m a k i n g  i n  t h e  
Federal Register seeking public comment on a ra nge of implementation issues. See 76 Fed. Reg. 
38330 (June 30, 2011). 
The Secretariat Report did no t mention following sectors. 
Questions: 
185.  Please describe foreign investment situation and foreign investment policies in the US 
telecommunications services market. 
RESPONSE: In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Foreign 
Participation Order  which established the framework for foreign investment in the U.S. 
telecommunications market. There is an open entry standard for foreign investment, either though 
purchase of existing U.S. telecommunications carrie rs or the establishment of a new carrier, from 
a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member country. For foreign investment from a non-WTO Member country, the FCC requires a showing that there are effective competitive opportunities for 
U.S. investment in the telecommunications market in the foreign country. Foreign investment is 
subject to review for law enforcement, national security, trade and foreign policy concerns. The WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 138 - 
 
  text of the Foreign Participation Order is available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-97-398A1.pdf . 
On October 11, 2012, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that initiates a 
review of the FCC's effective competitive opportunities (ECO) test that is applied to foreign 
investment from non-WTO Member countries in carriers providing U.S.-international service and 
licensees of submarine cables that land in th e United States. In the NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to eliminate or simplify the ECO test. The text of the NPRM is available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/D aily_Business/2012/db1011/FCC-12-125A1.pdf . 
Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  amended, governs the foreign ownership of 
spectrum licensees. Section 310(a) states that a foreign government may not directly hold a spectrum license. Sections 310(b)(1) and (2) state that foreign individuals and business entities 
may not directly hold any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route 
license. Under section 310(b)(3) a foreign entity is limited to a 20% ownership interest in any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. Pursuant to 
section 310(b)(4), a foreign entity is limited to a 25 per cent ownership interest in a U.S. 
corporation that [directly or indirectly] controls any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or en route licensee. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), however, has the 
discretion to allow foreign ownership in excess of 25 per cent under section 310(b)(4) of the Act 
unless such ownership is inconsistent with the public interest. In the case of common carrier and aeronautical fixed and aeronautical en route licenses, the FCC presumes that foreign investment from WTO member countries does not pose competitive concerns to the U.S. market and is in the 
public interest. In an August 2012 Order, the FCC adopted a policy to forbear from the application 
of the 20 per cent foreign ownership limit set forth in section 310(b)(3) to common carriers in which the foreign ownership in the licensee is held through U.S.-organized entities that do not 
control the licensee. The text of the August 2012 Order is available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-12-93A1.pdf . 
On August 9, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that initiates a review of the FCC's policies and procedures that apply to 
foreign ownership of common carrier spectrum licensees and of aeronautical en route and aeronautical fixed spectrum licensees pursuant to section 310(b)(4). In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to reduce to the extent possible the regulatory costs and burdens imposed on wireless 
common carrier and aeronautical applicants, licensees, and spectrum lessees; provide greater 
transparency and more predictability with resp ect to the Commission's filing requirements and 
review process; and facilitate investment from new sources of capital, while continuing to protect 
important interests related to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy. 
The text of the NPRM is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-11-121A1.pdf . 
186.  Can a foreigner with the USA CPA qualification be engaged in audit business and sign the 
audit report in the United States? Are there any other legal restrictions? Please provide common practices or provisions in major states.  
RESPONSE:  A foreigner with an active CPA license and firm license from a U.S. state may conduct 
and sign audits in the state(s) in which he or she are licensed or has a practice privilege. An online 
tool is available for knowing where one has a practice privilege outside of the state(s) in which he or she has a principle place of business: http://www.cpamobility.org/ . 
In order to audit U.S. public companies, the audi ting firm must be registered with the Public 
Company Accounting Oversight Board. 
187.  Can a foreigner with the USA CPA qualificatio n become a partner of a US accounting firm? 
Are there any other legal restrictions? Please provide common practices or provisions in 
major states.  
RESPONSE: Yes, a foreigner with a CPA license from a U.S. state may become a partner of a firm 
registered in that state. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 139 - 
 
  188.  After the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the United States strengthened its regulation 
of practising behavior and legal responsibility of accounting firms. Does the United States have mandatory requirements on occupational insurance of accounting firms? Please provide names of the specific laws and regulations on occupational insurance at the federal level and 
in major states. 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have any federal-level requirements for occupational 
insurance. At the state level, mandatory insurance requirements are rare. Among major states, 
only California maintains a rule on maintaining security for claims against an accountancy 
corporation, and insurance is just one of the three options for meeting the requirement. 
Link to California state rule: http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/laws_and_rules/regs11-s75.8.shtml . 
Hawaii is the only other state of which we are aware that maintains an insurance requirement. Link 
to Hawaii state rule: http://hawaii.gov/dcca/pvl/pvl/har/har_71-c.pdf . 
189.  Please inform relevant regulations on application for declaration permit by non-US express 
delivery companies. 
RESPONSE:  We are not clear as to what is meant by declaration in this context. Different 
regulations apply to the carrier, importer or broker  acting on behalf of an importer and are not 
nationality based. Manifests are submitted by carriers and entry documents are submitted by 
importers of record or brokers. Manifest requirements for air carriers can be found in 19 CFR 
Part 122 and entry requirements are found in 19 CFR parts 141 and 142. 
190.  Please explain whether the US has specific re gulations and qualification requirements for 
postal service and express delivery companies using airlines for mail and express delivery. 
Please inform details if there is any, and also  whether such regulation and requirements are 
applicable for non-US service suppliers. 
RESPONSE: The US Postal Service is bound by 39 U.S.C. § 5402 with respect to its transportation 
of mail by air. 
For foreign air transportation of mail, the US Postal Service generally may only contract with U.S. 
flag carriers for the transportation of mail to foreign locations. Several exceptions exist however. 
First, if the US Postal Service does not receive offers from at least two U.S. lag carriers, the 
US Postal service may contract with foreign flag carriers. Second, the US Postal Service may enter into contracts to transport mail with U.S. or foreign flag carriers in an emergency or if demand exceeds contracted space. Third, if the US Postal Service determines that service by a U.S. flag 
carrier is not adequate for its purposes, the US Postal Service may contract with a charter air 
operator to provide air transportation until a US flag carrier is available. 
Foreign flag carriers are prohibited from interstate air transportation within the United States by 
Federal law and are therefore prohibited from carrying domestic mail. Special rules in subparts f 
through s of section 5402 describe the rules relating the transportation of mail to, from and within Alaska, but these do not affe ct foreign flag carriers. 
The United States has no specific regulations or qualification requirements for express delivery 
companies using airline services. The airline themse lves must hold economic and safety licenses 
for the flights that they will be operating, and no n-U.S. freight forwarders must register with the 
US Department of Transportation. 
191.  Please inform taxation policies for postal service and express delivery companies in the US. 
RESPONSE: The US Postal Service does not pay state taxes, but is responsible for an assumed 
federal income tax for profits made on competitive services (such as express, parcels, 
etc.). Specifically, per 39 U.S.C. § 3634, the US Postal Service is responsible for computing its 
assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income for each year. This assumed Federal income tax is paid to the Postal Service Fund, rather than the US Treasury. The Postal Service 
Fund offsets postal costs, including fund ing of the universal service requirement. See 39 U.S.C. § 
2003. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 140 - 
 
  By way of background, US Postal Service postal products are divided into two categories: 
market-dominant (for which there is relatively inelastic demand) and competitive (for which numerous alternatives exist). Unlike the market-d ominant category, where there is a price cap, 
competitive product pricing is limited by a price floor. In other words, these products may not be 
priced below their costs and must (collectively) make an "appropriate" contribution to postal 
institutional (i.e., overhead) costs. As such, the competitive products must have sufficiently high cost coverage to cover their own costs, as well as a portion of overall US Postal Service overhead 
costs. 
The Postal Regulatory Commission established specific practices regarding the assumed Federal 
income tax. See 39 C.F.R. § 3060. Among other requirements, the assumed taxable income from 
competitive products to be paid to the Postal Service Fund is defined as the total revenues 
generated during a given year, minus the attributable costs and the institutional costs of the 
competitive products (as described above). US Postal Service must also file reports with the Postal Regulatory Commission regarding its accounting and tax rules. 
As is the case with other private sector entities, private express delivery companies are 
responsible for state and federal tax liability. 
192.  Please provide studies or reports on the development and reform of the power sector in the 
US since 2010. Please provide, if any, deta ils of reform in the sector including power 
generation, power transmission, power distribution and power trade since 2010. 
RESPONSE: The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the statistical and analytical 
agency within the US Department of Energy. EIA has a number of studies and reports on the 
development and reform of the power sector in the United States. http://www.eia.gov/ . 
193.  Please provide details of changes, if any, in power related legislation in the US since 2010. 
RESPONSE: The Annual Energy Outlook of 2012 was pu blished by the US Energy Information 
Administration in June 2012. The document contains summary of Federal and State legislation and 
final implementation regulations available as of the end of December 2011. http://www.eia.gov/forecast s/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf .  
Additional information on legislation can be found at Thomas.gov a service provided by the Library 
of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php . 
194.  Please provide information on the structure of the power market in the US. What are the 
major companies? What are their ownerships and market shares? 
RESPONSE:  One of the most useful sources of information on the power market in the United 
States is the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency 
within the US Department of Energy. Please see the links below for additional information on the 
electricity market in the United States: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/ , 
http://www.eia.gov/energyexpl ained/index.cfm?page=elect ricity_in_the_ united_states . 
195.  Please provide details of the power pricing me chanism in the US, and the changes in pricing 
mechanism since 2010, if any. 
RESPONSE: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) oversees and regulates 
transmission of electricity in the United States while states are free to either regulate prices or 
allow for retail competition. The sites below link to FERC and to a summary of power pricing in the 
United States: www.ferc.gov, http://www.eia.gov/energy explained/index.cfm?page=elect ricity_factors_affecting_prices .  
196.  We notice that the US services trade has been maintaining surplus with strong 
competitiveness. Please inform policies and me asures in the US to promote the export of 
services and also its creation of more job opportunities. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 141 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  U.S. trade in services is driven by commercial considerations, not government policy. 
The United States considers that the best way to support the international competitiveness of U.S. companies is to ensure that they are subject to competition by promoting open markets and 
maintaining pro-competitive regulatory policies. 
197.  The strict restriction on export of hi-tech products and technology has affected the export 
growth of the US. Please explain whether the US  has any plan to adjust the policies in this 
regard and whether such plan has been implemented. 
RESPONSE: The United States does not agree that export controls on high-tech products have 
affected the export growth of the United States . As previously noted, only a small amount of 
bilateral trade is affected by U.S. export controls. 
198.  In June 2011, the US Department of Commerce announced the Strategic Trade Authorization 
License Exception, excluding China from the countries and regions that enjoy trade 
facilitation measures. Please explain the reasons for the practice. 
RESPONSE: With the June 16, 2011. publication of the final rule implementing License Exception 
Strategic Trade Authorization (STA), the Administration took an initial step in its export control 
reform effort. License Exception STA is a targeted license exception limited to destinations that pose a relatively low risk that the authorized items will be used for a purpose that the license 
requirements are designed to prevent. The Administration's effort to reform the U.S. export control 
system is a national security effort. The reform effort is, thus, not about increasing exports per se  
or attempting to resolve trade deficits or surpluses with any particular country. 
199.  Please provide details in the investment in energy-saving technology, and details in the 
adopted or proposed measures to encourage such investment. Please also provide 
information on energy efficiency in the US since 2010. 
RESPONSE:  The US Department of Energy maintains a webpage dedicated to energy efficiency in 
the United States. The link to that webpage is provided below: 
http://energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-efficiency . 
In recent years, biofuels in the United States have developed very rapidly through corn and other 
food crops, and the energy and industrial properti es of corn and other agricultural products have 
been constantly enhanced. In this regard, the US government also enacted a series of mandatory measures, such as the US Energy Policy Act of  2005. These policies and measures promoted the 
rapid increase in demand for corn, and thus have an enormous impact on the sharply rising 
international market prices. 
Questions: 
200.  Please describe the currently prevailing US policies on biofuels and the future policy 
orientation. 
RESPONSE:  U.S. share of global corn trade has declined since 2006, due to both policy and 
market factors. Compared to last year, U.S. corn used for ethanol production is expected to drop 
by 10 per cent. Furthermore, two forms of policy support to the U.S. ethanol industry, the 
blenders' tax credit and import tariffs, were eliminated in December 2011. Meanwhile,  high corn 
prices and global import demand over the past several years have driven increased corn production in Brazil, Argentina, and Ukraine, where the combined production has gained 49 per 
cent since 2006. In 2011, combined exports from these three countries surpassed those from the 
United States. Ukraine, in particular, has increased its corn exports 12 fold in the past six years. At the same time, unfavorable weather and below-trend yields over the past three years for the U.S. 
corn crop have resulted in reduced crop  outputs and lower exportable supplies. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 142 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM CHINA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT SUMMARY Page x (Para 11) 
On customs-related issues, the U.S. continues to move forward on a number of trade facilitating 
initiatives that were passed into legislation several years ago, but have been delayed or not yet been fully implemented, e.g. scanning of maritime containers and air cargo, thus their full impact 
or effects are not yet clear. 
Questions: 
1. Is there an estimate of when the U.S. will fully implement these initiatives and how much 
time will be given to its trading partners to prepare before measures are implemented? 
RESPONSE: The deadline for 100% scanning of maritime containers has been extended until at 
least July 1, 2014, and the Secretary of Homela nd Security has the authority to extend the 
deadline again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute. 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Page 12 (Para 27) 
The Executive Order required the Departments of State and Homeland Security to develop an 
implementation plan within 60 days to improve visa processing times for non-immigrant visas for foreign visitors, in particular with respect to increasing capacity by 40% in Brazil and China, in 
order to promote tourism. 
Questions: 
2. This measure focuses on tourism. But is anything being done to address expediting visas for 
Chinese residents who need to make short-term visits to the U.S. to conduct business or to 
meet with clients or to look for business and investment opportunities? 
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to facilitating travel for all qualified business travelers 
as quickly and efficiently as possible. All U.S. embassies and consulates have procedures in place 
to expedite visa applications for business travelers, particularly those with urgent and unexpected travel needs. These missions partner with overseas business associations, particularly the 
American Chamber of Commerce, in more than 100 countries to expedite visa interviews for 
travelers who are coming to the United States to finalize deals, participate in conferences, or 
attend trade shows. 
Page 13 (Para 29) 
… the US Administration has recently created Select USA, described as a one-stop shop to seek and 
attract investment in the United States. Estab lished in the Department of Commerce, SelectUSA 
covers a wide range of investment promotion functions such as coordinating among state, local, 
and regional economic development organizations and educating investors about relevant 
U.S. policies and procedures. 
Questions: 
3. Will the SelectUSA program be conducive to expe diting visas for Chinese business people as 
mentioned in the previous question? 
RESPONSE: The functions of the SelectUSA Initiative are defined within Executive Order 13577 
(June 2011), and are limited to: (1) coordinating outreach and engagement by the federal WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 143 - 
 
  government to promote the United States as the premier location to operate a business; (2) 
serving as an ombudsman that facilitates the resolution of issues involving federal programs or activities related to pending investments; (3) providing information to domestic and foreign firms on the investment climate in the United States, federal programs and incentives available to 
investors, and state and local economic development organizations; and (4) reporting to the 
President, to describe outreach activities, requests for information received, and efforts to resolve issues. 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
Page15 (Para 6) 
…the United States is "committed to preserving and enhancing the WTO's irreplaceable role as the 
primary forum for multilateral trade liberalization… 
Questions: 
4. Could the U.S. please describe in which aspects it has pushed forward the realization of this 
goal? 
RESPONSE: The United States views the WTO as an inst itution at a crossroads. The Membership's 
collective efforts to 'turn the page' in the Doha negotiations are creating important new 
opportunities. Technical negotiations on a multilateral trade facilitation agreement are advancing. 
We also are working to address development concer ns and are exploring realistic approaches that 
can advance some partial result on agriculture. Preparations are underway to expand the product coverage of the Information Technology Agreement, or ITA, and some Members are pursuing 
promising work in the services area. And we are open to new ideas on how to advance our market 
access priorities in agriculture and NAMA. 
The United States is committed to the WTO and wants to make it work more effectively in the 
interests of all Members. This includes using the WTO Committee system to raise issues that we 
consider to be important, such as trade protectionist measures. We want to encourage healthy debate and, where possible, explore the potentia l for the negotiation of new trade opportunities.  
Page15 (Para 6) 
Furthermore, the United States is committed to contributing constructively and creatively to the 
functioning of the WTO, in particular, acknowledging that the WTO Doha Round is at an impasse, it is committed to fresh and credible approaches  to new market-opening trade initiatives. 
Questions: 
5. What is the United States' latest position on the WTO Doha Round? Is there any detailed plan 
for its new market-opening trade initiatives? Would the United States introduce the plan and 
the expected timetable? 
RESPONSE: The United States is very willing to continue to make progress wherever possible on 
the Doha mandate, based on common efforts. But "business as usual" has not worked, and will not 
work going forward. We believe that now is the time  to craft credible, innovative approaches to the 
WTO's work as an institution that liberalizes trade and creates and applies meaningful rules to trade. Preparations are underway to expand the product coverage of the Information Technology 
Agreement, or ITA, and some Members are pursuing  promising work in the services area. But all 
major players must do their part.  
Page15 (Para 7) 
… the United States adheres to all the multilateral agreements and disciplines… WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 144 - 
 
  Questions: 
6. What are the United States' opinions on its trade-related legislation and practices that have 
been judged as illegal by the DSB? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has come into compliance, fully and promptly, in the vast majority 
of its disputes. As for the remaining few instances where our efforts to do so have not yet been 
entirely successful, the United States has been working actively towards compliance in furtherance of the purpose of the dispute settlement system. 
Page 26 (Para 29-31)  
…The United States does not have BITs with many of the emerging economies, which have been 
growing in importance with respect to world investme nt flows in recent years. Moreover, it is in the 
process of negotiating with several countries although some negotiations have been on-going for 
many years, i.e. China and India.… 
…The 2012 model has 42 pages (including annexes) and is reported to build upon the previous 
model by enhancing transparency and public part icipation; sharpening disciplines that address 
preferential treatment to state-owned enterprise s, including the distortions created by certain 
indigenous innovation policies; and strengthening protection relating to labour and the environment. 
Questions: 
7. Can the U.S. be expected to expedite negotiat ions with China regarding bilateral investment 
treaty? In the view of the U.S. what are the ma in obstacles holding up the completion of the 
BIT between the U.S. and China? What are the specific problems that the U.S. has with 
Chinese state-owned enterprises? 
RESPONSE: At the Strategic and Economic Dialogue meeting in May 2012, the United States and 
China agreed to intensify BIT negotiations. The United States and China have taken different 
approaches in prior BITs on some key issues, which may present challenges in the negotiations. In 
all BIT negotiations, the United States seeks a le vel playing field between American firms and their 
competitors, including state-owned enterprises.  
Page 26 (Para 31)  
…The Administration completed the review in April 2012, and announced a new model BIT. The 
2012 model has 42 pages (including annexes) and is reported to build upon the previous model by enhancing transparency and public participation; sharpening disciplines that address preferential 
treatment to state-owned enterpri ses, including the distortions created by certain indigenous 
innovation policies; and strengthening protecti on relating to labour and the environment. 
Questions: 
8. Would the United States please introduce that in which aspects the environment protection 
related measures have been strengthened in the new model BIT of 2012 as compared with the previous one? 
RESPONSE: The 2012 US Model BIT expands obligations in the area of environment in four 
important ways: (1) a new obligation not to "waive or derogate" from domestic environmental laws as an encouragement for investment in a Party's territory; (2) a new obligation not to fail to "effectively enforce" domestic environmental laws as an encouragement for investment in a Party's 
territory; (3) a new provision whereby Parties recognize the importance of multilateral 
environmental agreements; and (4) a strengthened consultations procedure. Additional information about these and other revisions made to the US Model BIT is available at: 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm .  
9. How does the United States ensure the effective implementation of the environment 
protection related measures in the new model BIT? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 145 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States has not to date concluded a BIT on the basis of the 2012 Model 
BIT. The United States has effectively implemented similar commitments in the context of recent free trade agreements, and has consulted closely with trade agreement partners to ensure effective mechanisms for implementation of such commitments. 
10. Which provisions in the new model BIT can reflect the environment protection objective for 
the United States and its trading partners? 
RESPONSE: Specific provisions on investment and envi ronment are contained in Article 12 of the 
2012 Model BIT. 
11. Would the United States please provide a list of interested parties it has consulted in the 
process of model BIT amendment? 
RESPONSE: In conducting its review of the US Model BI T, the Administration sought and received 
extensive input from Congress and a broad range of stakeholders, including companies, business 
associations, labor groups, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, and academics. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 31 (Para 3) 
CBP is also responsible for supervision or oversigh t of certain import processes or provisions. For 
example, CBP regulations allow for the "in-bond process", which provides that imported goods may 
be transported in-bond to another port of entry an d entered there under the same conditions as at 
the port of arrival. CBP recently proposed new rules or procedures for the in-bond process, but 
final rules have not yet been issued. 
Questions: 
12. When will the final rules be issued? 
RESPONSE: A new comment period regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking for amendments 
to the inbond process opened in July 2012 and ended in August 2012. CBP is currently analyzing 
those comments. There is no specific target date at this time for publication of the final notice of 
rulemaking. 
Page 31 (Para 4) 
CBP is also working on another important initiative with respect to customs brokers. The Role of 
the Broker Initiative will examine with a view to  redesigning and modernizing broker regulations 
and clarifying brokers' responsibilities, as well as encouraging brokers to be force multipliers for CBP trade facilitation efforts. 
Questions: 
13. When will the CBP provide details of the init iative with respect to customs brokers? 
RESPONSE: CBP's new Role of the Broker initiative seeks to modernize the relationship between 
the customs broker and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). One key element of this 
initiative is to modernize the broker's role by amending certain regulations. The three goals in the 
new and amended regulations are to: clarify brokers' responsibilities related to importer validation; modernize the regulations to align with current el ectronic capabilities and business practices; and 
reinforce the broker's responsibility to exercise  due diligence in conducting business and by 
introducing a continuing education requirement. 
At this time there is no time frame indicated for the roll out for the Role of the Broker Initiative. 
Updates (as they become available), along with additional details, can be found at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/tr ade_transformation/broker_role/ .  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 146 - 
 
  Page 40 (Para 22)  
This legislation grouped several hundreds of tariff  duty suspensions and reductions into one law, 
thereby providing new or extended temporary duty relief for certain products until 
31 December 2012. 
Questions: 
14. Will the U.S. extend the temporary duty  tariff relief beyond 31 December 2012? 
RESPONSE: The US Manufacturing Enhancement Act was passed by Congress in 2010. The United 
States is not in a position to speculate on whether Congress might take action in the future to provide new or extended temporary du ty relief through new legislation. 
Page40 (Para22)  
A number of changes to the Harbor Maintenance Tax, including the tax rate and how to spend the 
revenues, have been proposed in recent year in Congress, however none has been passed into 
law. 
Questions: 
15. What are the changes proposed and is the US Congress expected to act on these proposed 
changes in the foreseeable future? Will this have any significant impact on the cost of trading? 
RESPONSE: Information on past bills on this topic is available at 
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php . It is not known at this time what new bills will be 
introduced on this topic, if any, and if so when Congress would act on such bills. 
Page 50 (Para 49) 
When the remaining two phases are fully implem ented (2012-13), all public documents will be 
available in IA ACCESS. 
Questions: 
16. When will the remaining two phases of the IA ACCESS be finally implemented so that all the 
public documents will be available in IA ACCESS? 
RESPONSE: All public documents have been availabl e on IA Access since August 2012. The 
second phase or release of IA ACCESS was implemented on August 13, 2012. From that time forward, all public documents and public versio ns submitted since Release 1 was implemented on 
August 8, 2011, have been available to all Guest Users. Anyone may register as a Guest User. 
Information about how to create a Guest User account is available on the IA ACCESS website at https://iaaccess.trade.gov  under the "Guest Registration" tab. 
Page50 (Para 51)  
More recently, the US Department of Commerce prop osed to modify its regulations concerning the 
use of market economy input prices in non-market economy proceedings. Under the proposed modification, where a non-market economy producer purchases an input from a market economy 
supplier, the US Department of Commerce would treat the price paid to the market economy 
supplier as the price for all of the input used only if "substantially all" of the input (greater than 
85%) was purchased from the market economy supplier. In other cases, it would use a surrogate 
price for the portion of the input not purchased from a market economy supplier. Currently, it 
presumptively uses the price paid to the market economy supplier as the price for all of the input 
used where the share of the input purchased from  market economy suppliers exceeds 33% of the 
total volume of the input purchased. This proposed modification was opened for public comments, 
to be received by 30 July 2012. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 147 - 
 
  Questions: 
17. Why did the US Department of Commerce make the above said move to modify its 
regulations concerning the use of market economy input prices in non-market economy proceedings? How did the U.S. come to the conclusion that the 33% and the 85% levels of 
total volume are appropriate? 
RESPONSE: Commerce  proposed 85 per cent as a reasonable and predictable threshold for 
"substantially all," to be applied across all products and NME countries. This proposal has not yet 
been adopted as final, as Commerce is still considering comments received from its request for 
public comment. 
Page 50 (Para 53)  
The majority of CVD investigations initiated during the past five years involved imports from Asian 
countries (92%) (Chart III.6), in particular China. This reflects a decision of the Department of 
Commerce, noted in the Secretariat's previous review Report, to apply CVD measures to non-market economy countries (NMEs). This decision, and consequent decisions regarding the 
simultaneous application of CVD measures alongside AD measures based upon dumping margins 
calculated using an NME methodology, have resulted in litigation both at the WTO, and in domestic courts. While the US Court of Appeals for the Fe deral Circuit held in December 2011 that under 
U.S. law CVD measures cannot be applied to NM Es, Congress in March 2012 enacted legislation 
effectively reversing that ruling retroactively. The new legislation, which also contains provisions 
intended to address WTO rulings by preventing "double counting", is currently facing challenges on Constitutional grounds. 
Questions: 
18. What is the status of the challenge on Constitutional grounds? 
RESPONSE:  On December 18, 2012, the US Court of International Trade held oral argument in 
GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States  to consider the constitutional challenge to the recently 
enacted legislation. A decision is expected in the coming weeks. 
Page 54 (Para 63 (Table III.14))  
The United States requires an import licence, either automatic or non-automatic for 15 categories 
of products (Table III.14). 
Questions: 
19. Is the U.S. likely to extend the system concerning steel beyond the 21 March 2013 deadline 
as found in Table III.14? 
RESPONSE: Please see the United States notification of its import licensing procedures in 
accordance with Article 7.3 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures in particular, 
page 14 of G/LIC/N/3/USA/9, dated September 25, 2012. The notification states that "The 
Commerce Department will follow similar notice, pu blic comment and publication procedures as it 
considers whether to extend the SIMA program beyond March 2013." The United States is, 
therefore, in the process of considering whethe r to extend the program beyond March 21, 2013 
and has requested comments from the public (see also Federal Register volume 77, number 219, Tuesday, November 13, 2012, Proposed Rules, pages 67593-67595). 
Page 57 (Para 68)  
Draft rules and regulations implementing the law were issued by the SEC in 2010 for comment, 
and final rules were expected in 2011, but have so far not been issued (1 July 2012). Thus, the actual reporting requirements and their impact are not known at this time. The State of California 
has adopted a similar law pertaining to conflic t minerals, which will be implemented when the 
Dodd-Frank rules are finalized. Maryland has also enacted a law on conflict minerals. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 148 - 
 
  Questions: 
20. When can the U.S. be expected to issue the final rules and requirements regarding conflict 
minerals? Will the Dodd-Frank rules when finalized supersede state laws? 
RESPONSE: On August 22, 2012, the Securities and Ex change Commission (SEC) approved a final 
rule requiring disclosures by issuers relating to conflict minerals contained in products they 
manufacture or contract to be manufactured (Final Rule). The Final Rule is required under Section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as added by Section 1502 of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA), and incorporates 
comments the SEC received on a conflict minerals proposed rule published on December 23, 2010 (Proposed Rule). 
The SEC Final Rule applies to any person that (i) is required to file reports with the SEC under the 
Exchange Act (i.e., an "issuer"), and (ii) for whom conflict minerals are "necessary to the 
functionality or production of a product manufactured" or contracted to be manufactured by the issuer. The requirements apply equally to domestic and foreign issuers. 
The referenced State laws refer to procurement by State agencies from entities that may be 
subject to the SEC requirements regarding conflict minerals. The SEC rules do not supersede these State laws. 
Page 80 (Para 142)  
The United States implemented a number of fiscal stimulus measures or government assistance to 
mitigate the impact of the financial crisis. While some of these programmes are winding down, some still play an important role in the ongoing recovery… 
Questions: 
21. Has the United States taken any measures to avoi d the rising of trade protection as a result 
of these assistances? If yes, what kind  of such measures have been taken? 
RESPONSE:  Like others, the United States has actively taken measures to shore up its financial 
institutions to promote a return to financial stability and economic growth. While these measures 
have been necessary, the Administration has spoken strongly and clearly on the importance of avoiding protectionism and focused on implementing stimulus measures in a way that promoted recovery while avoiding protectionism. 
Page 82 (Para 144)  
ARRA has current expected outlays of US$840 billion, up from US$787 billion, since its inception in 
2009. It continues to provide money for three main categories aimed at economic recovery: tax 
cuts, entitlement programmes, and federal contracts, grants, and loans (Chart III.9). … 
Question: 
22. Would the United States describe how to implem ent the provisions of ARRA? For example, is 
it implemented through specific supporting rule s? What are these rules? What are the related 
departments and how are their responsibilities divided? What are the access conditions, supervision and assessment requirements of these government supporting programmes? 
RESPONSE: ARRA funds were allocated to federal government Departments and Agencies, to 
existing entitlement programs, or  tax code expenditures. Entitl ement spending was distributed 
through existing channels (e.g., unemployment insu rance, Social Security) and tax guidance on 
new provisions was published by the Internal Re venue Service. Federal departments and agencies 
published regulatory guidance in the Code of Fede ral Regulations for distributing grants, contracts 
or loans when necessary. Departmental Offices of the Inspector General are responsible for 
oversight of ARRA spen ding (see www.recovery.gov/Accountabilit y/Pages/investigat ions.aspx) and 
federal departments and agencies report weekly on disbursements. The Government WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 149 - 
 
  Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted ma ndatory audits of ARRA disbursements (see 
www.recovery.gov/Accountability /Pages/GAOFindings.aspx). 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR Page119 (Para 66) 
… sewage services and refuse disposal services, those commitments are limited to services 
contracted by private industry  … 
Questions: 
23. Are foreign state-owned companies allowed to enter these two sectors? 
RESPONSE: The referenced excerpt of Paragraph 66 of the Secretariat's Report describes 
commitments of the United States under the GATS with respect to sewage and refuse disposal services. The United States has scheduled no market access or national treatment limitations with 
respect to these sectors. 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT Page 30 (Para 138) 
USTR has created TCB working groups in FTA negotiations with developing countries and 
Committees on TCB to prioritize and coordinate TCB activities… 
Questions: 
24. Please describe the work of the mentioned groups and Committees and also their future work 
plan. 
RESPONSE: In order to help US FTA partners participate in negotiations, implement 
commitments, and benefit over the long-term, USTR has created trade capacity building (TCB) 
working groups in FTA negotiations with developing countries and Committees on TCB to prioritize 
and coordinate TCB activities during the transition  and implementation periods once an FTA enters 
into force. USTR leads the TCB Committees an d USAID and USDA, their field missions, and a 
number of other US Government assistance providers actively participate in these working groups 
and committees so that TCB needs identified can be quickly and efficiently incorporated into ongoing regional and country assistance programs. The Committees on TCB also coordinate with 
invite non-governmental organizations, representatives from the private sector, and international 
institutions to join in building the trade capacity of the countries in each region. Trade capacity building is an important feature of cooperation in support of the CAFTA-DR, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the United States -Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and the 
United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. USTR also works closely with the Department 
of State and other agencies to track and guide the delivery of TCB assistance to Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman. 
Page 32 (Para 146) 
As host of APEC in 2011, the United States defined and achieved a robust agenda on green 
growth, and, in particular, secured commitments from APEC Leaders to lower applied tariffs on 
environmental goods to no more than 5% by 2015 and eliminate local content requirements that 
distort trade and investment for environmental goods and services. APEC member economies also agreed to establish an Experts Group on Illegal Logging and Associated Trade and to work to implement appropriate measures to prohibit trade in illegally harvested forest products. Finally, in 
2011, we gained agreement to take steps to streamline import procedures for energy-efficient 
vehicles, facilitate trade in remanufactured goods, and improve the quality of regulations and standards for emerging green technologies in the region. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 150 - 
 
  Questions: 
25. Would the United States explain how it defines environmental goods? What are the 
considerations leading to such definition? 
RESPONSE:  The United States supports the general defi nition of environmental goods outlined by 
APEC Leaders in 2011, meaning environmental goods are those goods "that directly and positively 
contribute to our green growth and sustainable development objectives". 
26. When lowering the applied tariffs on environmental goods, has the United States conducted 
related environmental assessment? And does the environmental assessment concern only 
domestic industries or also its trading partners? 
RESPONSE:  Much analysis has been done demonstrating the benefits of liberalizing trade in 
environmental goods and services to both the en vironment and global economic growth, and the 
United States believes that lowering tariffs on environmental goods will benefit U.S. and global 
environmental goods exporters and consumers, as well as our domestic and global environment. 
Page 32 (Para 149) 
Since the last review, the United States has also continued to prioritize implementation of U.S. free 
trade agreements. 
Questions: 
27. Could the U.S. please list the environmental measures that have been implemented in the 
bilateral free trade agreements? 
RESPONSE: The Environment Chapters of recent U.S. free trade agreements, including those in 
the agreements with Peru, Korea, Colombia, and Pana ma are intended to contribute to the Parties' 
efforts to ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive. First, the Chapters 
provide that each Party shall strive to ensure that its environmental laws and policies provide for and encourage high levels of environmental protecti on, and include an obligation on each Party not 
to fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws. Moreover, the Chapters commit the Parties to 
adopt, maintain, and implement laws, regulations, and other measures to adhere to their obligations under specified multilateral environmental agreements. Second, the Chapters also 
contain provisions on procedural matters and enforcement mechanisms. For example, the 
Chapters include provisions to promote public awareness of environmental laws and establish procedures under which members of the public may make submissions to a secretariat asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws. Third, the Chapters include 
provisions that strengthen the Parties' co-operation on environmental issues and establish an 
environmental affairs council to consider and discuss the implementation of the respective Chapters. Accordingly, the Parties have negotiat ed Environmental Cooperation Agreements (ECAs) 
in parallel with the Environment Chapters. The Colombia and Peru agreements also include 
provisions relating to the conservation and sustaina ble use of biological diversity. Additionally, the 
Peru agreement includes an Annex on Forest Sector Governance, which sets out detailed 
provisions designed to strengthen Peru's capacity to sustainably manage its forest resources and 
combat illegal logging and associated trade. 
28. Could the U.S. please describe the working mechanism between the U.S. and its trading 
partners in implementing the environmental provisions of those agreements? 
RESPONSE: See above response to Question 27. 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS Question: 
29. In April 2012, the United States and the Euro pean Union issued the statement on shared 
principles for international investment, which includes principles concerning national security 
screening. Please explain the relationship of the statement with the investment regime of the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 151 - 
 
  U.S. and in particular, whether the U.S. is to take certain immediate measures to further 
improve its investment regime to implement the principles as contained in the statement.  
RESPONSE: The Shared Principles for International Inve stment are a statement of the shared and 
continuing commitment of the United States and the European Union to adopt and maintain open, 
non-discriminatory, and transparency regimes for international investment, and to promote such regimes elsewhere in the world. The Principles pr escribe elements of a policy environment that 
enables and encourages international investment. These include: open and non-discriminatory 
investment policies; a level competitive playing field; strong protections for investors and their investments; recourse to effective dispute settlement procedures; and high levels of transparency 
and opportunity for public participation in govern ment rule-making. The investment regime of the 
United States is consistent with these principles. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 152 - 
 
  CHINESE TAIPEI 
PART I: REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/275) 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(2) MONETARY, FISICAL, AND OTHER POLICIES 
Page 5 (Para. 11) 
In 2011, the U.S. reported the third highest federa l deficit on record since 1945, at US$1.3 trillion. 
This was nearly the same as in 2010 (US$1.29 trilli on) and reflects a slight downward trend from 
the 2009 peak of US$1.42 trillion. As a percentage of GDP, the 2011 deficit improved slightly to 
8.7% compared with 9% in 2010. 
Question(s): 
1. Does the U.S. plan to reduce the level of its federal deficit? 
2. If yes, what specific measures will be taken? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is firmly committed to putting federal finances on a sustainable 
trajectory. The Budget Control Act, passed in Augu st 2011, was a significant first step in this 
direction, committing the United States to US$2.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 
years. The Administration's FY2013 Budget proposal  would reduce the deficit by an additional 
US$2.8 trillion over the next decade, cutting the deficit in half as a share of the economy and 
putting the debt on a declining path by the middl e of the decade. By FY2018, the budget deficit 
would be less than 3percent of GDP, the debt-t o-GDP ratio would be on a declining path, and the 
primary deficit would be eliminated, so that spending is no longer adding to the national debt. 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(1) TRADE POLICY FORMULATION AND FRAMEWORK 
Page 15 (Para. 5) 
During certain periods since 1974, Congress has put in place special "fast track" or "trade 
promotion authority" procedures under which the Congress commits to vote on trade agreement 
implementing legislation within a fixed period , and without amendment, once the President 
submits an implementing bill. The most recent se t of these procedures covered trade agreements 
signed between 2002 and mid-2007. 
Under the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that ex pired in July 2007, Congress had to approve or 
reject legislation that would implement a new trade agreement without amendment and within a fixed period. The 2012 Trade Policy Agenda does not seem to contain any reference to the TPA. 
Question(s): 
3. Can the US say whether or not it plans to seek new negotiating authority? 
RESPONSE: The Administration has stated that it plans to engage in consultation with the 
US Congress regarding the grant of what is known as "trade promotion" or "fast track" authority at 
an appropriate time. That continues to be the Administration's intention. 
4. If 'yes', could the U.S. please elaborate further on the possible scope of authority that it will 
be seeking? For example, will its scope be limited  to the TPP or will it also cover other trade 
agreements that the US Administration may enter into in the future? 
RESPONSE: We will be consulting closely with the US Congress on the details of any bill to 
provide trade promotion authority. We are not able to speculate on the scope of such authority at this time. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 153 - 
 
  (2) PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Page 15 (Para. 6) 
According to the US Trade Policy Agenda, the United States is "committed to preserving and 
enhancing the WTO's irreplaceable role as the primary forum for multilateral trade liberalization, 
for the development and enforcement of global trade rules, and as a key bulwark against 
protectionism". The United States continues to support, participate and pursue trade initiatives and further liberalization through the WTO's multilate ral trade framework. Furthermore, the United 
States is committed to contributing constructively and creatively to the functioning of the WTO, in 
particular, acknowledging that the WTO Doha Round is at an impasse, it is committed to fresh and credible approaches to new market-opening trade initiatives. 
Question(s): 
5. Given that the U.S. has been playing a key lead ership role in the multilateral trading system 
over recent decades, in the face of the Doha Negotiation impasse, what 'fresh and credible' 
approaches will the U.S Administration consider adopting in order to contribute to the 
functioning of the WTO? 
RESPONSE:  The United States views the WTO as an institution at a crossroads. This year, the 
Membership's collective efforts to 'turn the page' in the Doha negotiations are creating important 
new opportunities. Technical negotiations on a multilateral trade facilitation agreement are 
advancing. We also are working to address de velopment concerns and are exploring realistic 
approaches that can advance some partial result on agriculture. Preparations are underway to expand the product coverage of the Informatio n Technology Agreement, or ITA, and some 
Members are pursuing promising work in the services area. 
The United States is committed to the WTO and wants to make it work more effectively in the 
interests of all Members. This includes using the WTO Committee system to raise issues that we 
consider to be important, such as trade protectionist measures. We want to encourage healthy 
debate and, where possible, explore the potentia l for the negotiation of new trade opportunities.  
(3) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS 
Page 16 (Para. 11) 
The United States has also extended two preference programmes (Generalized System of 
Preferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act that had lapsed). Furthermore, as part of the 
President's 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, important priorities were announced with respect to 
concluding a bold and ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and building better export 
markets through regional economic integration. 
Question(s):  
6. In addition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the Regional Comprehensive 
Economic Partnership (RCEP) based on ASEAN+6 is another pathway to an FTAAP. What is the U.S.' view regarding these two pathways? 
RESPONSE : The United States is not a party to RCEP, so we are not well positioned to comment 
on it. 
(i) Reciprocal trade agreements 
(b) Overview of the other free-trade agreements 
Page 18 (Para. 16) 
At the end of 2011, the United States had 11 bilateral or regional free-trade agreements in force 
with 17 countries. The majority of imports from FTA partners receive benefits, with 90% or more 
of trade entering duty free from partner countri es, with the exception of the two most recent 
free-trade agreements, with Oman and Peru, which entered into force in 2009. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 154 - 
 
  Question(s): 
7. What is the reasoning behind Oman and Peru being exceptions? 
RESPONSE: Both the U.S.-Oman FTA and the U.S.-Peru FTA entered into force in 2009 and tariff 
elimination commitments are still being phased in. Under the U.S.-Oman FTA, by the time the 
agreement is fully implemented, Oman will bene fit from 100 per cent duty free access into the 
United States. Under the U.S.-Peru FTA, and by th e time of the agreement is fully implemented, 
Peru will benefit from duty-free access into the United States on 99.5 per cent of its tariff lines 
covering 100 per cent of its trade. 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES 
(i) Bilateral investment treati es and framework agreements 
Page 26 (Para. 31) 
In 2009, the Administration launched a review of the 2004 model BIT to update it in order to 
ensure that it was consistent with the public interest and the Administration's overall economic agenda. The Administration completed the review in April 2012, and announced a new model BIT. 
The 2012 model has 42 pages (including annexes) and is reported to build upon the previous 
model by enhancing transparency and public part icipation; sharpening disciplines that address 
preferential treatment to state-owned enterprise s, including the distortions created by certain 
indigenous innovation policies; and strengthening protection relating to labour and the 
environment. 
Question(s): 
8. Could the United States please provide more details of the new revised model BIT, and 
describe the policy objectives it hopes to achieve by the modifications? 
RESPONSE: The 2012 Model BIT maintains language from the earlier, 2004 Model BIT, and in 
particular that text's carefully calibrated balance between providing strong investor protections and 
preserving the government's ability to regulate in the public interest. The Administration did 
however make targeted changes to the 2004 text to advance three policy objectives: (1) enhancing transparency and public participatio n; (2) strengthening protection of labor and the 
environment; and (3) enhancing disciplines to a ddress challenges posed by State-led economies. 
Information about specific revisions made to the Model with respect to each of these objectives is available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm .  
(ii) Investment promotion 
Page 27 (Para. 33) 
In June 2011, the US Government took steps to facilitate and attract inward FDI into the 
United States by creating the first government-initiated centralized investment promotion body. 
The SelectUSA initiative was established, by Pres idential Executive Order, to attract and retain 
investment in the American economy, with the specific mission to facilitate business investment in the United States in order to create jobs, spur economic growth, and promote American 
competitiveness. 
Question(s): 
9. Could the US Administration please elaborate further on what incentives it has provided to 
attract FDI? 
RESPONSE: SelectUSA works with firms to help them identify federal programs and incentives 
that they may wish to compete for. The SelectUSA investment incentives database is available at: http://selectusa.commerce.gov/investment-incentives . The website also provides links to business 
incentives offered by U.S. states and territories.  
10. How does the U.S. evaluate the achievements made under the SelectUSA initiative? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 155 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  SelectUSA has identified internal performance measures to track its activity. Its 
metrics are designed to encourage responsivene ss, transparency, and adherence to U.S. open 
investment policy principles. SelectUSA is housed in the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) and feeds its metrics to the US&FCS overall performance targets. 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
Page 28 (Para. 35) 
According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report, a number of federal laws or 
regulations act as barriers or otherwise restrict fo reign investment in several areas, i.e. maritime, 
aircraft, mining, energy, lands, radio communi cations, banking, and investment company 
regulations. In addition, in terms of reporting and disclosure, four major federal statutes have an impact on foreign investment. 
Question(s): 
11. What policies and regulations does the United States have in place concerning cross-border 
investments or mergers by foreign companies?  
RESPONSE: The United States has a longstanding policy of welcoming foreign investment and 
provides foreign investors non-discriminatory treatment both as a matter of law and policy. Foreign investors are generally free to establish or acquire investments in the United States, 
subject only to laws and regulations that are applicable to all firms, irrespective of nationality. 
12. Does the U.S. set a higher threshold for cross-border investments or mergers in areas such as 
radio communication? 
RESPONSE: The United States has foreign equity limitiations in the area of radio communication. 
Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  amended, governs the foreign ownership of 
spectrum licensees. Section 310(a) states that a foreign government may not directly hold a spectrum license. Sections 310(b)(1) and (2) state that foreign individuals and business entities 
may not directly hold any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route 
license. Under section 310(b)(3) a foreign entity is limited to a 20% ownership interest in any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. Pursuant to 
section 310(b)(4), a foreign entity is limited to a 25 per cent ownership interest in a U.S. 
corporation that [directly or indirectly] controls any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), however, has the discretion to allow foreign ownership in excess of 25 per cent under section 310(b)(4) of 
the Act unless such ownership is inconsistent with the public interest. In the case of common 
carrier and aeronautical fixed and aeronautical en route licenses, the FCC presumes that foreign investment from WTO member countries does not pose competitive concerns to the U.S. market 
and is in the public interest. In an August 2012 Order, the FCC adopted a policy to forbear from 
the application of the 20 per cent foreign ownership limit set forth in section 310(b)(3) to common carriers in which the foreign ownership in the licensee is held through U.S.-organized entities that 
do not control the licensee. The text of the August 2012 Order is available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-12-93A1.pdf . There are no statutory 
restrictions on the foreign ownership ofwireline telecommunications facilities, although in certain 
circumstances the foreign carrier may need to establish a U.S.-organized subsidiary, but it could 
have 100% ownership of that subsidiary. 
13. Does the U.S. maintain different standards for in vestments by foreign enterprises of a specific 
nature, such as state-owned enterprises? 
RESPONSE: In general, investment-related laws and regulations in the United States apply 
without regard to the nationality of an investor. 
Page 28 (Para 36) 
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States(CFIUS) is an Interagency committee 
authorized to review transactions that could re sult in control of a U.S. business by a foreign WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 156 - 
 
  person, in order to determine the national security effects of such transactions. Where CFIUS 
identifies national security concerns with a transaction that are not adequately and appropriately addressed by other law, CFIUS is authorized to ne gotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the 
risks cannot be mitigated, recommend to the President that he suspend or prohibit the transaction. 
Question(s):  
14. Would the U.S. please describe the criteria, if any, used by CFIUS to determine whether a 
foreign investment transaction has any "national security concerns"? Is the process of 
reviewing a case transparent? 
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determining whether a transaction raises national security 
concerns, and a general description of the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that have presented national security considerations is available in the official guidance that Treasury 
published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  (and available on our webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ). The CFIUS process is fully described in statutes, executive orders, regulations, and in 
the guidance document noted above, all of which are available at www.treasury.gov/cfius. 
15. If an investor or enterprise does not accept  the CFIUS determination, does there exist any 
mechanism for complaint? If an investor is from a country that has signed a BIT or BIA with 
the U.S., could the dispute with CFIUS be resolved by resort to the "Dispute Settlement 
Mechanism" of the relevant BIA? 
RESPONSE: All US BITs and FTA investment chapters have a broad essential security exception. 
Parties to transactions have the opportunity to address CFIUS at all stages of the process, 
including after CFIUS informs the parties of any determination. By statute, actions and findings by 
the President are not subject to judicial review. 
16. Could the US please explain the reasons why the numbers shown in Table II.11 of notices for 
transactions covered by CFIUS in 2009, 201 0 and 2011 (65, 93 and 111, respectively) 
represent such a small proportion of the total num ber of FDI transactions in the U.S.? In what 
circumstances does CFIUS review the transactions voluntarily if an enterprise fails to notify, 
and how many cases were reviewed in this way from 2009 to 2011? 
RESPONSE: The vast majority of foreign direct investment does not raise national security 
concerns. Foreign investors are not required to notify CFIUS of their transactions, but instead decide themselves whether to file if they believe national security considerations might arise. 
However, while the process is essentially voluntary and the vast majority of CFIUS cases are the 
result of voluntary notices, CFIUS has the authority to initiate a review of any transaction that may raise national security concerns. CFIUS agencies monitor merger and acquisition activity, identify 
transactions that have not been voluntarily notified to CFIUS but may present national security 
considerations, and assess whether additional information regarding the transaction or the authority of section 721 is required to identify or address any national security concerns. When a 
CFIUS agency believes that a non-notified transaction may be a covered transaction and may raise 
national security considerations, the agency may self-initiate a review of the transaction under section 721. Alternatively, if CFIUS believes that the transaction may raise national security considerations and may be a covered transaction, CFIUS may contact the parties and request 
further information about the transaction, partly to help to determine whether the transaction is a 
covered transaction. If CFIUS makes such a determination, it may request that the parties file a notice. In most cases in which CFIUS has made inquiries of parties to transactions, the parties 
respond by filing a voluntary notice. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(vi) Contingency measures 
(a) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Page 48-50 (Paras. 48-51) WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 157 - 
 
  The Report mentions several modifications to the United States' antidumping and countervailing 
duty legislation and procedures. As we know, in 2010, the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) was analyzing the possibility of changing the an tidumping and countervailing duty collection 
system from a retrospective to a prospective one, yet there is no mention of this modification in 
the Secretariat Report. 
Question(s): 
17. Is the above-mentioned modification still under consideration or has it been completed?  
18. Could the U.S. please provide an update on late st developments involving changes to this duty 
collection system?  
RESPONSE: In response to a request from the US Congress, the Department of Commerce 
prepared a report on the relative advantages  and disadvantages of the retrospective and 
prospective antidumping and countervailing duty co llection systems. The report did not make any 
recommendations nor was it intended to result in any changes to U.S. law or practice with respect 
to the current retrospective system. The report was provided to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees on November 19, 2010 and was for the Committees' own use and 
information. No further activities or developments related to this report have taken place since its transmittal. 
Page 50 (Paras. 50-51) 
The Report mentions that the U.S. has adopted or proposed several modifications to its 
methodology for calculating dumping margins for non-market economies (NME) and the US Department of Commerce (DOC) has proposed to modify its regulations concerning the use of 
market economy input prices in non-market economy proceedings. Under the proposed 
modification, where a NME producer purchases an input from a market economy supplier, the DOC will treat the price paid to the market economy supplier as the price for all of the inputs used only 
if "substantially all" of the input (greater th an 85%) is purchased from the market economy 
supplier. Furthermore, the DOC currently proposes  to presumptively use the price paid to the 
market economy supplier as the price for all of  the input used where the share of the input 
purchased from market economy suppliers exceeds 33% of the total volume of the input 
purchased. 
Question(s): 
19. Could the U.S. please explain the basis or criteria used by the DOC to determine "substantially 
all" of the input (greater than 85%) and the 33% minimum threshold for the share of input 
purchased from market economy suppliers? 
20. Could the U.S. please provide an update on latest developments concerning the DOC's 
proposal? 
RESPONSE:  The Department of Commerce  proposed 85 per cent as a reasonable and predictable 
threshold for "substantially all," to be applied across all products and NME countries. This proposal 
has not yet been adopted as final, as the Department of Commerce is still considering comments 
received from its request for public comment. 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
(a) Export subsidies and drawbacks 
Page 70 (Para. 112) 
Under Executive Order 13534 of 11 March 2010, the President set out the National Export 
Initiative (NEI) with the goal of doubling exports over five years by "helping firms – especially 
small businesses – overcome the hurdles to ente ring new export markets, by assisting with 
financing, and in general by pursuing a Govern ment-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, 
among other steps". The NEI addresses several issu es intended to increase exports, including: WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 158 - 
 
  developing programmes that improve information and other technical assistance to first-time 
exporters, and assist current exporters in identifying new export opportunities in international markets; promoting existing federal resources for export assistance; increasing the availability of export credits to SMEs; promoting exports of goods and services through trade missions and 
commercial advocacy; improving market access by actively opening new markets; reducing 
significant barriers to trade, and enforcing trad e agreements; and promoting balanced growth in 
the global economy. 
Question(s): 
21. Bearing in mind the NEI's goal announced at its launch of doubling exports over five years, 
how would the U.S. assess results and achievements thus far? 
RESPONSE: Trade data show that U.S. exports have continued to increase this year, despite some 
tough economic conditions abroad, continuing the progress we are making on the way to achieving 
the President's goal of doubling exports by the end of 2014. 
22. Is it expected that the initiative will be carried on to the next stage after 2014? 
RESPONSE:  The U.S. will assess progress by the en d of 2014 and determine next steps at the 
appropriate time. 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(iv) Subsidies and other government assistance 
Pages 79-84 (Paras. 140-145) 
The United States has granted subsidies, tax credits, and other government support to alternative 
fuels and renewable energy suppliers. 
Question(s): 
23. Please provide details of incentives such as capital subsidies, tax credits, etc., that the 
United States government provided to alternative fuels and renewable energy suppliers? 
RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat's report, the United States submitted its subsidy 
notification to the WTO Committee on Subsides and Countervailing Measures last year. The notification covers alternative fuel and renewable energy programs. Please see: 
G/SCM/N/220/USA (19 October 2011).  
24. How were the individual tasks regarding these incentive measures divided up between federal 
and state governments? 
RESPONSE: There is no formal division of tasks betw een the federal and state government as to 
incentives provided. 
25. Is this government support available to foreign companies? 
RESPONSE: In the context of alternative fuel and rene wable energy programs, the Department of 
Energy (DOE) selects projects for funding throug h open and competitive solicitations. Foreign 
entities are eligible to receive funding. Like all other eligible applicants, they must submit an application as described in the subject funding opportunity announcement. Foreign companies 
have benefitted from DOE programs. 
Page 80 (Para. 141) 
As illustrated through the WTO notification, the agriculture and energy and fuel sectors are the 
largest recipients of government assistance and have grown in recent years. One of the major 
contributors to the growth in this sector is interest in biofuels, or using incentives to find 
alternatives to fossil fuels. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 159 - 
 
  Question(s): 
26. It is our understanding that in addition to the federal programmes there are sub-federal 
subsidy programmes at state level. Could the U.S. please provide further details of the major programmes launched by state governments to assist producers of solar energy and related 
equipment, including the qualification requiremen ts for the subsidy and the benefits received 
by producers in California, New Jersey and Massachusetts in particular? 
RESPONSE:  Sub-federal programs are also detailed in the subsidy notification of the United 
States. (See: G/SCM/N/220/USA; 19 October 2011.) 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 93 (Para. 180) 
The USPTO undertook a range of initiatives during the review period to further improve quality and 
timeliness, such as the Green Technology Pilot Program which ran from December 2009 to December 2011, enabling applicants to request accelerated examination for patents on green 
technologies. 
Question(s): 
27. It would be appreciated if the US could please explain the rationale for discontinuing the 
Green Technology Pilot Program, which would seem to encourage the development of 
environmentally-friendly technology. 
RESPONSE: The USPTO discontinued the Green Technology Pilot Program because the USPTO 
now has a program that permits the acceleration of any patent application. Known as "Track One," this program was implemented by a rulemaking to implement the "prioritized examination" 
provisions of the America Invents Act. More information on the program is available here: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-23/html/2011-24467.htm .  
(i) Enforcement 
Page 97 (Para. 195) 
The annual 'Special 301 Reports' issued by th e USTR in 2011 and 2012 continued to monitor 
developments concerning IP protection in U.S. tr ading partners, and cited the significance of IP 
protection for U.S. jobs and export performance. In both years, 77 trading partners were 
reviewed, and 42 (in 2011) and 40 (in 2012) were placed on one of the Special 301 lists (Priority Watch List, Watch List, or Section 306 monitoring list). Areas of particular concern included online copyright piracy, internet trading in physical coun terfeit goods, test data protection, infringing 
goods sent by regular courier services, separate  shipping of labels for counterfeit products, 
collection of royalties for performance of musica l works, trade secret protection and "enforced 
technology transfer", government use of illegitimate software, and unauthorized registration of 
trademarks under country code top level domain name (ccTLD) extensions. 
Question(s): 
28. At which level of government does the U.S. enforce the protection of trade secrets — the 
federal, the state level, or both? Is there any difference between the levels in the content of 
what is protected? Furthermore, how many case s of trade secrets infringement are handled at 
the federal and state levels, and what is ratio between them? 
RESPONSE: The United States has laws at both the federal and state levels that provide for the 
protection of trade secrets. Federal law criminal izes certain thefts of trade secrets through the 
Economic Espionage Act (EEA), codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-39. The EEA establishes two separate crimes: economic espionage (§ 1831) and theft of trade secrets (§ 1832). Civil causes of 
action for trade secret misappropriation are provided for at the state level. In addition, states may 
criminalize the theft of trade secrets. While the determination of whether certain information constitutes a "trade secret" is made on a case -by-case basis, the EEA and the Uniform Trade WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 160 - 
 
  Secrets Act (UTSA) provide similar frameworks. Under the EEA, in order to qualify as a "trade 
secret," the information must "derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not 
being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public" and the owner must have taken "reasonable measures to keep such information secret." 
T h e  d e f i n i t i o n  c o n t a i n e d  i n  t h e  U T S A  m i r r o r s  t h a t  o f  t h e  E E A ;  i n  o r d e r  t o  q u a l i f y  a s  a  " t r a d e  
secret," information may be a trade secret if it "derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means 
by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use" and "is the subject of 
efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." 
29. From the time the Economic Espionage Act was passed on 2 October, 1996, to the present, 
how many cases concerning each of the two defi ned types of crime, "economic espionage" and 
"theft of trade secrets" have come to trial? For each type, how many have resulted in guilty 
verdicts and what sentences or fines have been imposed? 
RESPONSE: Since the enactment of the Economic Espionage Act in 1996, there have been 
approximately 100 prosecutions for "trade secret theft" (18 U.S.C. § 1832) and approximately nine 
prosecutions for "economic espionage" (18 U.S.C. § 1831). A small number of cases involve both charges. Most of the prosecutions have resulted in guilty verdicts/convictions, and a large majority 
of convictions are the result of pre-trial guilty pleas. Of the more than 100 cases under Sections 
1831 and/or 1832, approximately 10 cases have gone to trial. The vast majority of those cases involved "trade secret theft" (Section 1832) charges. 
30. In addition, when the United States raises a ch arge of economic espionage, must the actual 
procedure first be decided and acted upon by a high-ranking official in the US Justice 
Department? When such a decision is made, must policy issues also be taken into consideration? 
RESPONSE: In the first five years after enactment of the Economic Espionage Act, charges under 
Sections 1831 or 1832 required prior consultation with the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. That broad requirement has expired. However, charges under Section 1831 (economic 
espionage) currently require prior consultation with the National Security Division of the 
Department of Justice. 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(3) SERVICES 
(ii) Financial Services 
(b) Legislative and regulatory developments 
Page 122 (Para. 72) 
The Dodd-Frank Act (or Volcker rule) does not introduce market access or national treatment 
limitations, but establishes a new and comprehensive regulatory framework and extends regulation over new markets, entities, and activities. 
It is our understanding that the Volcker rule is intended to apply not only to foreign banks in the 
US but to their overseas head offices and all of their affiliates throughout the world (non-U.S. entities) as well. This application may cause concerns over extraterritorial implications. 
Question(s): 
31. Will the U.S. give renewed consideration to narrowing the scope of the rule to just branches or 
agency offices of foreign banks in the US? 
RESPONSE: The OCC, Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC (the Agencies) proposed rules to implement 
section 619 of the Dodd Frank Act, known as th e Volcker Rule. The comment periods on the 
proposed rules have closed, and the Agencies are currently analyzing the comments that were submitted, including comments regarding the application of the rule to non-U.S. banking entities, 
and are working to develop a final rule. See: 
http://www.stlouisfed.org/regrefo rmrules/Pdfs/2011-11- 7_OCC-FRS-FDIC-SEC_P rohibitions_restri
ctions_on_proprietary_trading.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 161 - 
 
  Page 122 (Paras. 76-81) 
The Dodd-Frank Act introduces important changes in the U.S. financial services regulatory 
structure. 
Question(s): 
32. Could the U.S. please elaborate further on the considerations given by the Dodd-Frank Act to 
reorganizing the financial authorities? 
33. How is the big picture of the US financial supervisory structure perceived as being when the 
Dodd-Frank Act comes into effect? 
34. Could a new supervisory organization chart be provided for our reference? 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 32-34: The Act establishes several offices, committees, and bureaus 
within existing regulatory agencies: the Cons umer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (an 
independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System ); the Office of the Investor Advocate (OIA), 
Office of Credit Ratings (OCR), and Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) within the Securities and 
Exchange Commission; and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and Office of Financial Research (OFR) within the Treasury Department. 
The new Federal Insurance Office has been mandated to monitor much of the insurance industry, 
to recommend insurance regulation, and to coordinate federal efforts with regard to international 
prudential insurance matters. All lines of insura nce will be under the purview of the new Office, 
except health insurance, certain long-term care insurance, and crop insurance. 
The Act also established the Financial Stability Oversight Council and eliminated the Office of Thrift 
Supervision. 
Page 123 (Paras. 77 and 79) 
The Act establishes several offices, committees, and bureaus within existing regulatory agencies: 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)  (an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve 
System that includes an Office of Financial Educat ion, Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, 
and Office of Financial Protection of Older Americ ans); the Office of the Investor Advocate (OIA); 
Office of Credit Ratings (OCR); and Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) (all within the Securities 
and Exchange Commission), and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and Office of Financial 
Research (OFR), both within the Treasury Department. 
The new Federal Insurance Office has been mandated to monitor much of the insurance industry, 
to recommend insurance regulation, and to coordina te federal efforts with regard to international 
prudential insurance matters. All lines of insura nce will be under the purview of the new Office, 
except health insurance, certain long-term care insurance, and crop insurance . 
Question(s): 
35. Is the supervisory function of the FIO different from that of the NAIC, and if so, what is the 
difference in terms of their re spective supervisory powers? 
RESPONSE: Insurance entities are primarily regulated and supervised by state insurance 
regulators. However, the Federal Reserve Board is the consolidated regulator for insurance companies that are bank holding companies, savi ngs and loan holding companies and/or non-bank 
financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council. FIO also is authorized 
to coordinate federal efforts and develop federal policy on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including representing the United  States, as appropriate, in the International 
Association of Insurance Supervisors and assistin g the Secretary of the Treasury in negotiating 
covered agreements. 
36. Health insurance, certain long-term care insurance and crop insurance come under the 
purview of which Authority/ies? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 162 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Health insurance and long-term care insurance fall within the purview of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. Crop insurance falls within the purview of the Department of Agriculture. 
Page 123 (Footnote no. 86) 
The Bureau will be led by a Director appointed by  the President and confirmed by the Senate for 
five-year term. Although the Bureau will be housed  within the Federal Reserve, it is independent 
and the Federal Reserve Board may not be in terfere with its functions or personnel. 
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act(FATCA) requires a foreign financial institution to report 
the identity of its U.S. accountholders and inform ation about their accounts, or be subjects to a 
withholding tax on the payment of U.S.-source inco me or gross proceeds from the scale of certain 
assets producing U.S.-source income. The FATCA provisions will be effective from January 2013. 
Question(s): 
37. Could the U.S. please advise whether the FATCA provisions are fully compatible with 
obligations under the WTO/GATS? 
RESPONSE: The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) provisions of the Hiring Incentives 
to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (HIRE Act) are fully compatible with all U.S. obligations under 
the GATS and the WTO. It is unclear to us how FATCA may implicate any of those obligations. 
38. What efforts have been made by the US Admini stration to reduce the impact that the FATCA 
may have on FDI, especially inve stment by financial institutions? 
RESPONSE: Very generally, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) provisions of the 
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (HIRE Act) impose withholding obligations on 
payments made to non-participating foreign financial institutions that are attributable to portfolio 
investment, not direct investment. 
The US Government is committed to continued cooperation with other governments in addressing 
offshore tax evasion, and the Treasury Department is engaged in a dialogue with interested 
foreign governments regarding the implementation of  FATCA. The proposed regulations released in 
February reflect consideration of the comments received and reduce compliance burdens in a 
manner consistent with the goal of addressing the misuse of foreign accounts in order to evade 
U.S. taxation. Treasury and the Internal Revenue  Service will continue to work closely with 
businesses and foreign governments to implement FATCA in a manner that reasonably balances the administrative burdens with the compliance goals. Updates and further information regarding 
FATCA are available on th e Treasury FATCA webpage: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/t ax-policy/treatries/Pages/FATCA.aspx . 
PART II: REPORT BY THE US GOVERNMENT (WT/TPR/G/275) 
IV. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2010 
(2) Regional initiatives 
Page 16 (Paras. 60 and 61) 
The United States has insisted on higher standards for U.S. trade agreements. Throughout 2012, it 
has sought to intensify its efforts through regional initiatives, such as the TPP, as well as through bilateral engagement with major trading partners and emerging markets. 
The United States and its negotiating partners in the TPP continued their work to craft a 
comprehensive, high standard regional trade agreement that addresses new and emerging trade 
issues and 21
st century challenges. 
Question(s): 
39. What is the U.S' definition of a comprehe nsive, high standard regional agreement? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 163 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States and our TPP partners have committed to negotiate a 
comprehensive, high-standard 21st century agreement, by which we mean one that includes 
ambitious commitments in traditional areas, including tariffs and non-tariff issues such as Services, Investment, Technical Barriers to Trade and Customs, and also includes commitments on 
emerging issues such as trade and investment in innovative products, including ecommerce and 
other digital issues, disciplines to ensure state-owned enterprises compete fairly with private companies, and regulatory coherence to help companies operate more seamlessly in markets. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 164 - 
 
  COLOMBIA 
Report by the Secretariat WT/TPR/S/275 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
Paragraph 34 of the Report by the Secretariat states that, "The United States' investment regime 
has been described as open and transparent with few formal encumbrances. For example, there is 
free movement of capital and profits, and no minimum investment thresholds. However, there 
remain a number of restrictions to foreign investment in certain areas, and certain information-gathering, monitoring, reporting, and disclosure procedures can also have an impact on foreign investment." 
1. Colombia would appreciate it if you could explain in detail: What are the restrictions on foreign 
investment and what areas are they in? 
RESPONSE:  The Secretariat's Report does not itself speak to barriers or restrictions on foreign 
investment in the United States. Rather, the Report (at paragraphs 34/35) references a report of 
the Congressional Research Services (CRS) that discusses certain federal-level measures that "have an impact on foreign investment in the United States," including measures that do not 
restrict foreign investment. Detailed information about these measures is presented in the CRS 
report itself. 
Paragraph 36 of the Report by the Secretariat states that, "The Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States (CFIUS) is an interagency committee authorized to review transactions that 
could result in control of a U.S. business by a fo reign person, in order to determine the national 
security effects of such transactions. Where CFIUS identifies national security concerns with a transaction that are not adequately and appropriat ely addressed by other law, CFIUS is authorized 
to negotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the risks cannot be mitigated, recommend to the 
President that he suspend or prohibit the transaction. CFIUS operates essentially on a voluntary basis, but has the authority to initiate a review of any transaction that may raise national security 
concerns. Between 2009 and 2011, the number of notices received and investigations undertaken 
by CFIUS have increased steadily (Table II.11 ), although notices remain below the 2008 
pre-recession level." 
2. Colombia would appreciate it if you could explain in detail: What criteria are used to determine 
whether a transaction that results in control of a U.S. business by a foreign business has 
national security effects? 
RESPONSE:  CFIUS's approach to determining whether a transaction raises national security 
concerns, and a general description of the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that 
have presented national security considerations, is available in the official guidance that Treasury published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  (and available on our webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ).  
3. Colombia would appreciate it if you could explain: What criteria does the CFIUS use in 
selecting the transactions that could raise national security concerns? 
RESPONSE: Foreign investors are not required to notify CFIUS of their transactions, but instead 
decide themselves whether to file if they believe national security considerations might arise. However, while the process is essentially voluntary and the vast majority of CFIUS cases are the 
result of voluntary notices, CFIUS has the authority to initiate a review of any transaction that may 
raise national security concerns. CFIUS agencies monitor merger and acquisition activity, identify transactions that have not been voluntarily notified to CFIUS but may present national security 
considerations, and assess whether additional information regarding the transaction or the 
authority of section 721 is required to identify or address any national security concerns. When a CFIUS agency believes that a non-notified transaction may be a covered transaction and may raise WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 165 - 
 
  national security considerations, the agency may self-initiate a review of the transaction under 
section 721. Alternatively, if CFIUS believes that the transaction may raise national security considerations and may be a covered transaction, CFIUS may contact the parties and request further information about the transaction, partly to help to determine whether the transaction is a 
covered transaction. If CFIUS makes such a determination, it may request that the parties file a 
notice. In most cases in which CFIUS has made inquiries of parties to transactions, the parties respond by filing a voluntary notice. 
4. What is the scope or breadth of the concept of national security? 
RESPONSE: With respect generally to the concept of "national security," please refer to the official 
guidance that Treasury published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  (and available on 
the CFIUS webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ), regarding the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that have presented 
national security considerations.  
5. Is the concept of national security clearly defined, or is it at the discretion of the CFIUS? 
RESPONSE:  With respect generally to the concept of "national security," please refer to the official 
guidance that Treasury published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  (and available on 
the CFIUS webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ), regarding the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that have presented 
national security considerations.  
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) Other measures affecting investment and trade (iii) Government procurement 
(a) Overview of US Federal Procurement 
Paragraph 131 of the Report by the Secretariat st ates that, "U.S. procurement legislation also has 
specific rules on what qualifies as an American good , i.e. specific origin rules that differ from rules 
of origin and marking for importation purposes. Non-manufactures are considered U.S. products if 
mined or produced in the United States. Manufactures are considered U.S. products if manufactured in the United States and the cost of U.S. components is more than 50% of the 
overall cost of all components. In addition, special rules apply for construction contracts: origin is 
not based on the nationality of the contractor or similar, but on the origin of the articles, materials, 
and supplies used by the contractor in constructing or repairing the building or work. 
6. Do imported products exempted from "Buy American" under the national treatment 
commitment in the free trade agreements have to meet the U.S. product criteria? If so, how is 
compliance with the criteria checked? 
RESPONSE: No, in procurement covered by free trade agreements, products of the countries that 
are partners in such agreement are treated as domestic products. 
Footnote 167 of the Report by the Secretariat states that, "Set-asides for small business are in 
respect of all federal government contracts, but may vary on the size of the contract. For small 
contracts (less than US$150,000), set-asides are automatic, and for large contracts (US$500,000), 
a sub-contracting plan is often necessary (SBA on line information, "Goaling Program". Viewed at: 
http://www.sba.gov/abou t-sba-services/2636 )."   
7. Footnote 167 says that set-asides for small businesses are automatic for contracts of less than 
US$150,000. What percentage of these contracts are actually awarded to small businesses? 
RESPONSE: Statutory set-asides for small businesses (15 USC 644(j)), are "automatic" under 
US$150,000 only after a federal contracting officer determines that there are small businesses that 
can meet the requirements of the upcoming contract. Once that determination is made, the 
contracting officer is required to compete the upcoming contracting action exclusively among small WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 166 - 
 
  businesses. In Fiscal Year 2011, 63% of all federal contracting actions below US$150,000 were 
awarded to small business. 
8. "Large contracts" have subcontracting "requirements." Are these requirements "waived" for 
suppliers from countries that have government procurement agreements with the USA? 
RESPONSE: By law (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), any prime federal contract whose place of performance is 
in the United States and that offers subcontracting opportunities must contain a subcontracting plan to indicates the percentage of dollars to be awarded to small businesses. 
(c) New WTO government procurement commitments 
Paragraph 136 of the Report by the Secretariat states that, "WTO GPA Members recently reached 
consensus on a revision of the GPA and re-negotia tion of the specific commitments contained in 
the annexes pertaining to each Member. The U.S. commitments, undertaken in the 1994 GPA, 
remain virtually the same. While the thresholds for procurement did not change, the number of 
central government covered entities has increased by 12. Commitments for sub-central government entities (i.e. states) and other entities (i.e. government corporations) remain 
unchanged, except for the increased transparency with the listing for several states of the 
executive branch entities that they cover. In addition, the United States covered telecommunications projects funded by the US Rural Utilities Service under Annex 3." 
9. What are the 12 entities that are now considered central government covered under the 
revised GPA? 
RESPONSE: The United States added the following 12 Federal entities to its coverage in the 
negotiations to revise the GPA: 
 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 
 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Colombia. 
 Federal Labor Relations Authority. 
 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
 Millennium Challenge Corporation. 
 National Assessment Governing Board. 
 National Endowment for the Arts. 
 National Endowment for the Humanities. 
 Social Security Administration. 
 Transportation Security Administration ( under Department of Homeland Security). 
 US Marine Mammal Commission. 
 United States Access Board. 
(d) Special provisions, exceptions, etc. 
Paragraph 138 of the Report by the Secretariat states that, "Procurement at the sub-central (i.e. 
state) level is a matter of state law. Various state procurement rules may have similar "buy American" provisions that can be seen as restrictive or discriminate on the basis of origin or similar 
requirements. For example, several states have rest rictions on the public procurement of American 
flags, requiring them to be manufactured in the Un ited States. In Minnesota, law officials' uniforms 
are required to be of U.S. origin." 
10. Could the USA provide a list of the discriminatory provisions? 
RESPONSE: The US Government does not have such a list. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 167 - 
 
  COSTA RICA 
PART I: QUESTIONS ON THE REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
Page 4 (paragraph 9) 
"The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2 008 targeted financial stability, especially as 
concerns banking, credit, and support of certain in dustries. Although funding expired at the end of 
2010, approximately one quarter of the funds are outstanding and still supporting certain programmes, including U.S. government investments in the auto industry, American International 
Group (AIG), and 460 U.S. banks (end 2011). However, these investments and support are 
gradually being reduced and eliminated." 
Questions:  
1. What industries are covered by TARP? 
RESPONSE: TARP included a comprehensive set of measures in five key areas: 
 Auto Industry: Treasury implemented specific programs under TARP to prevent 
uncontrolled liquidations in the industry that would have had catastrophic impacts on the 
auto manufacturers as well as their suppliers, dealers, and the surrounding communities. 
 Bank Investment Programs: Treasury launched five programs under TARP to stabilize 
America's banking system and ensure that  banks were adequately capitalized. 
 Credit Market Programs: Treasury implemented three prog rams to restart the flow of 
credit to meet the critical needs of small businesses and consumers. 
 Housing: Treasury created programs and took action  to reduce the number of foreclosures 
and reduce the spillover effects of foreclosures on neighborhoods, communities, the financial 
system, and the economy. 
 Investment in American In ternational Group (AIG): Treasury took action to help 
prevent the collapse of AIG, the world's larges t conventional insurance provider at the time, 
because its failure in during the financial crisis would have had a devastating impact on our 
financial system and economy. 
2. In absolute terms, how much was allocated to TARP and how much remains available? 
RESPONSE:  Congress originally authorized $700 billion for TARP, but subsequent legislation, 
including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) passed in 2010, amended the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), capping the 
total purchase and guarantee authority under TARP at $475 billion. As of November 30, 2012, 
$418 billion has been disbursed and $375 billion – or nearly 90 per cent – has been recovered 
through repayments, cancellations of commitments, sales, dividends, interest and other income. Treasury's authority to make new financial co mmitments under TARP ended on October 3, 2010. 
3. What mechanisms were used to make gove rnment investments in the auto industry? 
RESPONSE:  Treasury's investments in the auto indust ry under TARP are described on Treasury's 
website, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/finan cial-stability/TARP-Programs/automotive-
programs/Pages/overview.aspx . A more detailed history of the assistance provided to the auto 
industry can be found starting on page 22 of the TARP Two Year Retrospective: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiativ es/financial-stability/reports /Documents/TARP%20Two%20Year
%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf . 
4. What type of support is being provided to  AIG and the 460 U.S. banks and through which 
mechanisms? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 168 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Five programs were created under TARP to help stabilize the US Banking system 
during the financial crisis. Information about each of the programs is available on the Treasury website at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives /financial-stability/TARP-Prog rams/bank-investment-programs/
Pages/default.aspx .  
The assistance provided to AIG by Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is detailed 
beginning on Page 49 of the TARP Two Year Retrospective: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiativ es/financial-stability/reports /Documents/TARP%20Two%20Year
%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf . Information about the current 
status of the program can be found on Treasury's website at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center /press-releases/Pages/tg1796.aspx .  
5. The paragraph indicates that the investments and support are gradually being reduced and 
eliminated. Is there a timetable for their elimination? Could you indicate the time periods and amounts under which you would dismantle the program? 
RESPONSE: The legislation that authorized TARP, did not set a date by which the programs will be 
fully shut down, however, the government is focused on winding down TARP programs as quickly as possible, while ensuring financial stability and maximizing returns to the taxpayer. Several 
programs have already been completely clos ed, and more are in their wind-down phases. 
Page 26 (paragraph 30) 
This paragraph states that the use and goals of BITs are to: "(...) encourage the adoption of 
market-oriented domestic policies that treat private investment in an open, transparent, and 
non-discriminatory way; (...)" 
Question:  
6. Against the backdrop of the growing role of government and public-sector entities as investors, 
what is the U.S. policy on state involvement in investments? 
RESPONSE:  The 2012 Model BIT maintains language from its immediate predecessor, the 2004 
Model BIT, in particular that text's carefully ca librated balance between providing strong investor 
protections and preserving the government's ability to regulate in the public interest. The 
Administration did however make targeted changes to the 2004 text to advance three policy objectives: (1) enhancing transparency and public participation; (2) strengthening protection of labor and the environment; and (3) enhancing discip lines to address challenges posed by State-led 
economies. Information about specific revisions made to the Model with respect to each of these 
objectives is available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm . 
Page 27 (paragraph 33) 
This paragraph states that in June 2011, the US Government created the first centralized 
investment promotion body, SelectUSA. It also st ates that SelectUSA's mission is to coordinate 
activities to promote investment in the United States, facilitate conflict resolution and provide 
information. 
Questions:  
7. How is the SelectUSA initiative related to the provisions on inversion in the framework of 
bilateral investment treaties? 
RESPONSE: The functions of the SelectUSA initiative are not directly related to the provisions of 
U.S. bilateral investment treaties (BITs), although both SelectUSA and BITs support complementary policy objectives. The United States negotiates BITs to encourage the adoption of 
market-oriented policies that treat private investment in an open, transparent, and 
non-discriminatory way. The objective of the SelectUSA Initiative is to support private sector job creation and to enhance economic growth by en couraging and supporting business investment in 
the United States. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 169 - 
 
  8. Does SelectUSA have the authority to oversee or monitor the compliance of U.S. trade 
partners with the investment-related commitments? 
RESPONSE: Monitoring the compliance of U.S. trading partners with investment-related 
international commitments is not a function of the SelectUSA initiative. The primary function of the 
SelectUSA initiative is to support private sector job creation and enhance economic growth by 
encouraging and supporting business investment in the United States. 
Page 38 (paragraph 16) 
"The United States' tariff nomenclature is published as the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States, which is based upon the internationally adopted Harmonized System. In addition to adopting the international nomenclature to the six- digit level, the United States further delineates 
the nomenclature to the eight-digit tariff-rate legal level, and to the ten-digit statistical reporting 
level. Thus, for importers reporting purposes, th e ten-digit level is recorded for entries. The 
United States also expands the nomenclature with  the use of chapters 98 and 99 of the tariff, 
which are unique national provisions. Chapter 98 pe rtains to special classification provisions, and 
chapter 99 to temporary legislation, temporary modi fications, and additional import restrictions. 
The use of chapter 99 has increased significantly in recent years as it is typically used to 
implement certain temporary provisions, especially as pertains to FTA tariff reductions. 
Questions: 
9. Given that chapter 99 entries are temporary, will th ey be transferred to a classification in the 
appropriate chapter, or will they be kept in chapter 99 indefinitely? 
RESPONSE: Chapter 99 provides temporary special duty treatment for shipments under certain 
circumstances. Almost all products imported into the United States are classified under the 
appropriate chapter 1-97 tariff code. However, if the product qualifies for special treatment under Chapter 99, the Chapter 99 number is used as a secondary number. The product enters under 
Chapter 99 in addition to entry under the chapter 1-97 classification if the importer and CBP agree 
that it meets the relevant description. 
Some chapter 99 provisions have clear end dates after which they are ineffective or disappear. The 
rates of duty on the designated products revert to the rates shown in Chapter 1-97. An example is 
the temporary duty suspensions in heading 9902. 
Most Chapter 99 provisions for free trade agreemen ts (FTA), on the other hand, are transitional. 
Just as individual rate lines in Chapters 1-97 may have staged rates over the first few years of an 
FTA, Chapter 99 is used to provide staging for groups of rate lines or to incorporate limitations on 
prices or quantities eligible for preferential rates (tariff rate quotas). At the end of staging, the final rate values can be transferred to rate lines in chapters 1-97 as Special rates. Although the 
Chapter 99 provisions themselves can be deleted, the effective preferential rates continue as 
Special rates in Chapters 1-97. 
10. Are the entries in chapter 99 included in the official published numbers for total imports? 
RESPONSE:  Any item imported under Chapter 99 is first classified under the appropriate line in 
Chapters 1-97, and is included in the official published numbers for total imports in that HTS 
line. In addition, the quantity and value is list ed under the Chapter 99 provision, but due to 
confidentiality provisions, the data may not be available to the public if there are only a few 
importers. Further, the data may only be publicly available through Dataweb by specifying the 
Rate Provision code treatment (which does not specify exactly which Chapter 99 line was used, but does indicate whether a product was imported und er a dutiable or non-dutiable Chapter 99 line). 
11. What criteria are used to classify goods under chapter 99? 
RESPONSE: The importer claims the chapter 99 provision for entry, subject to CBP review. Again, 
this is in addition to classifying in Chapter 1-97. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 170 - 
 
  Page 46 (Paragraph 18) 
"During the period under review, the United States implemented other nomenclature changes to 
its tariff schedule (HTSUS) by presidential procla mation. There were 11 sets of changes involving 
the footwear sector (i.e. footwear with textile oute rsoles). The United States has not notified these 
changes as a rectification or modification to its tariff schedule, thus the nomenclature of the 
HTSUS and the US WTO schedule differ fo r these 11 sets of footwear changes." 
Question: 
12. When is it expected that said changes will be notified? 
RESPONSE: On October 31, 2011, the President issued Proclamation 8742 to modify the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States with respect to certain footwear, in conformity 
with United States obligations under the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity 
Description and Coding System. These changes became effective on December 3, 2011. 
The United States will be notifying the Co mmittee on Market Access of modifications to 
Schedule XX of the United States to reflect these changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States as soon as possible. 
Page 49 (Paragraph 24) 
"Furthermore, the legal change to amend certain tobacco tariffs, pursuant to Article XXVIII 
renegotiations, has not been implemented at the WTO, while it appears the United States 
proceeded domestically with these changes long ago." 
Question: 
13. It is stated that the United States proceeded to domestically amend its tobacco tariffs long 
ago. Could the U.S. indicate as of when the change was implemented and when it is expected 
to be implemented at the WTO? 
RESPONSE:  The United States notified the conclusion of the Article XXVIII negotiations (see 
G/SECRET/2.Add1) and provided a copy of the US HTS changes to the WTO. 
Page 52 (Paragraph 36) 
"Since 1986, the United States has charged a fe e on certain merchandise arriving by vessel in 
order to maintain the navigation channels. The ad valorem fee of 0.125% is assessed on the 
declared value for commercial cargo." 
Questions: 
14. What kind of merchandise is subject to this fee? 
15. Is there any distinction made between domestic and foreign merchandise when charging this 
fee? 
RESPONSE:  The Harbor Maintenance Tax is generally assessed on commercial cargo loaded or 
unloaded on commercial vessels at certain enumerated ports of entry in the United States, without 
reference to whether the cargo is domestic or foreign merchandise. There are however a number 
of enumerated exemptions, such as humanitarian cargo. For a complete lists of ports collecting the 
HMT and pertinent exemptions, See, 19 CFR §24.24. 
Page 57 (paragraph 47) 
Pursuant to commitments undertaken in the Uruguay Round, the United States began reviewing 
outstanding anti-dumping (AD) orders in force st arting in July 1998. The two agencies involved – 
the Department of Commerce and the United St ates International Trade Commission (USITC) – WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 171 - 
 
  had conducted 738 reviews at the end 2011 under the "sunset" review procedure. The sunset 
review process has resulted in about 58% of orders being maintained (i.e. not revoked), and 37% of orders being revoked (Table III.10). 
Questions: 
16. Have institutional or structural changes been implemented at the Department of Commerce 
and USITC in order to apply anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures? If so, what are they? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has enacted legislation that implements, and is consistent with, 
U.S. obligations under the WTO agreements and GA TT 1994 with regard to countervailing duty and 
antidumping duty measures and safeguard measures. In general, this implementing legislation can be found in the United States Code at 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq. (countervailing duty and 
antidumping duty measures) and 19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq. (safeguard measures). Both the 
Department of Commerce and the USITC have adopted procedural regulations that apply to their respective proceedings under these statutory provisions. The most relevant Commerce rules can 
be found in the US Code of Federal Regulations at 19 C.F.R. 351, while the most relevant USITC 
rules can be found at 19 C.F.R. Parts 206 and 207. 
Page 64 (Paragraph 60) 
"The United States has various laws or provisions that allow for quantitative restrictions or 
prohibitions on imported products. These are often maintained to protect the security or economy of the United States, or safeguard the health or we ll-being of plant or animal life. For example, the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, the Fishermen's Protective Act, the Lacey 
Act, and the Tariff Act of 1930 Section 305 for obscene materials, and Section 308 pertaining to 
dog and cat fur products all have provisions to prohibit imports of certain products. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has enforcement authorit y and may restrict goods (on behalf of other 
agencies) that do not conform to U.S. laws or regulations such as standards or consumer 
protection regulations." 
Question: 
17. Has the United States notified the WTO of all the provisions stemming from the application of 
those laws that involve a quantitative restriction or prohibition on imports? 
RESPONSE:  Pursuant to the recent WTO decision to revise notification procedures on Quantitative 
Restrictions, the United States notified the WTO of quantitative restrictions, including import 
prohibitions, maintained by the United States. See G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. 
Page 77 (paragraph 84): 
"…A particular concern of several Members has been the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food 
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and its implementing  regulations. This issue was raised by India, 
China, Mexico, Costa Rica, Pakistan, and the Philippines, and the United States responded that the law had not been implemented yet and that trading partners would be able to participate in the 
process of developing implementing regulations for the Act through the WTO notification process."  
Questions: 
18. What are the criteria that the FDA used to define very small, small and medium-sized 
businesses under the FSMA? 
RESPONSE:  FDA will describe the criteria used to define the term 'business' by size, as 
appropriate, as part of the rulemaking process for the various FSMA regulations. Additional information on FSMA and Small Business can be found at FDA's FSMA website: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm268229.htm .  
19. What provisions of the FSMA exempt small and medium-sized businesses? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 172 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Several provisions of FSMA, including Section 103: Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based 
Preventive Controls and Section 105: Standards for Produce Safety require FDA to define "small" and "very small" business. 
20. Do exemptions apply to both U.S. and foreign small and medium-sized businesses? 
RESPONSE:  We expect that all size-based modifications to requirements in regulations that apply 
domestically will also apply to foreign businesses. 
21. What is the current program for issuing FSMA regulations? 
RESPONSE:  There are a number of rulemakings required by the FDA Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA). One of the rules has issued and the ot hers are in various stages of development. The 
interim final rule on Establishment and Maintenance of Records issued in February 2012 and is in effect. FSMA expands FDA's former records access beyond records related to a specific suspect 
article of food which FDA reasonably believes is  adulterated and presents a threat of serious 
adverse health consequences or death to humans or  animals to now include records relating to any 
article of food that is reasonably  likely to be affected in a simi lar manner. In addition, FDA can now 
access records related to articles of food for which FDA believes that there is a reasonable 
probability that the use of or exposure to the article of food, and any other article of food that is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death 
to humans or animal. 
With regard to the other rulemakings, FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by 
FSMA. 
Regarding timelines, the rules that have not issued yet will be, when issued, proposed rules. 
Following the notice-and-comment process, we will take comment on these rules and then, 
considering those comments, finalize the proposals.  There will be several opportunities for public 
engagement during the notice-and-comment periods for each rule. The timing of when a final rule 
takes effect will depend on the particular rule, but we do expect that the rules will have phase-in 
periods. 
22. Will the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanit ary Measures (SPS) be notified of these 
regulations? 
RESPONSE:  The United States will continue to notify all SPS measures consistent with US WTO 
obligations. 
Page 101 (paragraph 147) 
There have been no major changes to the core antitrust laws for many years. Contrary to most 
aspects of U.S. trade policy that occur through ne w laws or actions by Congress and the Executive 
branch, U.S. competition policy is generally developed through interpretation by the Judicial 
branch, and through administrative proceeding s at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FTC initiate many cases each year pursuant to the relevant antitrust laws (Tables III.24 and III.25). 
Questions: 
23. Given that federal competition and antitrust legislation in the U.S. dates back 112 years and 
has not undergone significant changes, how have the resulting interpretations by the judicial 
branch, and through administrative proceedings of the Commission, allowed for 
implementation of international best practices in competition law? 
RESPONSE: Our antitrust laws were largely written in a broad, flexible way that allows for new 
learning, economic or otherwise, to inform th e decision-making of enforcers and courts. That 
would include international best practices from the OECD and ICN. 
24. What are the main economic sectors in which the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust 
Division of DOJ have conducted investigations on anti-competitive practices from 2008-2011? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 173 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Antitrust Division filed 90 criminal cases in FY 2011 in a range of important 
industries, including auto parts, municipal bonds, real estate foreclosures, and freight forwarding. In FY 2011, the Division placed a strong emphas is on the pursuit and development of antitrust 
cases in markets critical to the nation's economic recovery, including the financial services and real 
estate markets. The Division will continue to prioritize those efforts throughout FY 2012 in support 
of the Department's comprehensive battle against financial fraud. 
From 2008 until the beginning of December, 2012, the FTC has taken 23 enforcement actions in 
nonmerger cases. Of these, nine have been in the area of health care professional services, three 
have been in the area of prescription drugs, three have been in the manufacturing sector, two 
have been in the real estate sector, two have been in the area of information technology, two have been in the area of non-health care professional association, and one each have been in the retail 
and truck rental sectors. Summaries of these FTC non-merger cases can be found on the FTC's 
Enforcement Database, available at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/caselis t/nonmerger/index.shtml .  
Page 102 (Paragraph 150) 
There is regulatory legislation with significance for Intellectual Property (IP) protection, for 
instance an abbreviated process for approving "biosimilar" generic versions of innovative biological medicines. 
Question: 
25. How long does the abbreviated process for approving "biosimilar" generic versions take? What 
does it consist of? 
RESPONSE:  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act), signed into law 
by President Obama on March 23, 2010, amends the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to create 
an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological prod ucts that are demonstrated to be "biosimilar" 
to or "interchangeable" with an FDA-licensed biological product. This pathway is provided in the 
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act  (BPCI Act). Under the BPCI Act, a biological product 
may be demonstrated to be "biosimilar" if data show that, among other things, the product is "highly similar" to an already-approved biological product. The US Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) requires licensed biosimilar and interchangea ble biological products to meet the Agency's 
exacting standards of safety and efficacy. The FDA released draft guidance documents on biosimilar product development to assist industry in developing such products in the United States on February 9, 2012, and that guidance is in the pr ocess of being finalizedIt is, as of yet, unknown 
how long it may take to obtain an approval under the abbreviated licensure pathway for biological 
products under the PHS Act. Additional informatio n about the BPCI Act and the draft guidelines can 
be found on the FDA website at: 
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsr oom/PressAnnouncements/ucm291232.htm .  
Page 113 (Paragraph 175) 
Among the features of the law on inventions, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which entered 
into effect in 2011, are measures to provide efficient dispute alternatives. These measures are 
expected to improve patent quality and reduce litigation by expanding third-party review of 
patents through pre-issuance submissions, inter partes review, and post grant review. 
Question: 
26. In addition to the measures to provide effici ent dispute alternatives, what other mechanisms 
are used to improve patent quality? 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO continues to focus on delivering high-quality patents to innovators. More 
than two years ago, the agency developed a new work credit system that gives examiners more 
time to review the merits of an application befo re making a decision. The USPTO has continued to 
improve its hiring practices to recruit experience d professionals, and it provides comprehensive 
training to new as well as experienced examiners. In providing more effective training, the USPTO 
further enhances patent examination fundamentals, communication, and cooperation between the examiner and applicant. The USPTO utilizes a hi ghly successful compact prosecution training and WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 174 - 
 
  refresher training program that encompasses over 20 training modules designed to enhance 
examiners' knowledge and skills in procedural and legal topics pertaining to patent examination. In addition, the USPTO has also implemented the Patent Examiner Technical Training Program 
(PETTP) which provides patent examiners with direct access to experts who are able to share their 
technical knowledge on prior art and industry st andards in areas of emerging technologies and 
established technologies. The PETTP provides an  opportunity for communication between patent 
examiners and the experts who work in the various technologies that are examined throughout the 
USPTO. This enhanced communication contributes to improving overall patent quality and 
decreasing patent pendency. The USPTO has also instituted a new program, the Site Examiner 
Education (SEE) program. This program allows examiners to travel to companies and educational institutions to learn about updates on technology or new technologies and experience how 
technologies operate in the field. 
In the pursuit of improving performance and quality management, the USPTO's Office of Patent 
Training (OPT) received recertification for the International Standarad ISO 9001:2008 and the 
Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) received its first certificate of registration for ISO 
9001:2008. The ISO 9001 quality standard is the most widely recognized and established quality management system framework in the world, outl ining requirements that provide the foundation 
for OPQA's mission and to meet customer expectat ions and achieve customer satisfaction. One of 
the quality management principles of ISO 900 1 is the continual improvement of overall 
performance. In achieving ISO 9001:2008 certification by OPQA, the USPTO has ensured that well-defined and documented standards and proce sses are in place, demonstrating its dedication 
to providing consistent quality products and services. 
In addition, the USPTO has recently adopted new procedures for measuring and improving the 
quality of patent examination. The new composite quality metric is designed to reveal the presence 
of quality issues arising during examination, and to aid in identification of their sources so that 
problems may be remediated by training, and so that the presence of outstanding quality procedures may be identified and encouraged. The composite quality metric is composed of factors 
that take into account stakeholder comments, including three factors drawn from the USPTO's 
previous quality measurement procedure, and four new factors that focus upon data never before 
acquired and/or employed for quality measurement purposes, for a total of seven factors. The factors that have been modified from previous USPTO procedures measure: (1) the quality of the 
action setting forth the final disposition of the application; (2) the quality of the actions taken 
during the course of the examination; and (3) the perceived quality of the patent process as 
measured through external quality surveys of applicants and practitioners. The newly-added 
factors measure: (1) the quality of the examiner's  initial search; (2) the degree to which the first 
action on the merits follows best examination practices; (3) the degree to which global USPTO 
data is indicative of compact, robust prosecution; and (4) the degree to which patent prosecution 
quality is reflected in the perceptions of the examination corps as measured by internal quality 
surveys. Additional information about the new metrics can be found on the USPTO website at 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/in it_events/qual_comp_metric.pdf . 
For more information on USPTO's quality improvement initiatives, please see USPTO's Performance 
and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2012 at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/about/st ratplan/ar/USPTOFY2012PAR.pdf . 
Page 118 (Paragraph 192) 
It is stated that Effective IP enforcement in fo reign markets remains a strong priority for U.S. 
authorities. The Joint Strategy included the goal of working collectively to strengthen enforcement 
of IP rights internationally, enhancing international law enforcement cooperation to combat piracy 
and counterfeiting. 
Question: 
27. What cooperation efforts are undertaken with Latin American countries to improve 
international enforcement? 
RESPONSE: As Latin American countries geographically are some of our closest trading partners, 
the United States has a very keen interest in maintaining and improving international IP WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 175 - 
 
  enforcement. All agencies of the United States  Government strive to work cooperatively and 
constructively with our Latin American partners, through direct consultations and information exchanges at all levels of government. The most tangible evidence of American Government investment in fostering IP enforcement in Latin Am erica is the posting of not one, but two Regional 
IPR Attachés in this critical expanse: a Regional IPR Attaché for Mexico, Central America, and the 
Caribbean, based at the US Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico; and a Regional IPR Attaché for South America, resident at the US Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. These Regional IPR 
Attachés confer with the many governments in thei r areas of responsibility. They collaborate with 
rights holders seeking to combat IPR infringement, and academics seeking to enhance and promote IP protection. Additionally, the State De partment has dedicated Economic Officers who 
monitor and promote IP protection at United States diplomatic facilities throughout Latin America, 
and work closely with the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C. 
Other United States Government agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Homeland 
Security, have specialized personnel in-country to  work cooperatively with host governments on a 
variety of criminal and civil issues. The USPTO also  actively encourages interested Latin American 
governments to send officials, such as judges, prosecutors, Customs and police officers, and intellectual property agency officials to attend specialized and advanced training and information 
exchanges at the USPTO's Global Intellectual Prop erty Academy (GIPA). At GIPA, foreign officials 
meet their American counterparts, allowing specialized and focused discussions to take place in a cooperative environment. The United States engages on multiple levels and in varied settings and fora to promote IP registration and protection, and to develop strategies in the fight against 
infringement and misappropriation. 
Page 146 (paragraph 66) 
The U.S. trade regimes for environmental services appear very open. 
Question:  
Does the United States have restrictions on the provision of environmental consultancy 
and advisory services? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has comprehensive commitments under the GATS with respect to 
consulting services, and there are no specific reservations for environmental consultancy or advisory services with respect to U.S. commitments on market access and national treatment under its free trade agreements. 
Page 146 (footnote number 69)  
"Distribution of fresh water is often considered as an environmental service and is delivered in 
bundle with waste water treatment, by the same ut ility, and with a single bill. However there are 
various views as to where water supply services should be classified (…) On the other hand, 
relevant publications on environmental services tend to address both water supply and wastewater services, and references to water supply as an en vironmental service are found in several non-U.S. 
preferential trade agreements. 
Questions:  
28. Does the United States consider water supply services as an environmental service? How does 
U.S. legislation define this kind of service? 
RESPONSE:  Footnote 69 of the Secretariat's Report discusses generic classification issues, 
including, the Report suggests, some that have been discussed in the Committee on Specific Commitments. The United States has previously stat ed its position on these issues in the context 
of those discussions, and has no further comment for purposes of the current Trade Policy Review. 
Page 147 (paragraph 66)  
"While environmental services are not mentioned explicitly in these reservations, the reservation 
on "public utilities services" cover some environmental services. The government procurement WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 176 - 
 
  commitments under the various U.S. free trade agr eements echo this exclusion, though in most 
instances with slightly different wording. " 
Question:  
29. What environmental services are included in the reservation on public utilities services? 
RESPONSE:  To the extent environmental services are provided by public utilities, they would be 
included in the reservation. As noted in the Secretariat's Report, in the United States, these can include services such as waste-water management and refuse disposal.  
Page 147, note b of Chart IV.10:  
"All U.S. environmental services commitments und er the GATS are qualified by two footnotes: 
footnote 19 "In each of the following subsectors, U.S. commitments are limited to the following activities: implementation and installation of ne w or existing systems for environmental cleanup, 
remediation, prevention and monitoring; implementation of environmental quality control and 
pollution reduction services; maintenance and repair of environment-related systems and facilities not already covered by the U.S. commitments on maintenance and repair of equipment; on-site 
environmental investigation, evaluation, monitoring; sample collection services; training on site or 
at the facility; consulting related to these areas"; footnote 20: "Nothing in this offer related to transportation should be construed to supersede the existing U.S. commitments on transportation 
or related MFN exemptions." 
Question: 
30. Does the United States have restrictions on the provision of environmental consultancy and 
advisory services that are commitments under GATS? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has comprehensive commitments under the GATS with respect to 
consulting services, and there are no specific reservations for environmental consultancy or advisory services with respect to U.S. commitments on market access and national treatment 
under its free trade agreements.  
Page 150 (paragraph 74)  
"The amended International Banking Act 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 United States financial system, to consider whether the home country of the foreign bank ha s adopted, or is making demonstrable progress 
toward adopting, an appropriate system of financial regulation for the financial system of such 
home country to mitigate such risk. " 
Questions: 
31. What criteria are used to determine the risk that the establishment of a foreign bank office 
presents to the stability of the U.S. financial system? 
32. Is this a discretionary measure, or is it a prudential measure based on previously established 
guidelines? 
RESPONSE:  Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in assessing the financial 
stability factor generally may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, FRB Order No. 2012-2 
(February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36; http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . Discussion of the 
financial stability criteria specific to an application by a foreign bank to establish a U.S. office may 
be found at Bank of China Limited, FRB Order No. 2012-6 (May 9, 2012), at page 16; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509c.pdf .  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 177 - 
 
  Page 154, paragraph 90:  
"The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) shall (a) give due regard to the principle of 
national treatment and equality of competitive oppo rtunity; and (b) take into account the extent to 
which the foreign or foreign-based company is subject on a consolidated basis to home country 
standards that are comparable to those applied in the United States." 
What are the implications if the FSOC considers that the home country standards are not 
comparable to those applied in the United States? 
RESPONSE: The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Council to make recommendations to the Federal 
Reserve concerning the establishment and refineme nt of prudential standards and reporting and 
disclosure requirements applicable to nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve and large, interconnected bank holding companies, that are more stringent than those 
applicable to other nonbank financial companies and bank holding companies that do not present 
similar risks to the financial stability of the United  States. The statute provides that in making any 
such recommendations that would apply to foreign nonbank financial companies supervised by the 
Federal Reserve or foreign-based bank holding companies, the Council must "(A) give due regard 
to the principle of national treatment and equalit y of competitive opportunity; and (B) take into 
account the extent to which the foreign nonbank financial company or foreign-based bank holding 
company is subject on a consolidated basis to home country standards that are comparable to 
those applied to financial companies in the United States." 
PART II: QUESTIONS RELATED TO TH E REPORT BY THE US GOVERNMENT 
Page 22 (paragraph 76) 
The United States led the way in securing APEC Leaders endorsement of a commercially and 
environmentally credible list of environmental goods on which they will reduce tariffs to 5% or less by 2015, based on the Leaders' 2011 commitment. Th e APEC List of Environmental Goods includes 
54 core environmental products, including renewable and clean energy technologies, wastewater 
treatment equipment, air pollution control technologies, and environmental monitoring and 
assessment equipment. 
Question: 
1. What progress has APEC made in liberalizing envi ronmental services and what kind of support 
does the United States provide to this initiative? 
RESPONSE: In 2011, under U.S. leadership, APEC Leaders committed to undertake a series of 
actions to In 2011, APEC Leaders committed to undertake a series of actions to promote trade in environmental services, including to eliminate local content requirements that distort trade in 
environmental services by the end of 2012; ensu re that all government support and incentive 
programs that are aimed at promoting environmental services are transparent and consistent with economies' WTO obligations; ensure that all government procurement policies pertaining to 
environment services are transparent; affirm our commitments to pursue liberalization of 
environmental services in the WTO; and pursue progressive liberalization of trade in environmental services in APEC economies' Free Trade Agreem ents. In 2013, APEC will increase focus on 
implementing these commitments and further brea king down barriers to trade in environmental 
services. 
Page 23 (paragraph 81) 
The United States has also increased its engagement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and 
its six member states (Saudi Arabia, United Ar ab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait). 
Question: 
2. What kind of investment and trade projects is the United States developing with the Gulf 
Cooperation Council? Is there discussion of negotiating a trade agreement? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 178 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States and the GCC signed a Framework Agreement for Trade, Economic, 
Investment and Technical Cooperation on September 27, 2012. The Agreement will establish a Joint Committee to discuss areas where both the GCC and the United States share mutual interests, including considering opportunities for enhancing economic, commercial, investment and 
technical cooperation, fostering their economic relations and increasing the volume of trade and 
investment between them. 
Page 28 (paragraph 101) 
In April 2012, the United States updated its model text on Bilateral Investment Treaties. It is 
indicated that this is an updated model that s eeks to preserve high-standard protections without 
compromising governments' ability to regulate in the public interest. 
Questions: 
3. In what ways did the 2004 model fail to suit the public interest? What are the main differences 
between the revised model text on bilateral investment treaties and the prior version? 
4. How does the U.S. envisage implementing the policy on bilateral investment treaties under the 
new model with regard to trading partners wi th whom investment provisions were already 
negotiated under the previous model? 
RESPONSE:  Both the 2004 and 2012 US Model BITs reflect a carefully calibrated balance between 
providing strong investor protections and preserving the government's ability to regulate in the 
public interest. The updated, 2012 Model text made targeted changes to the 2004 text to advance three policy objectives: (1) enhancing transparency and public participation; (2) strengthening protection of labor and the environment; and (3 ) enhancing disciplines to address challenges 
posed by State-led economies. Information about specific revisions made to the Model with respect 
to each of these objectives is available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm . The Model BIT provides a model text for 
ongoing and future BIT negotiations; it does not affect BITs or other investment agreements 
already in force. 
Page 37 (paragraph 146) 
"As host of APEC in 2011, the United States defined and achieved a robust agenda on green 
growth, and, in particular, secured commitments from APEC Leaders to lower applied tariffs on environmental goods to no more than 5% by 2015 and eliminate local content requirements that 
distort trade and investment for environmental goods and services. APEC member economies also 
agreed to establish an Experts Group on Illegal Logging and Associated Trade and to work to 
implement appropriate measures to prohibit trade in illegally harvested forest products. Finally, in 
2011, we gained agreement to take steps to streamline import procedures for energy-efficient 
vehicles, facilitate trade in remanufactured goods, and improve the quality of regulations and 
standards for emerging green technologies in the region." 
Questions: 
5. Could the United States describe in detail the measures adopted to simplify imports of 
energy-efficient vehicles and remanufactured goods? 
RESPONSE: On Electric Vehicles, in 2011 APEC Ministers agreed to develop common elements of 
policies and regulations for the importation of non-salable, alternative-fueled demonstration 
vehicles by the end of 2012 that allow temporary access for a small number of imported 
demonstration vehicles; produce effective, targeted research outcomes; permit extended, public on-road demonstrations, while ensuring adequate safety; and, streamline import procedures by 
providing expedited approval processes and duty- and tax-exempt treatment during the 
demonstration period (see Annex C to the AMM Statement). In 2012, Ministers welcomed work on regulatory cooperation and convergence to facilitate the robust deployment of new automotive 
technologies, such as electric vehicles and vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure 
communications, and instructed officials to continue to share updates on their policy approaches to facilitate the diffusion of advanced techno logy and alternative-fueled motor vehicles. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 179 - 
 
  On remanufactured goods, in 2011 APEC Ministers agreed to facilitate trade in remanufactured 
goods by making existing and future tariff and no n-tariff measures applied to goods that are not 
newly-manufactured publicly available, electronically, in their domestic languages, and, where possible, in English. In 2012, Ministers urged offici als to continue this compilation. When laws and 
regulations related to such measures are under development, Ministers agreed to provide a 
meaningful process for stakeholders to comment and to take those comments into consideration in producing final rules. Ministers also welcomed the APEC Pathfinder Initiative on Facilitating Trade 
in Remanufactured Goods, under which participating economies committed not to apply measures 
specifically concerning used goods to remanufactured goods (see Annex D of the AMM). Finally, Ministers instructed officials to undertake additional capacity-building activities on trade in remanufactured goods and remanufacturing, consid ering the development needs of economies and 
with a view to increasing the number of economies participating in the Pathfinder. A capacity 
building workshop on Remanufacturing Research and Development in APEC Economies was held on the margins of the Market Access Group in March 2012 in Singapore. Malaysia hosted a workshop 
on Remanufactured Goods in October 2012 in Kuala Lumpur, with a view to helping economies join 
the pathfinder. 
6. What kinds of measures have been taken to improve the quality of environmental regulations 
and standards on emerging green technologies in the region? 
RESPONSE: In 2011, the United States worked closely with other APEC members to reach 
agreement on specific recommendations to promote interoperable standards for smart grid; facilitate trade in solar technologies through collaboration on standards and conformance; and, to 
enable greater consistency and transparency in measures to support green buildings. These 
recommendations are available at: http://www.apec.org/Meeti ng-Papers/Ministerial-
Statements/Annual/2011/2011_amm/annex-e.aspx . Following up this work in 2012, APEC 
provided training to regulators on interoperable standards for smart grid during the World Energy 
Forum meetings; held a regulator dialogue on Ener gy Efficiency standards for ICT equipment; and 
launched a multi-year project on green building codes and modeling standards. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 180 - 
 
  CUBA 
Report by the United States (WT/ TPR/G/275 of November 13, 2012): 
Chapter I. THE UNITED STATES IN THE MULTILATERAL SYSTEM: 
Paragraph 10 of this Chapter indicates that "Robust trade enforcement across the spectrum of 
goods and services  is also a central pillar of U.S. trad e policy. For nearly two decades, the 
WTO dispute settlement system has proven va luable to Members as a unique venue for 
the discussion and adjudication of disputes with our trading partners. The United States' 
enforcement priorities seek to target the most commercially-significant…issues … that have 
important implications  for the future of the rules-based global trading system.  
Paragraph 11 indicates that " The United States will continue vigilant trade enforcement 
efforts at the WTO … to maintain a level playing field and uphold key commitments . The United 
States remains committed to working with its tr ading partners to create a global trading 
system where intellectual property is prot ected, … and where transparent rules and 
regulations are applied without discrimination". 
Chapter IV. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2010 
1) WTO AGREEMENTS AND INITIATIVES: Impl ementation of Existing Agreements 
Paragraph 56 indicates that "Since entry into force of the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1995, a 
central theme of U.S. policy has been to undertake  the effective and timely implementation of our 
WTO commitments. The United States believes it is not only important for American trade interests, but for the WTO system as a whole, to ensure that all Members meet their commitments. The various manifestations of this policy range from active and constructive 
participation in the deliberations of WTO committees to the use of the dispute settlement 
mechanism. U.S. trade policy seeks to support and advance the rule of law." 
Paragraph 58 indicates that "To ensure the enforcement of WTO agreements, the United States 
has been one of the world's most frequent users of WTO dispute settlement procedures. Since the 
establishment of the WTO in 1994, the United States  has filed 99 complaints at the WTO, thus far 
successfully concluding 65 of them by settling 28 cases favorably and prevailing in 37 others 
through litigation before WTO panels and the Appellate Body. The United States has obtained 
favorable settlements and favorable rulings in virtually all sectors, including manufacturing, intellectual property , agriculture, and services. These cases cover a number of WTO agreements 
– involving rules on trade in goods, trade in services, and intellectual property protection  – 
and affect a wide range of sectors of the U.S. economy." 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/275 of November 13, 2012): Chapter III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE. 
3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
vi) Trade-related intellect ual property measures 
a) Introduction 
Paragraph 150 states that "Intellectual property (IP) Inte llectual property (IP) has a 
central place in the domestic economy and th e international trade profile of the United 
States. The United States is one of th e most well established and mature IP 
jurisdictions; however, the legal, economic, and trade policy context of IP continued to 
evolve significantly during the review period ," with a series of elements noted in this regard. 
b) Economic policy context 
Paragraph 151 states that "Policymakers have continued to emphasize the central importance of IP 
for the trade, economic and employment positi on of the United States, and – in line with 
international developments – sought to base IP policy on a firm empirical foundation." WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 181 - 
 
  Paragraph 152 states that "IP was integral to trade policy concerns to boost high-value exports of 
goods and services." 
Paragraph 155 states that "The United States is by far the world's single largest IP license 
exporter , collecting about half of world royalties and license fees in 2010  (last year 
available) ."9 
c) Institutional framework 
Paragraph 162 reports that " Several agencies are responsible for various administrative 
and enforcement aspects involving intellectual property in the United States. The United 
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO ) plays a key role in strengthening and 
facilitating IP protection. Beyond its administrative and stat utory functions, USPTO provides 
advice on IP policy issues, gives assistance to foreign governments and international 
organizations, and conducts programs and studies to strengthen the effectiveness of IP protection 
domestically and throughout the world."  
d) Participation in WTO and international initiatives 
Paragraph 167 indicates that "The United States also responded to questions on its 
implementation of DSB recommendations  concerning two of the four IP-related cases in which 
the United States had taken part as respondent10, i.e. … Section 211 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 1998 .11 Acknowledging that in those two cases its implementation had 
not been completed , the United States noted that it had been working actively towards 
compliance in furtherance of the purpose of th e dispute settlement system, and engaged to 
continue to work to implement the relevant DSB recommendations and rulings.12 
Paragraph 168 indicates, furthermore, that "With respect to the Section 211 , the 
US Administration will continue to work on a solution that would resolve this matter." 
Paragraph 170 states that " The United States continued its active role in the TRIPS Council during 
period under review, in particular introducing material concerning IP enforcement,  and 
communicating (with several other Members) the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 
(ACTA; see section below).13 USTR views the TRIPS Council as an opportunity for sharing 
experiences to ensure effective implemen tation of IP enforcement obligations. "14 
e) Trademarks and geographical indications Paragraph 182 specifies that "The Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendments took effect 
on 8 November 2011 , and amended the Rules of Practice  in Trademark Cases to implement the 
Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act  of 2010. The Act became law on 
17 March 2010, and made small technical and conforming corrections to the Lanham Act , 
as well as more significant changes regarding filing Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable 
Nonuse to maintain a registration. Specifically, the legislation gave Madrid Protocol registrants the 
benefit of six-month grace periods immediately following the statutory time periods for filing 
their trademark registration maintenance documents under Section 71, 15 U.S.C. 
1141k." 
Enforcement Paragraph 189 states that " Several initiatives to improve the coordination and 
effectiveness of domestic mech anisms to enforce IP rights  matured during the review 
                                               
9 WTO Secretariat estimates, based on World Bank  online information, "Indicators: Science and 
Technology: Royalties and License Fees". Viewed at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator?display=default  
[May 2012]. 
10 As respondent, the United States has taken part in the following IPR-related cases: DS160, DS176, 
DS186, and DS224. For details, see WTO (2010), Table III.12. 
11 WTO documents WT/DS160/R, 15 June 2000; and WT/DS176/R, 6 August 2001. 
12 WTO document WT/TPR/M/235/Add.1, 1 November 2010. 
13 WTO document IP/C/W/563, 7 October 2011. 
14 USTR (2012a). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 182 - 
 
  period. In recognition of the need for more effective coordination and a stronger information base 
for enforcement of IP rights, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008 created a new position of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). This position was filled following Senate confirmation in 2009. The PRO-IP Act required the 
IPEC to coordinate the development of a joint strategic plan against counterfeiting and 
infringement . The plan was issued in 2010, containing 33 enforcement strategy action items 
within six categories: (i) leading by example ; (ii) increasing transparency; (iii) ensuring 
efficiency and coordination; (iv) enforcing rights internationally; (v) securing the supply chain; and 
(vi) building a data-driven government. " 
Paragraph 194 announces that " The United States and seven other WTO Members signed the 
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)  on 1 October 2011.15 The ACTA aims to 
strengthen the international legal framework for combating commercial-scale counterfeiting and 
piracy. " 
Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Cuba  believes that the policies and measures 
described above are inconsistent with the long-standing absence of compliance by the United 
States, which for over ten years has failed to take any effective action to comply with DSB recommendations and rulings which, as long ago as February 2002, found that Section 211 of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 is noncompl iant with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris 
Convention. 
The DSB has established in its rulings that Section 211 is an illegal regulation that violates the 
legitimate rights of owners of Cuban trademarks. Ye t the United States continues to fail to take the 
any action at all to implement DSB recommendations and rulings. 
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Cu ba wishes to receive specific answers to the 
following questions from the US Government: 
1. What prevents you from granting, through the USPTO, the necessary license to the Cuban firm 
CUBAEXPORT for renewal of the "Havana Club" mark  that rightfully belongs to said firm, thus 
complying with your international intellectual property commitments? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not accept the factual and legal characterizations contained in 
these questions, and notes that the WTO Appellate Body found that Section 211(a)(1) was not inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States. With respect to Section 211(a)(2), the Appellate Body did not question the right of the United States to refuse recognition "in its own 
territory [to] trademarks, trade names or other rights  relating to any intellectual property or other 
property rights that ... have been expropriated or  otherwise confiscated in other territories." See 
Appellate Body Report, 362-63.  
2. How can you defend the propriety of such cond uct to the Trade Policy Review Board from the 
standpoint of your ongoing commitment to comply with the DSB ruling on Section 211 –conduct that has continued for more than 10 years now? 
RESPONSE: Legislative proposals have been introduced in the current and prior Congresses to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The Administration continues to work on 
solutions to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
3. How can you support the conferring of validity and recognition of the so-called "original owner" 
(a misnomer) when it abandoned the mark for over two years and, based on the Lanham Act, 
any third party was permitted to register the Havana Club mark once it had not been used, and there was no intent to use it, for at least two years? 
RESPONSE:  Please see the answer to question 1. 
                                               
15 The ACTA was signed in Tokyo by Australia, Canada , Korea (Rep. of), Japan, New Zealand, Morocco, 
Singapore, and the United States. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 183 - 
 
  4. Based on what happened with the CUBAEXPORT case, what industrial property right 
guarantees does the United States offer in its territory to members of this Organization, and, in particular, to Cuba? 
RESPONSE: The United States affords persons from other WTO members with robust protection 
for, and enforcement of, intellectual property ri ghts. In addition to the panoply of remedies 
available to private rights holders in civil lawsuits against infringement, U.S. law also provides criminal penalties for certain types of intellectual property rights infringement. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 184 - 
 
  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
1. Customs Trade promotion 
The United States has promulgated various laws designed to promote trade. However 
implementation of these laws has been delayed or incomplete, as is the case for the scanning of all 
maritime containers and air freight. In that regard, it would be interesting to know what action 
might be taken to implement and apply the trade promotion legislation. 
RESPONSE: The United States has amply demonstrated its commitment to a strong and thriving 
international trading economy. US Customs and Bo rder Protection has deployed a multi-layered, 
risk-based approach to enhance the security of U. S. borders while facilitating the lawful flow of 
people and goods entering the United States. CBP has taken a dual approach to the critical issue of increasing and promoting international trade, by  securing the supply chain and borders, and by 
facilitating lawful trade by effectively analyzing pre-arrival information, utilizing information 
technology, engaging in partnership programs, and developing a robust and capable post-entry verification atmosphere and workforce.  
2. Rules of origin 
It would be interesting to know what measures are being taken to reduce the complexity and the 
difficulty of applying the laws and regulations on rules of origin and marking, given that according 
to this section the rules are different in the various industries and the final determination can 
depend on a number of factors. 
RESPONSE: While the United States does not consider its laws and regulations either inaccessible 
or cumbersome, CBP proposed a regulatory chan ge to apply the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR 
Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, rather than the case-by-case 
determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin marking purposes. Based on the comments received in response to the proposed changes, in September 2011, CBP issued a 
final rule that did not adopt new origin and marking rules. A total of 70 commenters responded to 
the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of the country of origin 
rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters ra ised specific concerns or questions regarding 
the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or opposing the proposal. SEE, 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-02/html/2011-22588.htm . 
The United States does not have any plans at this time to change its rules of origin or its current 
labeling requirements. 
3. Exclusion of Argentina from the Generalized  System of Preferences (GSP) for failing 
to pay arbitral awards 
In accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8788 of March 26, 2012, Argentina was excluded 
from the GSP for failing to act in good faith in enfo rcing arbitral awards in favor of U.S. companies. 
That decision has led to many debates on the im plications of and link between international trade 
and investment arbitration. 
Given that this measure could have a large impact on areas such as investment and trade 
arbitration, we would like to know if the U.S. policy in this area is limited to the Argentine case, or 
whether the U.S. is considering extending this measure to other countries in similar situations. 
Furthermore, we would like to know, to the extent  possible, what the decision-making process and 
criteria would be. 
RESPONSE: The decision to suspend the GSP trade benefits of Argentina was made pursuant to 
the U.S. statute governing the GSP program, which requires that, in order to be designated a GSP 
beneficiary, a country may not have failed to act in good faith in recognizing or enforcing arbitral awards in favor of U.S. citizens or corporatio ns. Each petition seeking the withdrawal of GSP 
benefits is considered on its own merits; and decisions on each petition are based on the 
circumstances of the particular case and the relevant statutory criteria. Changes to a beneficiary WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 185 - 
 
  country's eligibility for GSP trade benefits are made following a review of that country's practices 
with respect to the relevant GSP eligibility criteria. Such reviews generally include a public hearing, solicitation of comments from stakeholders, and consultations with the subject country. 
4. Restrictions to foreign direct investment 
Although the United States' investment regime has been described as open and transparent with 
few formal encumbrances, there remain a number of restrictions to foreign investment in certain 
areas. A number of federal laws or regulations act as barriers or otherwise restrict foreign 
investment in several areas. Moreover, certain in formation-gathering, monitoring, reporting, and 
disclosure procedures can also have an impact on foreign investment. 
It would be interesting to know which areas are the most affected by these measures, the criteria 
these measures apply, and the draft regulations that might be proposed to liberalize these areas. 
RESPONSE:  The Secretariat's Report does not itself speak to barriers or restrictions on foreign 
investment in the United States. Rather, the Report (at paragraph 35) references a report of the Congressional Research Services (CRS) that discuss es certain federal-level measures that "have an 
impact on foreign investment in the United States," including measures that do not restrict foreign 
investment. Detailed information about these measures is presented in the CRS report itself. 
5. Control of U.S. businesses by foreigners 
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is authorized to review 
transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person, in order to 
determine the national security effects of such transactions. Where CFIUS identifies national security concerns with a transaction that are no t adequately and appropriately addressed by other 
law, CFIUS is authorized to negotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the risks cannot be 
mitigated, recommend to the President that he suspend or prohibit the transaction. 
Although international agreements have derogations for national security and the environment, 
allowing States full use of their regulatory capacities, it would be interesting to know how the work 
of committees such as CFIUS is reconciled with provisions on executive boards and boards of 
directors in free trade agreements and international investment agreements. 
RESPONSE:  U.S. international investment agreements include an exception for application of 
measures that a Party considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests. This exception applies to the entirety of the agreemen t, including, therefore, with respect to any 
obligation relating to senior management and boards of directors. 
6. It would be in the United States' interest to improve the rules for determining the origin of 
textiles and clothing given that these rules are complex in their implementation, above all in that they are "yarn forward." 
RESPONSE:  This does not appear to be a question. 
7. Why have the U.S. preferential rules of orig in not been updated and notified to the WTO 
Committee on Rules of Origin? Likewise, the rules of origin have not been brought into line 
with the changes in the Fifth Amendment to the Harmonized System. 
RESPONSE:  The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
8. Why not have regulatory policies that require the marking of origin for manufactured products 
(both wholly acquired and those transformed using raw materials not originating in the 
country) that will then be exported to countries that have signed trade agreements with the USA? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain labelling requirements for goods being exported, 
and there are no plans at this time to change its current labelling requirements.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 186 - 
 
  9. Why are there taxes or sanctions on the marking rules regime? 
RESPONSE: We are unclear what is is meant by this question, and what taxes or sanctions, 
specifically, the Dominican Republic is referring to. 
10. Would the United States be willing to collaborate jointly with the other signatories of the 
CAFTA-DR FTA on the use of trademarks to not on ly allow errors but also to prevent discovery 
of the true origin of the goods? 
RESPONSE: We look forward to continued close cooperation with our CAFTA-DR partners on IPR 
issues, including with regards to trademarks. 
11. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Paragraph 14 of the Report by the Secretariat on the US Trade Policy Review refers to the role of 
the United States in the areas of standards an d sanitary and phytosanitary measures and notes 
that changes were made to these procedures. 
In that regard, we would ask the United States to tell us why an exception was made to the 
procedure and whether it believes that the incr ease in the controls under this Act will have 
negative effects on trade due to the additional cost of compliance with its provisions. 
RESPONSE: The United States has not changed its procedures for developing regulations. These 
procedures are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The US Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) has increased the number of routine inspections of all food facilities to meet 
new requirements mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was signed into law by the President on January 4, 2011. FSMA aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contaminatio n of foods to preventing contamination for both 
domestically produced and imported foods. FDA will be proposing new regulations to fully 
implement the FSMA, will notify the proposed rule s to the WTO, will be providing an opportunity 
for public comment on the proposed rules, and will take the public comments into consideration 
before finalizing any regulations. 
12. Regulation of Technical Standards 
In the regulations, we noted that the United Stat es regulates the sale of 40-proof rum despite the 
fact that the definition of rum in the CODEX A limentarius states that it may be between 33-40 
proof. Could the United States explain why it will not label a less-than-40-proof beverage as rum? 
RESPONSE: Federal regulations stating the U.S. standards of identity for distilled spirits are long 
standing, and pre-date Codex definitions. The regu lations require that all of the major classes of 
distilled spirits (neutral spirits, including vodka,  whisky, gin, brandy, rum, and tequila) be bottled 
at not less than 80° proof, which is equivalent to 40 per cent alcohol by volume. This 80° proof standard applies to both domestic and imported products. Spirits of these classes that are bottled 
at less than 80° proof may be labeled as "d iluted" vodka, whiskey, brandy, rum, etc. 
In accordance with paragraph 9 of the Report by the Secretariat on the U.S. preferential rules of 
origin: "The U.S. preferential rules of origin have not been notified to the WTO Committee on Rules 
of Origin since 1997. The preferential rules are contained in the HTSUS, mainly in the General 
Notes, accounting for approximately 670 pages of text. Additional preferential origin criteria, outside the General Notes, are in Chapter 98 an d 99 provisions. An importer would need to 
determine which preferential rules might apply to the product concerned, and then find the 
appropriate section of the HTSUS to determine the applicable origin criteria. Furthermore, the 
nomenclature-specific tariff shift information has not been updated to reflect HS2012 changes introduced in the tariff, which would have to be  negotiated between trad ing partners for FTAs." 
RESPONSE:  There does not appear to be a question in this paragraph. The United States 
submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to the WTO Secretariat on Friday, 
December 13, 2012. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 187 - 
 
  13. Given that the Dominican Republic has already included its changes in its most recent 
amendment to the Tariff Code, and that to date (bearing in mind the deadline of September 30, 2012) the United States has not even submitted the required documentation to the WTO to make the necessary changes to its WTO tariff listing, we would like to know when 
the United States plans to include these chan ges into the Harmonized System and what the 
course of action is for negotiating with trade partners. 
RESPONSE: The United States has submitted its Schedule XX of bound commitments in both 
HS 2007 and HS 2012 to the WTO Secretariat according to the submission dates established in 
WT/L/830 and WT/L/831, respectively. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC In the view of the United States, how would reac hing a so-called International Services Agreement 
(ISA) in the WTO help strengthen the multilateral trade system? 
RESPONSE: The United States sees the International Services Agreement (ISA) as a complement 
to bilateral and regional initiatives rather than a WTO work product. Still, the ISA can support the 
multilateral trading system. For example, by movi ng to a multiparty agreement we could start to 
bridge the gap between bilateral agreements and the multilateral trading system; by advancing 
the thinking on new issues, we can develop id eas that can subsequently be brought to the 
multilateral forum for consideration; and by achieving progress in the pursuit of services 
liberalization on a multiparty basis we can begin rebuilding momentum for multilateral initiatives. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1. Please explain the policy considerations that motivated the grant of these significant subsidies 
to rum producers located in the USVI and Puerto Rico. 
RESPONSE: The programs to which this question refers are intended to promote economic 
development in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. 
2. The Dominican Republic understands that the United States customs territory is statutorily 
defined as including the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
16 Can the 
United States therefore confirm that, for purposes of United States law, shipments from the USVI to the United States customs territory are properly characterized as "imports"? Can the 
United States also confirm that shipments from the United States into the USVI are properly 
characterized as exports, for purposes of United States law? Please identify any relevant provisions of United States' law having a bearing on this issue. 
RESPONSE:  Puerto Rico and the USVI are insular po ssessions of the United States. In 1952, in 
accordance with GATT Article XXVI:5(a), the United States included Puerto Rico and the USVI in a 
list of "territories for which contracting parties have international responsibility." See United 
States, The Territorial Application of the General Agreement, G/5 (March 17, 1952). 
3. If shipments from the USVI to the United States  constitute exports, do the subsidies at issue 
constitute export subsidies? 
RESPONSE:  See response to question #2. 
4. The subsidies at issue at the very least threaten to cause – and in some instances have 
already begun to cause – significant economic harm to Caribbean rum producers, including potentially eliminating numerous producers altogether. In almost all Caribbean rum-producing 
countries, the production of rum is a vital and essential part of the national economic fabric, 
providing thousands of direct and indirect jobs and livelihoods. 
Please explain whether and how the United States, including the territorial governments at 
issue, took into account the economic intere sts of Caribbean rum producing and exporting 
countries when these subsidy measures were implemented. 
                                               
16 19 C.F.R. § 101.1 WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 188 - 
 
  RESPONSE: For many years, the United States has made, and continues to make, major efforts to 
promote economic development in the Caribbean re gion. Significant programs take the economic 
health of the region very seriously. A notable ex ample is the Caribbean Basin Initiative ("CBI"), 
dating to 1983, and amended by the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act in 2000. The program 
has been expanded several times and CBI is now among the broadest and most expansive trade 
preference programs provided by the United Stat es. The United States has also allocated nearly 
$5 billion in assistance to the Caribbean region since 2002, including $422 million in the 
President's current 2013 budget request. 
5. Please explain how the United States intends to remedy or otherwise address the adverse 
effects that are being caused to these Caribbean rum producing and exporting Members. 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not agree that any adverse effects have been caused. 
6. Please indicate the amounts of covered-over excise tax revenue, transferred from the United 
States Federal Government to the governments of the USVI and Puerto Rico, respectively. Please provide the figures for 2010, 2011 and 2012, as well as the projected amounts for the 
period 2013 to 2010. 
RESPONSE:  The amounts below reflect cover-over revenue for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin 
Islands for Fiscal Years 2010-2012 (in millions). We do  not have projections of future cover-over 
amounts.  
Fiscal Year USVI Puerto Rico Total 
2010 $112.6 $375.5 $488.1 
2011 $112.6 $449.0 $582.5 
2012 $193.5 $373.2 $566.7 
7. Please provide data on the annual domestic sales and consumption of rum in the United 
States. 
RESPONSE:  The United States government does not collect statistics on rum consumption or 
sales. 
8. Please provide data on the annual imports of rum into the United States. 
RESPONSE: In 2011, the United States imported over $78 million in rum. 
9. Please provide information on the total incremental production capacity created in the USVI 
and Puerto Rico, respectively, as a result of the facility construction and modernization grants provided by the governments in these territories. 
RESPONSE:  In general, production capacity is considered to be confidential business information. 
However, the agreement between Diageo and the USVI , which is public, refers to a facility able to 
distill "up to approximately 20 million proof gallons per year." WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 189 - 
 
  ECUADOR 
Report of the WTO Secretariat I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.  Chapter I, Section (2) Monetary, Fiscal, and Other Policies, page 5, paragraph 9: Could the 
United States please explain how the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which could be 
interpreted as a fiscal outlay, complies with its commitments regarding export subsidies, 
considering that General Motors is a company that exports vehicles and engines to different 
destinations? When does the United States plan on notifying those measures? 
RESPONSE:  None of the assistance provided und er TARP was contingent upon export 
performance. The United States will consider whether the Automotive Industry Financing Program is appropriate for inclusion in our next notification. The details of the program, including the 
agreements signed with each of the companies, can be found at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives /financial-stability/TARP-Prog rams/automotive-programs/Pages
/default.aspx .  
2.  Paragraph 7, page 6: What measures has the US Government taken to expand economic and 
trade opportunities for small, women- and minority-owned companies that do business in the region, specifically for South American and Ande an companies that do business with the U.S.? 
RESPONSE: In April 2012 prior to the Summit of the Americas in Colombia, President Obama 
launched the Small Business Network of the Americas in Tampa, Florida. This network will link US Small Business Development Centers around the country with a growing network of counterpart small business centers in Mexico, Central America and the Dominican Republic, 
Panama, Colombia, and other partners in Latin America. The Network will feature business 
competitions and online trade platforms to facilitate closer regional trade ties and partnerships between small businesses. More information on the Small Business Network of the Americas may 
be found at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/ 04/13/fact-sheet-small-business-network-amer
icas.  
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
1.  In paragraph 27, p. 29, regarding Trade Agr eements and Trade Preferences, the Report on the 
United States establishes that the coverage of  the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) has 
been reduced due to the free trade agreements (FTAs) with Peru and Colombia. Ecuador 
values the tariff preferences that the United States applies under the ATPA and their ongoing 
contribution to counternarcotics efforts. Ecuador has taken incredible steps in the fight against drug trafficking and in promoting the country's development through trade. Indeed, in addition 
to its enormous contribution to economic growth and employment in Ecuador and the United 
States, the ATPA is a key element in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Ecuador and an important tool for Ecuador in its counternarcotics efforts in the Andean region. 
The ATPA-dependent products that flourish near the north-central Colombian border, known 
for its opium and coca leaf plantations, have helped displace drug production while supporting development in the area. These products have also benefitted underprivileged sectors of the 
population, such as female heads of households (women account for slightly more than 50 per 
cent of the people active in the flower industry  and a growing percentage of the labor force in 
the broccoli industry). As such, the ATPA progra m is the main cooperation initiative and the 
most effective tool in the counternarcotics effort s of the two countries. The ATPA contributes to 
Ecuador's democratic institutions and forms part of U.S. efforts to strengthen its alliances with 
Latin America. 
In the past, the United States has extended the ATPA for no more than a year. These 
short-term extensions create uncertainty for investors and erode confidence in the Andean 
market. This uncertainty is aggravated by th e fact that Ecuador is currently the only 
beneficiary country under the ATPA. To what extent is the US Government considering a 
long-term extension (3-5 years) of the ATPA for Ecuador? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 190 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Obama Administration will be consulting with the incoming US Congress as to its 
intentions with respect to the U.S. trade preference  programs that are slated to expire at the end 
of July 2013. Meanwhile, the Administration is now reviewing petitions by Ecuador to add products to the Generalized System of Preferences that cu rrently eligible for duty-free treatment under the 
ATPA program. 
2.  Chapter II, Section (4) Investment agreements and policies, page 33, paragraph 35: With 
respect to the obligation of foreign persons or an  interest by a foreign person in agricultural 
land to submit a report Secretary of Agriculture, could the United States please explain the 
reasons for and the aims pursued with this requirement under the Agricultural Foreign 
Investment Disclosure Act? 
RESPONSE: The US Congress passed the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) 
in 1978, at a time when foreign interest in U.S. agriculture was increasing. The regulations on 
AFIDA establish a system for the collection of information by the US Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency pertaining to foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land. The data gained 
from the collected information is used to prepare an annual report for Congress, as is required by 
the law. There are no restrictions on purchases of U.S. agricultural land by non-U.S. citizens, only 
the reporting requirement. 
3.  Paragraph 138, page 35 of the report refers to the trade-related capacity-building initiative 
within the framework of the WTO, in which the U.S. participates and through which the building of trade capacity is sought. What specific measures of the Trade Promotion Agreements, such as the U.S.-Peru agreement,  are implemented to increase such trade 
capacity, and might be replicated in a potential agreement between the U.S. and Ecuador? 
What elements does a Trade Promotion Agreement contain that differentiate it from a Free Trade Agreement? 
RESPONSE: In order to help US FTA partners participate in negotiations, implement 
commitments, and benefit over the long-term, USTR has created trade capacity building (TCB) working groups in FTA negotiations with developing countries and Committees on TCB to prioritize 
and coordinate TCB activities during the transition  and implementation periods once an FTA enters 
into force. USTR leads the TCB Committees an d USAID and USDA, their field missions, and a 
number of other US Government assistance providers actively participate in these working groups and committees so that TCB needs identified can be quickly and efficiently incorporated into 
ongoing regional and country assistance programs. The Committees on TCB also coordinate with 
invite non-governmental organizations, representatives from the private sector, and international institutions to join in building the trade capacity of the countries in each region. Trade capacity 
building is an important feature of cooperation in support of the CAFTA-DR, the United States-Peru 
Trade Promotion Agreement, the United States -Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and the 
United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. USTR also works closely with the Department 
of State and other agencies to track and guide the delivery of TCB assistance to Jordan, Morocco, 
Bahrain, and Oman. 
TCB assistance under our FTAs is tailored to individual country needs, so it is not possible to 
indicate what assistance would be appropriate under FTAs yet to be negotiated. There is not a 
substantive difference between the terms Free Tr ade Agreement and Trade Promotion Agreement 
as used by the United States in its recent trade deals. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
1. Chapter III, Section (1) Measures directly affectin g imports, page 36, paragraph 2, footnote 2, 
in relation to Mutual Recognition Arrangements MRA (non-binding): According to the existing information on this issue, with the signature of these MRAs, Authorized Economic Operators 
programs within the (SAFE) framework would aim to facilitate trade among the signatory 
countries. According to the WTO Secretariat, the United States has concluded MRAs with several countries, including New Zealand, Canada, and others. Could the United States please explain how these RTAs would not be granting an advantage, favor, or privilege, in regard to 
the regulations and requirements related to imports and exports, to products from the 
countries that are signatories of these agreements, and whether these advantages would extend to like products from other WTO member countries? How is the signature and WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 191 - 
 
  implementation of these MRAs justified in view of the commitments of the United States with 
regard to the principles of nondiscrimination? 
RESPONSE:  The Mutual Recognition Agreements do not affect the importation of goods in a way 
that implicates United States WTO obligations. 
2. Chapter III, Section (1) "Customs procedures," page 36, paragraph 2, mentions that the CBP 
is undertaking several initiatives, inter alia, to protect the supply chain and implement security measures and best practices through the conclusion of mutual recognition arrangements with a 
number of foreign governments in order to link international industry partnerships together 
globally. In this respect, could the United States please name the countries with which it has concluded mutual recognition arrangements? What  are the requirements for the signature of 
these arrangements? How would security be improved without hindering trade for the 
countries with which mutual recognition arrangements have not been concluded? 
RESPONSE:  Information about U.S. efforts in the area of international mutual recognition can be 
found at: 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/ctpat_program_information/international_effor
ts/.  
3. Chapter III, Section (1) "Customs procedures," page 37, paragraph 2 refers to the Security 
and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act in order to evaluate the viability of requiring the 
scanning of all maritime cargo containers. Could the United States please specify whether that process would entail an additional administrative cost for imports that could affect the final price paid by the consumer? Does this provis ion comply with the principle of National 
Treatment? 
4. In paragraph 2, p. 37, on customs procedures, the Report on the United States describes 
various US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) initiatives designed to facilitate trade and 
secure U.S. borders. These initiatives include the "Secure Freight Initiative." Through this 
initiative, CBP is evaluating the possibility of requiring the scanning of all maritime cargo containers. Ecuador notes that this scanning process could be exceedingly problematic for 
developing countries – the equipment and the expert know-how required to carry out the 
"Secure Freight Initiative" would be costly and time-consuming. The initiative could lead to the reduction of trade with the United States for those countries that cannot meet the maritime cargo scanning requirements. What is the anticipated schedule for the implementation of the 
"Secure Freight Initiative?" Has the United States considered providing an alternate compliance 
option for developing countries and countries that  already meet certain security standards, in 
order to keep this process from being overly costly and time-consuming? 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 3 AND 4: Estimates for potential costs incurred outside of the 
United States to implement the scanning regime as  envisioned by the SAFE Port Act legislation 
vary based on a number of factors. In the pilot ports the US Government bore all the costs. On 
May 2012, DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a report and letter to Congress extending to July 2014 
the deadline to implement 100% scanning. 
5. Chapter III, Section (1) "Customs procedures," page 37, paragraph 3, indicates that CBP 
recently proposed new rules or procedures for the process overseen by customs. Could the 
United States please provide the publication date of the final regulations to which this section 
refers? 
RESPONSE : A new comment period regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking for amendments 
to the inbond process opened in July 2012 and ended in August 2012. CBP is currently analyzing 
those comments. There is no specific target date at this time for publication of the final notice of rulemaking. 
6. It follows from Chapter III, Section (1) "Customs procedures," page 38, paragraph 4, that U.S. 
law authorizes only licensed customs brokers to transact customs business on behalf of third 
parties (importers or buyers). Does the United States anticipate the elimination of customs brokers under its laws? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 192 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States does not anticipate the elimination of customs brokers. 
7.  Paragraphs 145-157, pages 37-40 of the report address trade-related matters pertaining to 
the environment, workers, and small and medium -sized businesses, respectively. Is there any 
proposal to implement a program on trade and development issues (those being the issues in 
the current Doha Round), which could be discussed in other forums with the aim of advancing 
them in its agreements? 
RESPONSE: The United States has a comprehensive development policy that encompasses 
economic growth and trade as a component. The trade and development issues that are currently 
part of WTO discussions, including those that have been identified during the Doha Round, are part of the mandate of the WTO. To the extent that di scussion on these issues and U.S. implementation 
of trade and development programs is appropriat e in other forums, the United States engages 
constructively in those discussions consistent with the mandate of the WTO and other international 
organizations. 
8.  Paragraphs 8-14, pp. 40-45, of the Report on the United States examines the rules of origin in 
the various trade agreements that the United States has signed. In particular, the Report 
states that each agreement establishes its own ru les of origin, specifically negotiated between 
trade partners. The Report adds that, for the tari ff preference programs, the rules of origin are 
based on criteria that determine a minimum percentage of national content when a product 
has been "wholly obtained" or "substantially transformed" in a country. The report states that the United States is working to harmonize a ll of the different provisions of the trade 
agreements regarding rules of origin. Because of the large number of rules of origin available, 
Ecuador expresses its concern over the complexity  and lack of transparency in the rules of 
origin regime. 
 Has the United States considered the harmonizatio n of the rules of origin that are in the tariff 
preference programs and free trade agreements? In particular, has the United States 
considered the harmonization of the rules of or igin for countries that previously benefitted 
from the tariff preferences and now have a free trade agreement with the United States? 
Finally, has the United States considered the impact that its current rules of origin regime 
could have on countries that benefit from tariff preference programs? 
RESPONSE: The US Customs administration, CBP, proposed a regulatory change to apply the 
NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, 
rather than the case-by-case determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin 
marking purposes. Based on the comments received in response to its proposed changes, in September 2011, CBP issued a final rule not adop ting new origin and marking rules. A total of 
70 commenters responded to the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple 
submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of the country of origin rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters raised specific 
concerns or questions regarding the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or 
opposing the proposal. For more specific information on the comments and replies, and rational please see, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-02/html /2011-22588.htm .  
The United States has not undertaken a study of the impact of its rules of origin on the trade 
facilitation environment on its border. The United States does not have any immediate plans to adopt a new set of preferential or non-preferential rules of origin. 
9. Page 42, paragraph (c): What are the substantial transformation rules for country-of-origin 
marking? 
RESPONSE: For information on the United States Rules of Origin and substantial transformation 
please see: 
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp026.ctt/icp026.pd
f.  
10. Chapter III, Section (1) "preferential rules of origin," page 42, paragraph 9, states that the 
U.S. preferential rules of origin have not been notified to the WTO Committee on Rules of Origin since 1997. When will the United States submit said notifications? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 193 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
11. Chapter III, Section (1) "Country-of-origin marking," page 43, paragraph 12, indicates that 
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,  provides that all imported articles, unless 
exempted (Table III.2), must be marked at the time of importation so that the "ultimate purchaser" knows where the imported article was manufactured. How is the origin of such 
merchandise determined? 
RESPONSE:  The United States relies on the theory of substantial transformation for determining 
the country of origin for marking purposes and this is carried out on a case-by-case basis. For 
information on the United States Rules of Origin and substantial transformation please see, http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp026.ctt/icp026.pd
f.  
12. Chapter III, Section (1) Measures directly affect ing imports, page 43, paragraph 13, footnote 
34, refers to the specific marking rules for imported products, which are different from those 
applied to national products. Could the United States please explain how this differentiation in 
marking requirements between national and foreign products, including existing sanctions that are for improperly marked imported goods only, is consistent with the nondiscrimination 
provisions contained in the multilateral rules? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not consider its rules to be unduly complex or 
nontransparent. The United States rules of origin are fully compliant with its WTO obligations. 
Under 19 USC 1304 unless excepted, all foreign origin goods must be marked so as to inform the ultimate purchaser in the United States of its country of origin. 
13. Chapter III, Section (1) "(a) Tariff nomenclature," page 46, paragraph 16, indicates that 
chapter 99 of the HS pertains to temporary legi slation, temporary modifications, and additional 
import restrictions. How does the United States verify that the goods entering its market under 
a special regime are not transformed for consumption purposes? 
RESPONSE : Chapter 99 pertains to special tariff treatment as a result of "temporary legislation" 
not temporary entry. 
14. Chapter III, page 46, paragraph 17: When does the United States plan to submit the 
documentation to make the necessary changes to its WTO tariff schedule? 
RESPONSE:  The United States will be notifying the Committee on Market Access of modifications 
to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect these changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States as soon as possible. 
15.  Chapter III, Section (1) Measures directly affecting imports, page 46, paragraph 19: With 
respect to the countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations status, could the United 
States please specify which provisions of the multilateral rules would justify the different tariff treatment of like originating products from such countries compared to products from other 
WTO Members, in terms of the principles of nond iscrimination? Is there any request or intent 
to request any exemption to justify the measure described? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not believe that any exemption is necessary to address the 
current situation. WTO obligations, including those with respect to tariffs, only apply between WTO 
Members, and then only when the WTO Agreemen t applies between the two countries. In cases 
where the United States is unable to provide "unc onditional" MFN treatment to goods of a country, 
the United States has invoked the non-application provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization until such time as the United States is able to provide 
unconditional MFN treatment to goods of that country. 
16. Page 47, paragraph 99: Which countries are the permitted destination countries for arms 
exports? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 194 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  International Traffic in Arms Regulations part 126 identifies those countries against 
which there are defense related trade restrictions. While the list of countries changes, and the nature of the restrictions against each country varies, information regarding the countries for which there are defense trade restrictions can be found at: 
http://pmddtc.state.gov/embargoed_countries/index.html .  
For all other countries, licenses or other approvals for the export of defense articles or furnishing 
of defense services are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 
17.  Chapter III, Section (1) Measures directly a ffecting imports, page 49, paragraph 24, notes 
that the legal change to amend certain tobacco tariffs pursuant to Article XXVIII renegotiations has not been implemented at the WTO, while it appears the United States proceeded domestically with these changes long ago. A ccording to the report by the Secretariat, 
document G/SECRET/2 of March 3 [sic] 1995 has not been approved or certified. Accordingly, 
could the United States please specify under which provisions of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 and its respective Understanding such amendments were made? 
RESPONSE: The United States notified the conclusion of the Article XXVIII negotiations (see 
G/SECRET/2.Add1) and provided a copy of the US HTS changes to the WTO. 
18. In paragraph 24, p. 49, on tariffs, the Report on the United States indicates that the WTO tariff 
bindings do not yet reflect HS changes from 2007 and 2012, as is the case with most 
Members, or some other changes that the United States has made domestically. 
Given the importance of clear and transparent tariff provisions, and in accordance with the WTO, 
what are the reasons for the delay and what is the anticipated schedule for updating the 
abovementioned changes? 
RESPONSE: The United States will be notifying the Committee on Market Access of modifications 
to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect these changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States as soon as possible. 
19. Chapter III, Section (1) Measures directly affe cting imports, page 50, paragraph 30, regarding 
duty refund certificates: Given that those cert ificates are based on the amount of wages and 
fringe benefits paid, could the United States please explain how it quantifies the value of the 
duty refund certificate in order to ensure, in the case of exported products, that the values 
refunded do not exceed the amount of taxes collected? 
RESPONSE: The amount of the production incentive duty refund certificate is based on a 
percentage of qualifying wages and fringe benefits (health insurance, life insurance and pension 
benefits) paid to workers under the program during the previous calendar year. This certificate entitles the companies participating in the program to refunds, in the amount of the certificate, of 
duties owed on goods imported into the United Stat es. This refund of duties is not related to or 
contingent upon exports from the United States. For further details regarding this program, please see the following website http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sips/index.html .  
20. In paragraph 32, pp. 50-51, Other Charges Affecting Imports, the Report on the United States 
establishes that, for informal entries, the current limit on fees for the processing of commercial merchandise is US $2,000. However, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Treasury have proposed raising that amount to US $2,500. In accordance with 
WTO provisions, and to prevent the arbitrary or discriminatory application of commercial 
merchandise processing fees, please explain the reasoning behind the proposed fee increase and the manner in which it would be applied. 
RESPONSE:  This issue involved informal entry procedures not the merchandise processing fee. 
Imported merchandise valued up to $2500 may now be entered under informal entry procedures rather than formal entry procedures. 
21. Page 50, paragraph 29: With which FTA partners does the United States maintain tariff-rate 
quotas on some imports? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 195 - 
 
  RESPONSE: This information is available at: http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/msrpoint.htm#tradeact .  
22. Page 51, paragraph 114, first clause: Is the credit offered by the Ex-Im Bank to buyers of 
exports from the United States extended to buyers regardless of their country of origin, or are there restrictions with respect to certain countries? 
RESPONSE:  Under statute, US Ex-Im Bank is currently prohibited from operating in: Iran, Cuba, 
Burma, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. In cert ain markets, and on an ongoing basis, Ex-Im's 
activities can be restricted based on buyer types (public vs. private), and tenors (short, medium 
and long-term) for economic reasons. (For current Country Limitation Schedule, see: 
http://www.exim.gov/tools/country limitationschedule/index.cfm ). 
23.  Page 52, paragraph 35: How much is this fee? Is it a fixed rate? Is it assessed on all imports? 
RESPONSE:  COBRA fees and inspection fees are assessed at fixed flat rates. For more information 
on these fees, see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201 2-title19-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title19-
vol1-part24.pdf .  
24.  Page 55, paragraph 42: Which of the two agencies represents the U.S. in international 
dumping cases? 
RESPONSE: In the administration of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty law legislation, the 
United States has a bifurcated system. The US Department of Commerce determines whether 
imports or sales from another country are introduced into the commerce of the United States at 
less than fair value (i.e., dumping) or a countervailable subsidy is being provided. The US International Trade Commission determines whether a U.S. industry is materially injured, threatened with material injury, or the establis hment of an industry in the United States is 
materially retarded by reason of dumped  and/or subsidized imports or sales. 
25. Box III.1, on The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), refers to  the new FDA registration 
requirement that takes effect in 2012 for food facilities, including foreign facilities. Through 
which agency in the product's country of origin should this registration be processed? 
RESPONSE: Section 102 of FSMA amends section 415(a) (2) of the FD&C Act by requiring food 
facilities subject to the act to submit registrations to FDA containing additional information. 
Specifically, a registration for a domestic facility is required to contain the e-mail address for the 
contact person of the facility, or for a foreign fac ility, the e-mail address of the United States agent 
for the facility. More information on facility registration can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm314178.htm . On-line registration can be done 
electronically (see instructions at: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceC omplianceRegulatoryInformation /RegistrationofFoodFacilities/
OnlineRegistration/default.htm ), or by mail (see instructions at: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceC omplianceRegulatoryInformation /RegistrationofFoodFacilities/
ucm073728.htm ).  
26. Page 57, paragraph 48: When does the Department of Commerce determine that a different 
comparison method is applicable to a case? 
RESPONSE: As explained in the February 2012 Federal Register  notice, in investigations and 
reviews, except where Commerce determines that a pplication of a different comparison method is 
more appropriate, Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices with weighted-average 
normal values, and will grant offsets for all such comparisons that show export price exceeds 
normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rates. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, Commerce has 
evaluated case-specific arguments as to whether an average-to-transaction comparison method is 
appropriate based on the facts of the particular case. The determinations in those investigations and reviews are also published in the Federal Register . 
27. In paragraph 81, pp. 73-74, the Report on the United States discusses the regulatory system 
for the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The Report indicates that the regulations on food safety and quality in the United States are complex and include more than WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 196 - 
 
  30 different rules imposed by 15 regulatory bodies. The regulations address risk assessment, 
safety standards, laboratory accreditation and inspections, as well as other matters. 
Under the International Plant Protection Convention, once a product meets the national plant 
protection standards, it should not face new re gulations in order to be transported within the 
country. How does the complex system of regulations to implement sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures affect the movement of imported products in the United States? What has been the effect of these regulations in the prevention of "undue delays," as required in Annex C of the 
WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures? How do these 
regulations comply with Article 2(2) of the WT O Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures, which requires the parties to ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or 
plant life or health, and is based on scientifi c principles and sufficient scientific evidence? 
RESPONSE: U.S. regulatory agencies create and apply SPS measures pursuant to U.S. law. In 
doing so, the regulatory agencies consider  international standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations when applying SPS measures, co nsistent with US WTO obligations. Also, in 
accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, the U. S. government notifies new or revised SPS 
measures to the WTO for member review and comment. 
28. Page 77, subsection (e), Patent Law, refers to the guarantee that during the (1 year) grace 
period that company "X" has to file the patent for its product, and during which it is disclosing its invention, company "Y" cannot patent the same product or one that is very similar in nature to company "X"'s product. What does this guarantee specifically entail? 
RESPONSE : The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act made changes to the provisions pertaining to 
the one year grace period under U.S. patent law, which is now an exception under 35 USC § 102. The grace period changes provide a safety-net ag ainst the inadvertent loss of patent protection 
stemming from common research and developm ent practices. Generally, under the newly 
amended § 102(b)(1)(A), an inventor has one year from the time he or she discloses an invention within which to file a patent application. In the case of a third party filing a patent on a similar 
subject matter, the newly amended § 102(b)(2)(B) prov ides that a disclosure shall not be prior art 
to a claimed invention under § 102(a) (2) if, "the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed… been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint 
inventor." 
29. In reference to page 78, paragraph 88, has the Working Group that was set up in March 2009 
determined the safety level of food imported from countries where the products are considered 
high-risk? 
RESPONSE:  President Obama created the Working Group in 2009 to recommend a new, public 
health-focused approach to food safety based on three core principles: 1) prioritizing prevention; 
2) strengthening surveillance and enforcement;  and 3) improving response and recovery. The 
purpose of the group was to develop short- and long-term agendas to make food safer. As a result 
of the recommendations of the working group, th e Administration and Congress worked together 
to modernize U.S. food safety laws for the Food  and Drug Administration (www.fda.gov) and the 
Food Safety and Inspection Serv ice (www.fsis.usda.gov/). At the President's direct ion, the U.S. 
government took action to protect American families from foodborne illness. This action includes 
new rules and standards to reduce dangerous infections caused by Salmonella, Campylobacter,  
and E. coli  O157:H7 (and other Shiga Toxin producing E. coli ); better approaches in responding to 
disease outbreaks; and vastly improved Federal coor dination of food safety efforts, as well as the 
passage into law and implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act. 
30. Pages 92-94, paragraphs 175 to 180, regarding patents, refer to court injunctions as a legal 
remedy for patent violations. Since the 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange, how often have U.S. judges perm itted the infringement of patents and instead 
ordered the infringing company to pay royalties to a patent holder? 
RESPONSE: Under U.S. law, a patentee is entitled to a remedy by civil action for infringement of 
his patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 281. Federal court judges may order a variety of remedies depending WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 197 - 
 
  upon the particular circumstances of each patent infringement case. An analysis of recent 
decisions post- eBay can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/ 03/110307patent report.pdf .  
31. In relation to pages 94, 95, and 96, paragraphs 184 to 188: The United States proposal for the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) contains a draft provision that would create 
liability for the circumvention of a technological protection measure (TPM) and make it a 
"separate cause of action, independent of any in fringement that might occur under the Party's 
law on copyright and related rights." By creating an independent and separate cause of action, 
in addition to establishing a copyright violation, would this new provision have the effect of 
invalidating copyright limitations and exceptions ? Additionally, how does this draft proposal 
take account of the decisions of the Court of A ppeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that a 
"critical nexus" must exist between an underlying copyright infringement and the 
circumvention of a TPM in order for the Court to find liability? The United States has presented 
several narrowly defined limitations and exceptions in its draft proposal on measures to counter the circumvention of technological protection measures, together with a regulatory 
proceeding in which the proponents of addition al exceptions must demonstrate the need for 
such exception with "substantial evidence" ever y three years. Does the U.S. acknowledge that 
its proposal would limit the policy space for the application of limitations and exceptions to the 
circumvention of technological protection measures and would not allow for broad flexibility for 
adaptation to the rapid evolution of technology ? Does the U.S. recognize that the proposed 
regulatory process is a slow and cumbersome pr ocess for all parties involved? An independent 
report known as the "Hargreaves Report" stated that "Copyright law was never intended to be 
an instrument for regulating the development of consumer technology. But where it can block 
or permit developments or applications of technology that is precisely what it becomes." As a result, "innovation may be blocked and growth hampered when unduly rigid applications of 
copyright law enables rights holders to block potentially important new technologies." How 
does the U.S. reconcile its proposals with the criticism that the heightened protection of TPMs could block innovation and regulate the development of consumer technology, given the broad 
range of technology that uses technological protection measures today (including, for example, 
free/open-source software, remote controls, smart phones, digital readers, recording systems, and other technologies)? The WIPO Internet Trea ties provide flexibility in order to ensure the 
adequate and effective protection of technological protection measures. Does the United States 
recognize that its TPPA proposals limit the fl exibility provided for in the WIPO Internet 
Treaties? Recalling the implementation of these treaties in the United States through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), does the United States recognize that the principal 
private proponent of the DMCA acknowledged that this new legislation will exceed the 
requirements established in the WIPO Internet Treaties? 
RESPONSE: The United States notes at the outset that it does not agree with a number of the 
premises and assumptions underlying several of the questions posed. The United States is home to 
the world's most innovative companies in the digital environment, which have flourished under the United States' intellectual property regime. To continue to provide the incentives and stable framework that can nurture a healthy environment in the Asia-Pacific region, USTR supports 
inclusion in the Trans-Pacific Part nership (TPP) of provisions on technological protection measures 
(TPMs) designed to address the challenges of the 21st century digital environment. 
By reducing the costs of dissemination and lowering the barriers to entry, the Internet is creating a 
global market for creative works and enhancing consumer welfare enabling broader and faster 
access to culture. In this environment, individu al creators and copyright owners need to both 
protect against unauthorized uses of their works and also to develop and experiment with new 
business models that offer consumers a much wider range of choices to access and enjoy 
copyrighted content online. TPMs are an important tool that serves both of these purposes. TPMs 
are generally digital and consist of passwords, encr yption, or a range of other digital technologies 
that are used to create safe, trusted online platforms for the lawful distribution of content. These 
features also permit businesses to develop and experiment with new business models that offer 
consumers a much wider range of choices to access. 
Article 11 of the WCT establishes an international obligation to protect against the circumvention 
of technological measures, requiring Member States to "provide adequate legal protection and 
effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are 
used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this treaty or the Berne 
Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 198 - 
 
  authors concerned or permitted by law." Article 18 of the WPPT contains a nearly identical 
provision. Similarly, US FTAs contain provisions modeled on the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) regarding adequate legal protection (including appropriate exceptions), and effective legal remedies against circumvention of passwords, encryption, and other "technological protection 
measures." See e.g., United States – Korea Free Trade Agreement, Article 18.7.4; United States – 
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, Article 16.7.4, United States – Panama Trade Promotion 
Agreement, Article 15.5.7. 
The DMCA establishes prohibitions on certain acts, including the act of circumventing a 
technological measures that effectively controls access to a work protected under the US Copyright 
Act (so-called "access controls"), as well as the trafficking in technologies, products, devices, 
components or the offering of certain services th at are primarily designed for such circumvention, 
that have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than circumvention, and 
that marketed for use in circumventing such measures. The DMCA also prohibits trafficking in 
technologies, products, devices, components or the offering of certain services that are primarily 
designed for such circumvention, that have only  a limited commercially significant purpose or use 
other than circumvention, and that marketed for use in circumventing measures that effectively 
protect a right of a copyright owner. 
These prohibitions are subject, to the extent spec ified in law, to a number of statutory exceptions, 
which relate to matters such as reverse engineering; encryption research; security testing; 
protection of minors; protection of personally identifying information; nonprofit libraries, archives 
and educational institutions; and law enforcement, intelligence and other government activities. The DMCA permits additional exceptions to be developed through a rulemaking procedure, as described in the Act. The DMCA does not require particular product designs or the monitoring of services. 
To date, the United States and the ten other negotiating parties in the TPP have not yet agreed on 
the provisions regarding TPMs that will be included in the final agreement. Negotiations are still 
continuing. 
32. Chapter III, Section (3) Other measures affectin g investment and trade, page 108, paragraph 
163: With respect to the jurisdiction of the USPTO over issues relating to intellectual property 
and economic growth, and taking account of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement regarding 
the obligation of the developed Member countries to provide incentives to their enterprises and institutions for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to 
least-developed country Members, could the U.S. please state whether the USPTO has 
analyzed the percentage of U.S. techno logy transfer to developing countries? 
RESPONSE: Good sources of data on technology transfer from the United States or any other 
territory is limited because of the multiplicity of  such transfers from a diverse array of entities, 
principally in the private sector. The United States reports annually to the TRIPS Council on the 
incentives it provides to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least-developed countries annual, pursuant to 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, including most recently on October 23, 2012 (document 
number IP/C/W/580/Add. 6, which is available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop _e/trips_e/tech transfer_e.htm ).  
33. Chapter III, Section (3) Other measures affectin g investment and trade, page 113, paragraph 
177, refers to the creation of the new category of applicant known as a "micro entity" under 
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. What requirements must small businesses and 
independent inventors meet in order to qualify as a "micro entity"? Is the classification and treatment of a "micro entity" applied under equal conditions to foreign inventors or 
companies? 
RESPONSE: The USPTO issued Final Rules and Regulation for the criteria to identify a "micro 
entity." Please see the following link for these rules: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_impl ementation/77fr75019.pdf . Both foreign and domestic inventors 
and companies may equally claim "micro entity" status. 
34. Chapter III, Section (3) Other measures affectin g investment and trade, page 113, paragraph 
179, refers to court decisions pertaining to the application of the principles of patentability WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 199 - 
 
  under U.S. law. Could the U.S. please explain in depth the impact of these decisions, 
principally with regard to patentable material? 
RESPONSE:  Paragraph 179 referred to two US Supreme Court cases: (1) Bilski v. Kappos  
(2010); and (2) Mayo v. Prometheus  (2012). 
(1) Bilski v. Kappos . In July 2010, USPTO issued guidance for determining subject matter 
eligibility for process claims in view of Bilski v. Kappos , 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). See 75 Fed. 
Reg. 43922 (July 27, 2010). The complete guidance may be found in the Federal Register, 
or, on the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/a nnounce/bilski_guidance.jsp . 
(2) Mayo v. Prometheus. In July 2012, USPTO issued its Interim Procedure for Subject Matter 
Eligibility Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature in view of Mayo 
v. Prometheus , 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012). The complete interim guidance may be found on the 
USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/ exam/2012_inter im_guidance.pdf . 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
1. Chapter IV, Section (1) Agriculture, page 126,  paragraph 14, regarding price based safeguard 
measures: As described in the Secretariat's Report, "Whenever an importer declares a price for 
out-of-quota imports that is below the level where the [Special Agricultural Safeguard] is applicable, the additional duty is automatically  applied." It appears that the United States 
would have applied price-based agricultural safeguard measures to in-quota imports. Could the 
U.S. please explain how this measure was brou ght into line with the provisions of the 
Agriculture Agreement with respect to the application of safeguard measures to imports within tariff-rate quotas? 
RESPONSE: The United States only applies the special agricultural safeguards (SSG) to 
out-of-quota tariff lines. Imports benefiting from WTO TRQs are classified in separate tariff lines 
that are not subject to the SSG. 
2. Chapter IV, Section (3) "Services," page 149, paragraph 72: Considering the specific 
commitments of the United States with regard to financial services, could the U.S. please explain how the implementation of the Dodd-Fr ank Act, the objectives of which include 
promoting financial stability, ending "too big to fail", ending bailouts, protecting taxpayers, and 
protecting consumers from abusive financial services practices, is consistent with WTO provisions, especially if those measures coul d affect the supply of a specific service? 
3. According to Chapter IV, Section (3) "Services," page 151, paragraph 80, regulators will have 
the authority to impose capital, margin, reporting, record-keeping, and conduct requirements 
on swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants, and major security-based swap participants, to ensure, among other things, that they have adequate 
financial resources to meet their responsibilities. It also mentions that banks that are insured 
depositary institutions will be required to spin  off their riskiest derivatives trading operations 
into affiliates if the banks wish to remain eligible for federal assistance. Could the U.S. please 
explain how this process is consistent with WTO provisions, if those measures could limit the 
types of financial services an entity can provide? 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 2 AND 3 ABOVE: Financial regulatory agencies are in the 
rulemaking process to implement the Dodd-Frank Wa ll Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
of 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act and related rulemaking are consistent with US WTO obligations. For 
example, authorization or licensing requirements  (which are the subject of Ecuador's question 
number 3) apply to all financial services providers are not inconsistent with the obligations of the 
GATS. 
4. Has the United States submitted its "Checklist of Issues" in accordance with the notification 
requirements of the Agreement on the Implem entation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 - 
Decision on checklist of issues (taken by the WTO Committee on 12 May 1995 and 
25 April 1996)? If it has not, when does it plan to do so? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 200 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States' response to the "checklist of issues" is contained in 
VAL/2/Rev.1/Add.1. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 201 - 
 
  EL SALVADOR 
Report by the Secretariat 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(3) Developments in trade an d foreign direct investment 
(ii) Trade in services, paragraph 26 
The above paragraph states that, "The services trade (imports and exports) is generally 
concentrated in relatively few, mainly advanced, developed countries." 
Question: 
 Could the United States please state, as appropriate, which measures have been taken or are 
under consideration to prevent the concentration of trade in services in the hands of a small 
number of developed and advanced countries? 
RESPONSE:  U.S. trade in services is driven by commercial considerations, not government policy. 
The data reported reflects the fact that the volume  of services trade is related to the market size 
of the trading partner. Many U.S. service suppliers are active globally. 
 Could the United States indicate how developing and less advanced countries can participate in 
the trade in services with the United States at all levels of government? 
RESPONSE: One of the ways for developing countries to better participate is by opening their 
markets to trade and investment in services. It is important to recall that "imports" of services through mode 3 can result in exports of services through all modes, while also supporting local 
economic development, employment and training. 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(2) Participation in the World Trade Organization, paragraph 6 
This paragraph states that, "According to the US  Trade Policy Agenda, the United States is 
'committed to preserving and enhancing the WTO's irreplaceable role as the primary forum for 
multilateral trade liberalization, for the developmen t and enforcement of global trade rules, and as 
a key bulwark against protectionism.'
17 
The United States continues to support, participate and pursue trade initiatives and further 
liberalization through the WTO's multilateral trade framework. Furthermore, the United States is 
committed to contributing constructively and cr eatively to the functioning of the WTO, in 
particular, acknowledging that the WTO Doha Round is at an impasse, it is committed to fresh and 
credible approaches to new market-opening trade initiatives.18 " 
Question: 
 In view of the important role played by the United States in the World Trade Organization, 
could the United States indicate what form its support will take for Ministerial Conferences on 
the Doha Development Agenda under the multilateral trade framework? 
RESPONSE: The United States is very willing to continue to make progress wherever possible on 
the Doha mandate, based on common efforts. But "business as usual" has not worked, and will not 
work going forward. We believe that now is the time  to craft credible, innovative approaches to the 
WTO's work as an institution that liberalizes trade and creates and applies meaningful rules to 
trade. But all major players must do their part. 
                                               
17 USTR (2012b). 
18 USTR (2012b). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 202 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (viii) Technical regulations and standards Paragraph 70 
This paragraph states that the legal basis for implementing the Agreement on Technical Barriers to 
Trade (TBT Agreement) in the United States is Ti tle IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, which 
"designates the Office of the USTR as the lead agency within the federal Government for coordinating and developing international trad e policy on standards-related activities..." 
Question: 
 With regard to the standardization activities of government, intergovernmental and 
non-governmental entities, could the United States list the government-level mechanisms that it has for monitoring the standardizing activities of non-governmental entities to ensure their 
compatibility with the TBT Agreement? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have a specific government mechanism for monitoring 
standards activities for non-governmental entities. U.S. trade agencies participate in national and 
international standards development activities and the American National Standards Institute 
committees to ensure consistency of standardization activities and policies with trade policies, including with respect to the TBT Agreement. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 203 - 
 
  EUROPEAN UNION 
WT/TPR/G/275 
Trade and environment. Page 32 Paragraph 147:  
The US mentions the APEC agreement on environmental goods according to which APEC 
economies will reduce tariffs to 5% or less by 2015. 
1.  Question: Could the US indicate which steps th ey intend to take to implement this deal by 
2015? 
RESPONSE: The United States will seek legislation necessary to reduce any tariffs above 5% by 
2015. 
WT/TPR/S/275 
I- ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(3) Development in trade and foreign direct investments 
(ii) Trade in services 
Page 12 para 27 
The report notes that "In January 2012, Presiden t Obama issued an Executive Order to improve 
visa processing and promote travel and tourism. The Executive Order required the Departments of 
State and Homeland Security to develop an implementation plan within 60 days to improve visa 
processing times for non-immigrant visas for foreign visitors, in particular with respect to increasing capacity by 40% in Brazil and Ch ina, in order to promote tourism." (p. 12). 
2. Question: Would the US consider adopting measures to improve visa processing in order to 
simplify and facilitate the movement of business professionals as well, notably intra corporate 
transferees? 
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to facilitating travel for all qualified business travelers 
as quickly and efficiently as possible. All U.S. embassies and consulates have procedures in place 
to expedite visa applications for business travelers, particularly those with urgent and unexpected travel needs. These missions partner with overseas business associations, particularly the 
American Chamber of Commerce, in more than 100 countries to expedite visa interviews for 
travelers who are coming to the United States to finalize deals, participate in conferences, or 
attend trade shows. 
The Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security work closely together to 
ensure clear and consistent interpretations of U.S. law are applied to for intra-company 
transferees. This includes substantial outreach in the United States and around the world to ensure application procedures and legal standards are transparent and consistent. The Department of 
Homeland Security has extensively engaged, and will continue to engage, stakeholders with 
respect to L-1 (intra-corporate transferee) visa issues. 
Page 23 para 25 on AGOA 
The EU welcomes the extension of the AGOA third-country fabric provisions in August this year. 3.  Question: Could the US share any data or analysis of the impact of the provisions on export, 
production and employment figures in beneficiary countries? 
RESPONSE: The third country fabric provision significantly enhances the competitiveness of 
African apparel. The majority of exports under AG OA depend on that provision. The International WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 204 - 
 
  Trade Commission has prepared some analyses of the textile and apparel trade under AGOA, 
including "Sub-Saharan African Textile and Apparel Inputs: Potential for Competitive Production" (available at: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4078.pdf ). 
II- TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(1) TRADE POLICY FORMULATION AND FRAMEWORK 
(4) Investment agreements and policies (iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
Page 28, Point 36 and Table II.11 address CIFIUS covered transaction notices. 
4. Questions: Could the US give more informatio n on cases where (a) the parties did not initially 
submit the transaction for CFIUS review prior to purchase of certain asset and (b) the CFIUS have acted and requested that the parties involved should unwind the relevant purchase? The 
EU is aware that this was for example the case with the purchase of 3Leaf last summer. 
Finally, how many interventions were made in the period referred to in the report (2009-2011)? 
RESPONSE: By law, information filed with CFIUS may not be disclosed by CFIUS to the public. 
Accordingly, CFIUS does not comment on information relating to specific CFIUS cases, including whether or not certain parties have filed notices for review. The response below, therefore, is not a 
comment on any particular transaction. 
(a)  CFIUS agencies monitor merger and acquisition activity, identify transactions that have not 
been voluntarily notified to CFIUS but may pr esent national security considerations, and 
assess whether additional information regarding the transaction or the authority of section 
721 is required to identify or address any nati onal security concerns. When a CFIUS agency 
believes that a non-notified transaction may be a covered transaction and may raise national security considerations, the agency may self-initiate a review of the transaction under 
section 721. Alternatively, if CFIUS believes that  the transaction may raise national security 
considerations and may be a covered transaction, CFIUS may contact the parties and request further information about the transaction, partly to help to determine whether the 
transaction is a covered transaction. If CFIU S makes such a determination, it may request 
that the parties file a notice. In most cases in which CFIUS has made inquiries of parties to transactions, the parties respond by filing a voluntary notice. 
(b) Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. In certain 
circumstances described in Executive Order 11858 when a transaction raises national 
security concerns that cannot be resolved by mitigation, CFIUS may refer a covered transaction to the President for him to decide whether to exercise that authority. In these 
instances, CFIUS may recommend to the President that a transaction be blocked, or if 
already consummated, be divested. Parties may also decide at any point during CFIUS' review of a transaction to voluntarily withdraw their notice and abandon the transaction or 
divest. 
The vast majority of CFIUS cases are the result of voluntary notices. Statistics that CFIUS has 
made public regarding notices filed with CFIUS ar e included in CFIUS Annual Reports available at 
www.treasury.gov/cfius. 
III- TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures directly affecting imports (i) Custom procedures 
Page 31, para 2:  
"Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), initiated in re sponse to the Security and Accountability for Every 
(SAFE) Port Act to evaluate the feasibility of requiring 100% scanning of maritime cargo 
containers. The SAFE Port Act, as amended, requ ires 100% scanning of all maritime containers 
shipped to the United States by 1 July 2012. On 2 May 2012, in accordance with the statute, DHS Secretary submitted to Congress her intent to ex tend the deadline by two years. New proposed 
legislation to extend or eliminate the statutory deadline has not been passed into law." The EU WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 205 - 
 
  notes that the requirement to scan all US bound maritime containers before they are loaded at a 
foreign port mandated by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 was already raised prominently during the 2008 and 2010 US TPR. It remains a concern to the EU and its economic operators. The EU welc omes the decision in May 2012 by the Secretary 
for Homeland Security to postpone the implementation of the scanning requirement for two years 
but notes that the secretariat report quotes that "new proposed legislation to extend or eliminate the statutory deadline has not been passed into law". The EU recalls that In the US TPR in 2010, 
WTO Members asked if the US had considered alternative options based on adequate risk analysis 
and hence, less costly and burdensome for traders. The US answered that an interagency working group had been assembled to look at worldwide global supply chain security. The working group 
was looking at all options in addressing the 100% scanning mandate and the path forward. 
Regarding air cargo rules, the report states that  " the law requiring 100% scanning of cargoes on 
international US inbound flights postponed to 3.12.2012 for implementation". 
5.  Questions: Is the Administration taking actions to seek the repeal of the 100% maritime 
container scanning requirement by the US Congress? If so please specify such actions and 
their timeframe. Regarding the 100% cargo scanning  on international US inbound flight, could 
the US clarify what the legal situation sh all be and what rules shall apply as of 
4 December 2012? 
RESPONSE: The deadline for the 100% scanning requirement will not go into effect until 
July 1, 2014. The statutory requirement still applie s, but the deadline for implementation has been 
changed. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to extend it again at that time 
under the conditions outlined in the statute. No decision on such a further extension has been 
reached at this time. 
Beginning December 3, 2012, all U.S. inbound carg o shipments loaded on passenger aircraft must 
undergo screening for explosives. For more information, SEE, 
http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases /2012/05/16/tsa-sets -cargo-screening-dead line-international-in
bound-passenger-aircraft .  
(iv) Tariffs 
(c) WTO binding 
Page 41, para 24:  
It is reported that "The legal change to amend certain tobacco tariffs, pursuant to Article XXVIII 
renegotiations, has not been implemented at the WTO, while it appears the United States 
proceeded domestically with these changes long ago". 
6.  Questions: The EU would welcome the certif ication of the results of the Article XXVIII 
negotiations conducted in 1995 on certain tobacco tariffs. Could the U.S. share its plans in this 
respect? Is the US planning to update the list  of EU countries granted access to the tobacco 
TRQ specifically allocated in 1995 to the former EC15 in order to benefit all members of the 
enlarged European Union (EU)? 
RESPONSE: The United States notified the conclusion of the Article XXVIII negotiations (see 
G/SECRET/2.Add1) and provided a copy of the US HTS changes to the WTO. 
(viii) Technical regulations and standards 
Page 58 paragraph 70 
The WTO report states that" the enquiry point and notification authority under the Agreement is 
the National Institute of Standards and Technolo gy (NIST) of the Department of Commerce" and 
that "notifications were made on behalf of a number of government agencies (….)". 
7.  Questions: Could the US clarify how many technical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures as defined by the TBT Agreement ha ve been brought forward and/ or adopted by 
Congress during the review period? Which measures  has taken the US in order to ensure their 
transparency obligations under the TBT Agreem ent regarding the notification of not only WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 206 - 
 
  technical regulations adopted by the US government agencies but also those technical 
regulations adopted by the US Congress and by subfederal levels of government?" 
RESPONSE: We are not aware of any major U.S. legislation adopted during the review period 
setting out technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures, and the United States has 
not notified any such measures to the WTO du ring the review period. In order to ensure 
transparency, all legislative information from the US Congress including proposed legislation is provided on the searchable website from the Library of Congress, available at 
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php . Sub-federal measures are regularly reviewed from a 
state regulatory database, and notified by the U.S.  inquire point in coordination with USTR to the 
WTO. 
Page 58-61 in particular para 79 
Given the vast number of standards developing organizations in the United States accredited by 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), there are certain concerns regarding the ability of the US standardization system to guaran tee the consistency and the coherence with 
international standards (i.e. ISO/IEC standards). This particularly applies to those standards 
developing organizations elaborating standards with an international reach outside the regime of the international standardisation organisations ISO and IEC. 
8.  Question: "Since the US, through ANSI, is a member of ISO and IEC, which measures has the 
US taken in order to ensure that the standards developed by these organisations are taken into consideration by the US standards developing organisations? 
RESPONSE: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the U.S. national standards body, 
has accredited approximately 225 standard develo pment bodies (SDOs), both in the public and 
private sectors. ANSI has accepted the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards set out in Annex 3 of th e TBT Agreement, which includes the requirement 
for standardizing bodies to base their standards on  relevant international standards. In addition, 
ANSI maintains two procedures to ensure coordination with and consideration of ISO and IEC standards: the US National Adoption Procedures and ANSI Essential Requirements. The 
US National Adoption Procedures (www.ansi.org/nationaladoption) encourage coordination and 
communications between U.S. domiciled standards development organizations and activities of 
ISO and IEC. The ANSI Essential Requirements (www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements) require U.S. domiciled standards development organizations to advise the relevant ISO or IEC Technical 
Advisory Committee if a draft standard is intend ed to be submitted to ISO, IEC or JTC-1. 
III- TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURES  
(2) Measures directly affecting exports 
(iii) Prohibitions, licensing section 
Page 66 
The secretariat report does not mention export control of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). However the 
EU understands that the Current US law stipulates that companies need an authorisation from the 
US Department of Energy (DoE) for any imports or exports of natural gas. When deciding about such an authorisation the US DoE needs to consid er a wide range of public interest issues like 
development of domestic gas prices. There are currently several pending applications for export 
licenses. The only countries to which US compan ies can currently freely export natural gas (or 
where the DoE is required to grant the necessary authorisation since respective exports are automatically deemed consistent with the public interest) are those which include respective 
clauses on natural gas in free trade agreements with the US. A US DOE study is underway to 
assess the effects and public policy implications of permitting a number of export terminals. In addition, the secretariat report page 7 para 21 states that " the prospects for further increases in 
domestic production of oil and natural gas are quite high". 
9.  Question: in light of the above, could the US explain the rationale for this export control 
measure and the possible follow up to the US DOE study? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 207 - 
 
  RESPONSE: New technology has led to rapidly increased U.S. production of natural gas, lower 
prices and reduced imports. As a result, the private sector is considering conversion of existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals in the United States into export terminals, and developing new, greenfield LNG export terminal pr ojects. These are significant multi-billion dollar 
investments and take time to complete. 
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has the authority over long-term natural gas imports and 
exports of natural gas, including liquefied natu ral gas (LNG), under the Natural Gas Act and the 
DOE Organization Act. DOE is generally required to grant applications to export LNG to countries 
with which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement providing for the national treatment for trade in natural gas. For countries that do not meet this criterion, DOE is required to grant applications for export authorizations unless DOE finds that the proposed exports "will not be 
consistent with the public interest." Factors for consideration include economic, energy security, 
international, and environmental impacts. As part of the public interest determination review process, DOE solicits public comment, and considers any protests and motions to intervene in the 
administrative review process. 
To date, DOE has approved multi-year long term authorizations of domestically produced LNG 
exports from the lower-48 states totalling 23.13 billion cubic feet /day to FTA countries and 
2.2 billion cubic feet/day to non-FTA countries. In  light of the significant number of new pending 
applications for LNG exports, and environmenta l and other issues raised by the public, DOE 
conducted a two-part export study to examine th e cumulative impacts of additional natural gas 
exports. Information about the export study, app lications for and approvals of authorizations for 
LNG exports and imports is available on the DOE website 
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program s/gasregulation/LNGStudy.html .  
On December 11, 2012, DOE published notice and requested public comment on the export study 
(Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012); Pages 73627-73630). 
Initial comments regarding the study will be acce pted by DOE for 45 days, followed by a reply 
comment period that will last for 30 days. DOE will evaluate both the study and the comments 
received prior to making its determinations of the public interest on a case-by-case basis, for each 
of the pending cases. 
(ix) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures Page 64, para 86: 
10.  Questions: Could the U.S. clarify how the first identification of pests of concern for fruits and 
vegetables is undertaken by Aphis? 
RESPONSE: With regard to market access requests, APHIS strongly encourages trading partners 
to provide a pest list along with their written request for market access The pest list is 
subsequently evaluated and a literature review is co nducted to determine if additional pests should 
be added to the list or if some pests should be removed from the list. Once a pest list has been 
finalized to the mutual satisfaction of both APHIS and its foreign counterpart organization, APHIS 
proceeds with the pest risk analysis. 
EU follow up question: Could the US clarify whether there is any kind of judgment filtering 
applied when literature review is conducted, such if it is indoors or outdoors production, isolated 
finding in the wild or in commercial orchards? 
RESPONSE: As outlined in our above response, finalization of a pest list is a collaborative process 
that ensures a pest list is finalized to the mutual satisfaction of both APHIS and its counterpart 
organization. The issues identified in the above clarifying question would be addressed as part of 
that collaborative process.  
Pages 61 to 65  
There are many applications submitted to APHIS/USDA which are still pending to be considered. In 
addition, some ongoing pest-risk assessment and rule-making processes are taking excessive long timeframes (decades), having a negative impact on exports opportunities. According to WTO WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 208 - 
 
  commitments, parties are obliged to approve phytosanitary controls and preocedures "without 
undue delay". This issue was already raised during the TPRM 2008 and TPRM 2010. Unfortunately, very little progress has been made. The EU would like to invite and encourage APHIS to broaden the list of products to be eligible for this streamline process with a view to facilitating trade. 
11.  Questions: Could the US clarify which procedural steps and timeframes an application to 
export plant and plant products for which import requirement have not yet been set up, would need to go through from the time when it has been received in US administration until the 
import of the products of concern can take place? 
RESPONSE: This information was included in our June 19, 2001 Federal Register  notification 
entitled "Procedures and Standards Governing the Consideration of Import Requests" (Docket # 00-082-1) and subsequently incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations at 7 CFR 319.5.  
12.  Questions: Could the US inform what the average timeframe is for a new application to be 
added to the list so called "current in progress PPQ risk analysis", after having been received in 
US administration? Could the US inform about th e criteria and/or parameters for adding new 
applications to this list? 
RESPONSE: The timeframe under which APHIS review a particular application depends on the 
facts of that particular application. In this sense, there is no average timeframe for APHIS review. 
As noted above, criteria are included in the 7 CFR 319.5. 
EU follow up question: EU would like to know, based on all past applications the US received, 
what is the average time frame for processing an application and how is the above criteria 
interpreted in practice?. 
RESPONSE: Given that the facts associated with specific applications vary we cannot provide an 
average timeframe. The criteria outlined in 7 CFR 319.5 is quite clear and provides our trading 
partners with required guidance. 
13.  Questions: Could the US inform whether APHIS has assessed to further broaden the list of 
fruits and vegetables, known as its Quarantine 56 or Q-56 to be eligible for the streamline process with a view to further focus its resources and per ende to facilitate trade? 
RESPONSE: APHIS regularly considers ways to further streamline its regulatory process. For 
example, on November 14, 2011, APHIS announced improvements to its risk assessment and rulemaking processes through a business re-enginee ring process as outlined on the APHIS website 
at the following web address: 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2011 /11/risk_assessment_process.shtml .  
14.  Questions: Considering that the new legislation concerning importation of Plants for 
Planting, so called NAPPRA (Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis) will require to perform 
risk assessment also for plants for planting, could the US inform if the administration has 
envisioned to increase APHIS human resources capacity to handle the foreseeable increase of risk assessment for this type of applications to export? 
RESPONSE: We do not expect a need to increase resources in this regard. 
EU follow up question: Considering the current excessively long delays and the amount of 
applications which await for entering into active Pest Risk Assessment, and that NAPPRA requires 
pest risk assessment for plants for planting, longer delays seems to be unavoidable unless 
additional resources are allocated. The EU very much regrets to hear that the US has not foreseen 
it in order to ensure that delays are reduced significantly. 
On treatment with methyl bromide for plant quarantine purposes, 
15. Questions: Could the US clarify if this treatm ent will continue to be part of the US import 
requirements? Have other less hazardous treatments been developed since 2010 under the US national programme 308 established by USDA on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, as described in WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 209 - 
 
  the Montreal Protocol and recommended by the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC)? 
RESPONSE: Depending on the pest of concern, me thyl bromide treatments may continue; 
however, APHIS has approved numerous alternative treatments to reduce reliance on methyl 
bromide. These alternatives include: (1) irradiat ion treatment, (2) systems approaches, (3) cold 
treatment, and (3) various hot treatments including vapor heat treatment and hot water dip treatments.  
Page 61, para 82 
The US import policy does not allow introduction of some commodities from the EU due to the US 
national legislation which is not fully in line with the OIE standards. Despite the commitments announced by APHIS since 2005, EU cannot export any food or feed products containing bovine 
materials. The lack of any concrete initiative to  implement the OIE standards in its import rule, 
despite repeated appeals to this end and the rele vant US commitments to do it, including during 
the previous trade policy reviews of the US in 2008  and 2010, is inconsistent with US use of the 
OIE standards for its own exports. Animal health rules exclude imports of live animals and of 
certain products of animal origin into the US from countries not yet free by specific diseases. The US authorities undertake a lengthy assessment of the animal disease situation of the exporting 
candidates followed by a rulemaking procedure. Irrespective of their OIE official disease status, 
some EU Member States still do not have the possibility to access the US. 
16. Questions: When does the US, as a Member of OIE, intend to bring its administrative rules in 
compliance with OIE standards with regards to BSE and the general animal health 
regionalisation approach? What steps are the competent US Authorities taking to expedite 
their technical and administrative process for the recognition of the EU Member States animal health status? 
RESPONSE: When the US BSE comprehensive rule is published, U.S. import requirements will be 
aligned with OIE guidelines, and our internal procedures would mirror established and internationally-recognized OIE guidelines for BSE. It is expected that the final rule will be 
published during 2013. The United States has worked closely with the European Commission and 
EU Member states to address the animal heal th regionalization requests under the U.S.-EU 
Veterinary Equivalency Agreement. We expect this cooperation to continue.  
Pages 62-65, para 88: 
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was en acted in January 2011. It has been presented as 
the most expansive changes in US food safety legislation since 1938 when the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was adopted. The FSMA's main objective is to improve the FDA capacity to 
prevent, to detect and respond to food safety problems but serious questions remain as to its 
financing. FDA is provided with additional authority and powers but the consequences for trade with the US will very much depend on the implem enting provisions that FDA will prepare and for 
which it has a considerable degree of discretion. The EU has some points of concerns in relation to 
the responsibility of private certification and a ccreditation bodies in recognising the ability of 
competent authorities to approve third country esta blishments to export safe products to the US; 
the lack of clarity on how the central role of the European Commission is recognised in ensuring 
that only safe products are exported to the US ; the focus on individual inspections of foreign 
supplier establishments instead of favouring a systems-based approach whereby competent 
authorities are the prime interlocutors for such audits and inspections; the conditions that may be 
imposed, or the guarantees that may be requested, by US importers from their suppliers. 
1 7 .  Q u e s t i o n s :  W h e n  d o e s  t h e  U S  i n t e n d  t o  i s s u e  a n d  p u b l i s h  t h e  p r o p o s e d  r u l e s ,  g u i d a n c e  t o  
industry and implementing regulations? How is the US going to address the EU concerns in 
order not to affect bilateral trade? 
RESPONSE: FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by FSMA. All rules will be 
consistent with US WTO obligations, and therefore should be responsive to the concerns of our trading partners. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 210 - 
 
  (3) Other measures affecting investment and trade 
(i) Business framework and bu siness investment incentives 
Page 73 para 121 
18. Question: Could the US elaborate further on the status and the perspectives of the reform of 
business tax framework? 
RESPONSE:  While the US Congress did hold hearings on business tax reform, at this time, the 
extent to which the proposed framework will be adopted is uncertain. 
(ii) State trading enterprises, government corporations, and government enterprises as 
well as Congress corporations 
Pages 73-74, Paras 124, 125 and 126 
19. Question: Are such enterprises subject to the competition rules in the same way as other 
enterprises? 
RESPONSE: The referenced entities often are not subject to U.S. antitrust laws. "State trading 
enterprises" is a WTO legal term that can include private entities with special privileges, regulatory 
or otherwise. "Government enterprises" includes  government corporations as well as some 
unincorporated government bodies that provide goods or services with commercial attributes. We do not know what is meant by "Congress corporations." U.S. antitrust laws do not apply to actions 
by the Federal Government or actions by Federal entities that are of a governmental character. 
See, e.g., the US Supreme Court decision in United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd, 540 U.S. 736 (2004): 
"The Postal Service, in both form and function, is not a separate antitrust person from the 
United States. It is part of the Government of the United States and so is not controlled by the 
antitrust laws." 
Whether such entities are immune is determined based on the character and history of the entity 
involved, the nature of its activities, and the relevant statutory schemes. 
20. Question: Are they subject to the same fiscal rules as other enterprises? Can the US explain 
how the level of public funding, if an y, of these enterprises is determined? 
RESPONSE:  It is unclear to the United States what is meant by the term "fiscal rules." 
EU follow up questions: 
(i)  What is the level of corporate tax applicable to State trading enterprises, government 
corporations and government enterprises as well as Congress corporations? Is this level similar 
to the level applicable to other enterprises? Do State trading enterprises, government 
corporations and government enterprises as well as Congress corporations benefit from exemptions to general corporate taxation principles? 
RESPONSE: U.S. government corporations and enterprises are not taxed, as they are part of the 
government, and they perform a public policy purpose. Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), on the other hand, are corporate entities created by a law that have a Federal charter, are 
privately owned, and are financial institutions. The corporate earnings of GSEs are exempt from 
state and local taxes. 
(ii)  Could the US clarify on which criteria th ey base their allocation of public funding for 
government enterprises, if any? 
RESPONSE: As stated in the Secretariat's report, the United States has a number of entities that 
contain elements of governmental and corporate or ganization, and these entities vary considerably 
in structure, finance, and management. Given the differing bases for each entity listed in the 
Secretariat's report, we would suggest that if there is an interest in a particular listed entity, the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 211 - 
 
  references provided in the Secretariat's report (whether statutory or otherwise) provide a good 
starting point to understanding the functionality (including funding, where applicable) of that 
specific entity. 
(iii) Government procurement 
21. Question: Given the economic importance of public procurement, could the US give an 
assessment in dollars and in percentage of th e total of the American procurement that is 
opened to third countries, be they at the Federal State level or sub-federal? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not have statistics on sub-federal procurement except for the 
37 states covered by the GPA. With respect to U.S. procurement covered by the GPA, the United States submits statistics to the WTO Committee on Government Procurement. In the ordinary course of business, the United States do es not compile information on the percentage of 
American procurement that is opened to third countries. 
(b) US procurement legislation Page 76, para 129 
The report of the WTO Secretariat explains the U.S. procurement legislation including Buy 
American provisions in paragraphs 129 to 135, as well as new WTO government procurement commitments in paragraph 136. The report states that Buy American provisions apply to 
procurement below GPA thresholds and to non-covered entities. As far as sub-central Government 
entities and other entities are concerned, the entity coverage of the US GPA commitments is not comprehensive. This means that, for instance , several universities are not covered by the 
commitments and use discriminatory Buy American pr ovisions in their procurement. Furthermore, 
infrastructure projects concerning airports, such  as the Airport Improvement Program, contain Buy 
American requirements and prevent effective partic ipation of European suppliers in these projects. 
Exceptions under the Buy American Act apply when: (i) it is deemed inconsistent with the public 
interest; (ii) the cost is considered unreasonable; (iii) the products are for use outside of the 
United States; (iv) the products are not produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient quantities or of satisfactory quality;  and (v) the procurement is for less than US$2,500. 
22.  Questions: Regarding the exceptions under the Buy American Act, could the US provide 
information about waivers granted during the last two years? In particular, could the US give information as to the waivers granted because of the exception of an unreasonable cost? Could the Unites States indicate when and under which circumstances they would consider waiving 
Buy American provisions as far as goods, se rvices and suppliers of  other GPA Parties are 
concerned? 
RESPONSE:  Where buy American requirements apply to procurement not covered by the GPA, 
waivers are given to goods or services of GPA Parties on the same basis as for non-GPA Parties. 
The number of waivers that were issued Government-wide in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 by exception category are:  
 FY10 FY11 
Public Interest 297 139 
Domestic Non-availability 5,531 6,531 
Unreasonable Cost 363 574 
Resale 2,824 2,491 
Commercial Information Technology 5,563 3,624 
Para 130 
"An agency is allowed to use a foreign supplier if the price of the domestic product is 
"unreasonable". The threshold for determining "unr easonable" is generally 6%. However, if the 
contract involves a small business or labor surplu s area, a differential of 12% is applied, and for 
the Department of Defense, a threshold of 50% is applied. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 212 - 
 
  23.  Questions: Could the US provide information about the thresholds and differentials that are 
used for the determination of "unreasonable pr ice". Could the U.S. explain the reasons why 
does it apply various thresholds and differentials per sector? 
RESPONSE:  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides extensive guidance regarding the 
determination of price reasonableness at FAR 25.105, as shown below, and for supplies at FAR 
25.5. Executive Order 10582 of 1954, as amended, defines "unreasonable" as a cost differential 
greater than 6% of the bid or offered price of materials of foreign origin. This threshold has been 
in place since 1954. 
25.105 Determining reasonableness of cost. (a) The contracting officer 
(1)  Must use the evaluation factors in paragraph (b) of this section unless the head of the 
agency makes a written determination that the use of higher factors is more 
appropriate. If the determination applies to all agency acquisitions, the agency evaluation factors must be published in agency regulations; and 
(2)  Must not apply evaluation factors to offers of eligible products if the acquisition is 
subject to a trade agreement under Subpart 25.4. 
(b) If there is a domestic offer that is not the low offer, and the restrictions of the Buy American 
Act apply to the low offer, the contracting officer must determine the reasonableness of the 
cost of the domestic offer by adding to the price of the low offer, inclusive of duty: 
(1)  6 per cent, if the lowest domestic offer is from a large business concern; or (2)  12 per cent, if the lowest domestic offer is from a small business concern. The 
contracting officer must use this factor, or another factor established in agency 
regulations, in small business set-asides if the low offer is from a small business concern offering the product of a small business concern that is not a domestic end 
product (see Subpart 19.5). 
(c) The price of the domestic offer is reasonable if  it does not exceed the evaluated price of the 
low offer after addition of the appropriate evaluation factor in accordance with paragraph (a) 
or (b) of this section. (See evaluation procedures at) 
The thresholds (percents) are allowed for the various business sectors (large and small 
businesses) to level the acquisition competitive environment. The United States recognize that small businesses are often at a disadvantage when competing on government procurements, so 
12% was determined reasonable to ensure small businesses have a fair opportunity to compete in 
government procurements of this nature. 
The Department of Defense applies a 50% differential to its procurement. The differential is added 
to the lowest acceptable foreign offer and then compared to the domestic offer. The differential is 
applied only to the bid price for material to be delivered under the contact, not the total contract price. Generally the differential is applied on an item by item basis, but a solicitation may provide 
that certain items will be lumped together. 
Page 76, para .131 
"Manufactures are considered US products if manuf actured in the United States and the cost of 
U.S. components is more than 50% of the overal l cost of all components." The EU notes that 
contrary to this general requirement, some sectors, for example high speed trains, are requested 
to be manufactured with 100% US components. This "maximalist" requirement clearly blocks any import and closes entirely the market of componen ts for high speed trains. Additionally, taking in 
account the supply chain that exists nowadays for any mid or high level technical product, this 
requirement raises questions whether it is actually possible to fulfil it, either for domestic producers or foreign investors, who would want to re-locate manufacturing to the U.S. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 213 - 
 
  24. Questions: Could the US explain why some sectors are requested to fulfil the requirement for 
100% US components given the negative impact and deterrent effect on foreign investors? Is there any plan to modify the law and regulations in order to harmonise the local content percentage? 
RESPONSE:  U.S. law requires that some products procured by the federal government must 
contain 100% U.S. components; for example, products procured for projects funded by the Federal Railroad Administrations' High Speed Rail Program. U.S. legislation generally establishes the 
requirements for local content percentages, based on a variety of considerations. The United 
States is not aware of any plans to change these requirements. 
25. Question: Could the US specify for each sector and state the margin of preference (price and 
local content) applied? 
RESPONSE:  See responses to Questions 23 and 24. 
Jones Act. The EU notes that the report lacks information on the Merchant Marine Act, so-called 
Jones Act. In accordance with this Act the United States prohibits the use, sale or lease of foreign 
built or foreign reconstructed vessels, as well as market access to provide national maritime 
transport services, by foreign companies. In practice the legislation prevents foreign companies from selling certain maritime goods such as their dredgers, and from providing certain maritime 
services to the United States and is thus a clear barrier to trade. There are clear indications that 
"Jones Act" hampers the access of foreign goods an d services to the U.S. markets creating a lack 
of competition in the country. 
26. Questions: Does the US have any plans to amend its restrictive legislation in the forthcoming 
future and to eliminate its discriminatory elem ents? Can the US provide information on cases 
where it has granted waivers to the Jones Act provisions? 
RESPONSE:  The United States continues to apply the provisions of the 'Jones Act' in accordance 
with the exception to Part II of the GATT 1994 pr ovided in paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994. The 
United States has explained that this exemption continues to be necessary. With regard to services, the United States has not undertaken commitments in the maritime services sector. 
Regarding the specific questions, there are no pl ans to amend the legislation. The United States 
can and has granted waivers under certain Jones Act provisions, for example under 46 U.S.C. § 
501. The United States refers the EU to those provisions for further information about waivers.  
Page 78, Para. 136. 
"WTO GPA Members recently reached consensus on a revision of the GPA and re-negotiation of the 
specific commitments contained in the annexes pertaining to each Member. The U.S. commitments, undertaken in the 1994 GPA, remain virtually the same." Regarding the US 
commitments under GPA, "mass transit" is one of  the sectors not covered by the GPA. According 
to the US legislation, US Code, Title 49 (Transportation), Section 5302: the definition of "mass transit" set in the US legislation: 
(7) Mass transportation. The term "mass transportation" means public transportation. 
(...) (10) Public transportation. The term "pub lic transportation" means transportation by a 
conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include schoolbus, charter, sightseeing , or intercity bus transportation or intercity 
passenger rail transportation provided by the enti ty described in chapter 243 (or a successor to 
such entity). (...) (14)
 Transit. The term "transit" means public transportation. According to this 
mass transit definition, intercity trains and high sp eed trains would not be considered mass transit, 
which on the other hand it is consistent with the mass transit definition commonly and technically 
accepted at international level. Nevertheless, th e US when applying GPA, unilaterally interprets 
"mass transit" in a different way, considering that "all kind of trains are mass transit". 
27. Questions: The US GPA commitments do not apply to the restrictions attached to federal funds 
for mass transit and highway projects. Can the U.S. confirm that the domestic definition for mass transit (that is then also relevant for GPA purposes) is to be found in the US Code, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 214 - 
 
  Title 49 (Transportation), Section 5302? In th is respect, can the U.S. confirm that this 
definition does not include inter-city trains and high speed trains? 
RESPONSE:  There is no definition of "mass transit" in US Code, Title 49.  The referenced definition 
is not considered to be the definition of "mass transit" for purposes of the U.S. reservation in 
Annex 2 (" The Agreement shall not apply to restrictions attached to Federal funds for mass transit 
and highway .") 
Pages 76-78 and para 138 
The report paints an incomplete picture of the stat e of the US procurement law. This is unfortunate 
considering the paramount significance the GPA attaches to providing 'transparency of laws, regulations, procedures and practices regarding government procurement'. None of the acts notified in GPA/23 (15 July 1998) appear in the review. 
The review gives even less information on sub-central, ie. state law – apart from highlighting 
similar "buy American" procurement rules (p 78).The secretariat report gives little information on sub-federal measures that may contain national preference provisions. It only refers to some 
exclusions thought many other provisions in states' le gislations do tend to give preference to offers 
that provide for at least 60% of local content. 
28. Question: Could the US give more information about the legislation at state level that includes 
preference(s) for offers that provide for 60% of local content? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not have such information. 
(iv) Subsidies and other government assistance Page 81, table III.23:  
"The volumetric ethanol excise tax credit has expired at the end of 2011". 
29. Question: Could the US provide further information about the perspective for the US policy on 
bioethanol? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has an array of policies and programs, many similar to those of 
other countries, to support the biofuel sector. These programs have been notified to the WTO, most recently in G/SCM/N/220/USA. 
(v) Competition policy Pages 83-84 
The secretariat report does not refer to the US policy regarding maritime services. In 2010, the US 
indicated in its replies to the EU questions that "the FMC was analysing what impact the repeal of the EU block exemption for shipping liner conferences might have for US maritime trade and 
practices" 
30. Question: Could the US give some indications as to its future policy orientation in this domain? 
RESPONSE:  The Federal Maritime Commission, after publishing its Study of the EU's 2008 Repeal 
of Liner Shipping Competition Law Exemption January 2012, plans to conduct a brief follow up 
review with subsequent recent data since the original study included the severe economic 
downturn of 2008/2009. The FMC is not aware of any planned future policy based on the study at 
this time. The Study is available on the FMC's website at 
http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Documen ts/FMC_EU_Study_508compliant.pdf . 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 94: In the U.S. case "Tea Board of India v The Republic of Tea, 80 USPQ2d 1881 (TTAB 
2006) related to the test for determining whether a mark is generic, it is stated that "the mark (…) WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 215 - 
 
  has lost its significance as an indication of geographic origin (…) by virtue of a failure to control the 
mark". 
31. Question: Could the US clarify if the abusiv e use of a certification trademark not timely 
identified by the holders of the certification tr ademark is considered as an element qualifying 
the name as generic? 
RESPONSE: The statute does not define "control" or indicate the degree of control required, but it 
is clear that absolute control would be impracticable, if not impossible. The issue is whether the 
control is adequate. The owner must take reasonable steps, under all the circumstances of the case, to prevent the public from being misled. Even if control is not maintained and misuse occurs, 
it must be shown that the misuse was of such sign ificance to permit an inference that the mark is 
generic.  
(g) Trademarks and geographical indications Page 94, paragraph 182  
"The Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendments took effect on 8 November 2011, and 
amended the Rules of Practice in Trademark Ca ses to implement the Trademark Technical and 
Conforming Amendment Act of 2010. The Act became law on 17 March 2010, and made small 
technical and conforming corrections to the Lanham Act, as well as more significant changes 
regarding filing Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable Non use to maintain a registration. " 
32. Question: How do these corrections to the Lanham Act specifically affect the registration and 
protection of Geographical Indications in the USA? Do they reinforce protection of GIs in 
accordance with the provisions under Section 2, Articles 22 & 23 of the TRIPS Agreement? 
RESPONSE: The United States protects geographical indications through its trademark system as 
certification marks, collective marks, and trad emarks. The U.S. trademark system provides the 
requisite protection set forth in the geographical indications sections of the TRIPS Agreement. The 
Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act makes it easier for trademark owners to maintain their registrations because it makes the statutory time periods for filings of affidavits of 
use consistent across all registration bases – use, Paris Convention, and the Madrid Protocol. It 
also allows for correction of certain deficiencies in post registration filings that could otherwise result in loss of the registration. For example, wi th respect to all post registration maintenance 
filings, owners may correct deficiencies in such submissions outside of the statutory period for 
filing, upon payment of a deficiency surcharge. Su ch deficiencies now specifically include the case 
in which the affidavit was not filed in the name of the owner of the registration. In addition, 
owners of U.S. registrations under the Madrid Protocol now have the benefit of six-month grace 
periods immediately following the statutory time periods for post registration filings. Previously, no 
grace period existed at the end of the six-year peri od following the date of registration in the U.S. 
and only a three-month grace period existed follo wing the expiration of each successive 10-year 
period following registration. The newly enacted grace periods match those given to other 
trademark registrants. 
(i) Enforcement 
Page 97, paragraph 192  
"Effective IP enforcement in foreign markets remain s a strong priority for U.S. authorities. The 
Joint Strategy included the goal of working colle ctively to strengthen enforcement of IP rights 
internationally, including through: (i) combating foreign-based and foreign-controlled websites that 
infringe American IP rights, as a "growing problem that undermines … national security, 
particularly … national economic security". Combatin g websites that infringe IP rights is a global 
problem. One of the EU member States has detected that a significant number of illegal 
downloading of contents in particular in Spanish language is done through websites registered in 
the USA territory and we have communicated it accordingly to the USA Government. 
33. Question: What are the US specifically doing to stop websites that offer illegal downloading 
from their own territory? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 216 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center of US Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement coordinates "Operation in Our Sites" enforcement actions that involve federal law enforcement investigating and developing evidence to obtain seizure warrants from federal judges. The website domain names then are seized pursuant to the federal seizure 
warrants, and re-directed to display a seizure notice as opposed to offering the content or goods 
that violate U.S. copyrights or trademarks. 
Page 96 Para 189 and 191 on IP enforcement 
34. Questions: Can the US confirm that design infringements are enforced by US Customs at the 
border? Could the U.S. provide more details on how and using which instrument the IPR 
domestic enforcement has been strengthened? 
RESPONSE:  The US International Trade Commission (USITC) investigates allegations of design 
patent infringement. Design patent holders must file a complaint with the USITC. If the USITC 
determines that the accused imports infringe the a sserted claims of the design patent(s) at issue, 
the USITC may issue an exclusion order barring in fringing products from entry into the United 
States. US Customs and Border Protection enforces the exclusion order at the border by denying 
entry into the United States of products subject to the order. 
III. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) Agriculture 
(1) Agriculture in the United States (iii) Level of support (a) WTO notification 
Page 108, Para. 34 Other programmes, Marketing orders  
The EU notes that currently some Marketing Orders may be discriminatory for some of the 
following reasons: Some Marketing Orders are applied in limited geographical areas in the US. 
However, they are compulsory for every import coming into the US; some Marketing Orders are 
not based on international standards; some Mark eting Orders are applied seasonally, only when 
harvest and marketing takes place. This may create discrimination among different exporting 
countries (from different hemispheres), since Marketing Orders are only applied to those imports 
coming into the US when marketing of US production takes place. 
35. Questions: Could the U.S. explain why the marketing orders are applied on the basis of some 
non–objective and potentially discriminatory criteria such as the fact that: some Marketing 
Orders are not based on international standards and that contrary to CODEX 
recommendations, the Agricultural Marketing Serv ice inspects 100% of the imported products 
regulated by the Marketing Order, creating therefore unnecessary delays and extra costs. 
RESPONSE: Marketing order standards may only be applied to imports if they meet the terms of 
7 U.S.C. § 608e. Among the requirements set out in § 608e is that the application of the marketing order standards to imports is "not inconsistent with U.S. international obligations under 
any trade agreement, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade." 
Page 105, para 23: 
36. Questions: Could the U.S. provide further cl arification on the "limits to planting fruit, 
vegetables, and wild rice" related to direct payments? How are they applied in practice? Is it 
on farmers' level, or state/federal level? How do es the U.S. reconcile the limitations to planting 
some crops with the provisions of paragraph 6 (b) of Annex 2 of the AoA, as interpreted by relevant WTO jurisprudence, which specifies that the payments are not to be related to a type 
of production? 
RESPONSE: Producers enrolled in the Direct and Countercyclical Payment (DCP) program are 
prohibited from planting fruits, vegetables, and w ild rice (FAV) on their program base acres unless 
they have an established history of planting FAV. If the farm or the individual producer plants FAV 
in violation of program rules, the farm's DCP pa yments are reduced by the market value of the 
FAV planted in violation. If the farm or producer  has an established history, then the farm's DCP WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 217 - 
 
  payments are reduced on an acre-for-acre basis, i.e. no DCP payments are made for the acres on 
which allowed FAV are planted. The limits are applied on an individual farm basis. 
37. Questions: Could the U.S. provide further details on the pilot project which has been 
developed to allow planting of selected vegetables for processing for the 2009-2012 crop years 
as mentioned in paragraph 23? Could the U.S. indicate how the direct payments granted within 
the pilot project allowing planting of selected vegetables for processing as described in the paragraph are accounted for in the most recent domestic support notification covering the 
fiscal year 2010? 
RESPONSE: The Planting Transferability Pilot Program (PTPP) was introduced under the 2008 
Farm Act. Under the program, crop producers in seven Upper Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) may plant select vegetables for processing with 
an acre-for-acre loss in DCP payments, rather than the market value loss under regular fruit, 
vegetable, and wild rice (FAV) planting restrictions. Eligible PTPP acreage is capped at specific levels for each participating state, but the ov erall total cannot exceed 75,000 annually. Based on 
data from the 2009-2010 period, the average number of acres planted under the program equaled 
13,075 annually, about 17 per cent of total allowable acres. 
Participation in the PTPP does not entitle producers to additional payments; rather, those who 
participated accepted reduced payments in return for being allowed to plant FAV on some of their 
base acres. Thus, the program would have resulted in a small decrease in the national direct payment total reported in the U.S. notification. 
Page 107, § 28: 
38. Questions: Could the U.S. communicate an update of the data for 2011 as well as an estimate 
for 2012 concerning the subsidies provided in relation to the crop insurance and related to both the producer premiums and the port ion of the companies operating costs and 
underwriting losses? How does the U.S. calculate the portion of the companies' operating costs 
and the underwriting losses which is subsidised by  public support? Could the U.S. comment on 
the evolution of the amount under underwritin g losses/gains related to the operation of 
insurance programmes over the last 5 years? 
RESPONSE:  
 2011 2012 
Premium volume $11.97 billion $11.06 billion 
Premium subsidy $7.46 billion $6.94 billion 
Expense payments to companies $1.33 billion Est. $1.30-$1.35 billion 
Underwriting gain (loss) of companies $1.67 billion Loss, unknown amount 
Since their entrance into the program in the early 1980s, companies have been compensated for 
their administrative and operating expenses (A&O) as a fixed percentage of premium, with the 
percentage established by the US Congress. The companies actual operating costs are not 
considered when the amount of compensation is calculated. The average A&O percentage has 
steadily declined, from around 35 per cent in the early 1980s to about 18 per cent in 2010. 
The distribution of underwriting gains and losses is negotiated by the companies and RMA during 
the course of SRA negotiations. Prior to beginni ng the recent negotiations for a new SRA, RMA 
contracted for studies of the historical and reasonable rates of return expected for companies 
delivering federal crop insurance. Copies of those studies can be obtained from the RMA website at 
the following URL: http://www.rma.usda.gov/pub s/index.html#actuarial.  
The loss ratio for the U.S. crop insurance prog ram averaged about 0.69 over the past 5 years 
(2007-2011), with the highest loss ratio experienced in 2011 at 0.91. As a result, the U.S. crop 
insurance program generated an underwriting gain each year from 2007 to 2011. Thus, the companies also experienced underwriting gains during this period. Data on the aggregated 
underwriting experience of the companies can be obtained from the RMA website at the following 
URL: http://www3.rma.usda.go v/apps/reins_public/ . In general, the aggregated underwriting 
gains of companies are positively correlated wi th overall program growth (increased premium WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 218 - 
 
  volume, increased underwriting gain) and inversely correlated with loss experience (higher losses, 
reduced underwriting gain and possibly underwriting loss).  
Page 109, § 36: 
As the report identifies, while the current Total AMS in the U.S. notifications has continued to 
decline, the total support notified under the Amber Box has increased since 2007. Also due to 
climatic effects (for example drought in 2012), wh ile high prices have reduced some budgetary 
outlays under marketing assistance and counter-c yclical payments, they had a very significant 
positive budgetary impact on insurance premiums. Considering the above mentioned trends, 
combined with the announced policy orientatio n towards further developing insurance support 
39. Questions: What would be the expected effe ct of the future Farm Bill, currently under 
preparation, on the level of trade distorting supp ort in U.S. agricultural policy? What measures 
does the U.S. envisage in order to address the increase in the total Amber Box support which 
has taken place over the last years? 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
The United States would also note that total amber box support notified has declined since 2008 
by 40 per cent and is well below previous peaks in the early 2000s. The United States remains 
fully committed to its obligations und er the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
Part IV, agriculture, page 109, § 36: 
The Senate version and the House agriculture committee version of the next Farm Bill foresee the 
elimination of direct payments notified by the U.S. under the green box and introduction of 
programs such as revenue loss program, price loss, STAX, dairy margin protection, which would 
appear to be product specific amber. 
40. Questions: Could the U.S. indicate whether this understanding is correct? To what extent 
would the U.S. consider such trend towards trade-distorting measures as compatible with 
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture which ou tlines provisions on 'Continuation of reform 
process'? 
RESPONSE: Discussions on 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
(2) Fisheries 
(iii)  Fisheries policy 
Fisheries disaster assistance  
Page 116, paragraph 61 states that "In addition, disaster assistance may be provided under the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and the MSA in response to a disaster, with US$170.4 million in 
total government financial transfers provided for disaster relief in 2007." In a recent press release 
(13 September 2012) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), titled "Secretary of Commerce decl ares disaster in Northeast Groundfish Fishery", 
it was mentioned that: "The Department of Comm erce has determined that the diminished fish 
stocks have resulted despite fishermen's adherence to catch limits intended to rebuild the stocks, and I am making a fishery failure declaration so th at Congress is able to appropriate funding that 
will mitigate some of the economic consequenc es of the reduced stocks and help build a 
sustainable fishery. The future challenges facing the men and women in this industry and the 
shore-based businesses that support them are daunting, and we want to do everything we can to help them through these difficult times." 
41. Questions: Could the U.S. confirm that subsid ies can be granted to fishermen, following the 
declaration of a "commercial fisheries disaster", to compensate, because of a reduction by public authorities in total allowable catches, for a loss of access to fishery resources with WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 219 - 
 
  anticipated revenue declines? Could the U.S. provide information on all the subsidies granted, 
since 2007, under commercial fisheries disaster and/or failure assistance? 
RESPONSE: Fishery disaster assistance is administered by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 
Service within the Department of Commerce. Two statutes, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act and the Interjur isdictional Fisheries Act, provide the authority 
and requirements for fishery disaster assistance. 
The initial step after a disaster request is received is the determination that a commercial fishery 
failure has occurred. If the available economic information indicates that, because of a fishery 
resource disaster, a significant number of those engaged in the commercial fishery have suffered revenue declines that greatly affect or materially damage their businesses, the commercial fishery will be deemed to have failed. The following thresholds are to be applied in making the 
determination, based on the loss of 12-month revenue compared to average annual revenue in the 
most recent 5-year period: revenue losses greater than 80% will result in a determination of a 
commercial fishery failure; revenue losses between 35% and 80% will be evaluated further (e.g., 
to determine if economic impacts are severe); and revenue losses less than 35% will not be 
eligible for determination of a commercial fishery failure, except where the Secretary determines there are special and unique circumstances that may justify considering and using a lower 
threshold in making the determination.  
A disaster determination by the Secretary of Commerce does not immediately result in financial 
assistance. Congress must appropriate funds for each  individual event, as there is no standing 
fund for fisheries disasters. Congress may also attach explicit guidance to the Secretary of 
Commerce as to how funding may be used. Once the funds are appropriated, NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service works with state Governors and agencies to conduct an assessment and develop a spending plan that addresses the effect s of the disaster. Based on the results of the 
assessment and the direction of Congress, the Secretary can provide assistance to replace gear, 
purchase safety equipment, develop and improve infrastructure, provide retraining opportunities, 
undertake research and monitoring, and ecological  restoration. The Secretary may also provide 
assistance to the community affected by the disaster. 
Appropriations made by Congress for Disaster Assistance since 2007
19 
Disaster 
Determination Year Amount 
Budgeted 
(000's) Distribution of funds 
West Coast 
(California and 
Oregon) Salmon; natural cause: 
ocean conditions 2008 - 
2011 $170,000  Direct payments to commercial fishermen, 
recreational charterboats, processors, in-river 
guides/gill netters, and other related businesses; direct payments to 
California/Oregon/Washington for lost landing 
tax revenues. 
Gulf of Mexico 
Fisheries; natural 
cause: hurricanes 
Gustav & Ike 2008 $47,000  To repair levees, restore oyster beds, repair 
infrastructure, and to reimburse commercial 
fishers, vessel owners, and seafood dealers to 
offset losses. 
                                               
19 This information is provided exclusively for transp arency purposes. The assistance provided does not 
necessarily constitute a "subsidy" as  defined by the Agreement on Subs idies and Countervailing Measures.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 220 - 
 
  Disaster 
Determination Year Amount 
Budgeted 
(000's) Distribution of funds 
Chesapeake Bay 
Blue Crab (Maryland and 
Virginia); natural 
disaster: unknown cause 2008 $30,000  Virginia: Derelict Crab Pot Removal; Crab 
License Buyback; Gear Study; Fishery Resource Grant Program; Oyster Aquaculture; Crab Stock 
Assessment. 
Maryland: Crab License Bu yback; Derelict Crab 
Pot Removal; Cooperative Research; Crab Stock 
Assessment; Enforcement; Oyster Aquaculture 
Training; Oyster Aquaculture Infrastructure Development; Habitat Rehabilitation; Oyster Recovery and Habitat Creation (loan program); 
Harvest Accountability; Crabmeat Quality 
Assurance Program; Maritime Heritage Training; Electronic Harvest Logbooks; Blue Crab 
Sustainability Certification; Crabmeat Packaging 
Equipment; Marketing Program; and Crab Waste Composting. 
New England Red 
Tide (Maine, 
Massachusetts, and 
New Hampshire); 
natural cause: 
harmful algal 
bloom 2008 $5,000  Massachusetts: Direct payments; Red Tide 
Monitoring and Outreach 
New Hampshire: Cyst Bed Mapping; PSP Toxin 
Detection; Phytoplankton Monitoring; Lobster 
Tomalley Testing, Shellfish Aquaculture 
Diversification; and Outreach. 
Maine: PSP (red tide) Detection; Phytoplankton 
Monitoring; Cyst Bed Mapping; PSP emerging 
issues (lobster tomalley); Outreach; Sentinel 
Buoys; Socio-study; Biotoxin Lab. 
Fraser River/Lummi Indian Sockeye Salmon; natural disaster: unknown 
cause  2002, 
2008, 2009 $2,000  Direct payment to non-tribal fishermen 
including gillnetters, purse seiners, and reef netters; Tribes Commercial Fishery Infrastructure, Tribal Community Subsistence; 
and Re-Training in New Fields. 
Yukon River 
Chinook Salmon; 
natural cause: 
ocean and river 
conditions 2010 $5,000  Direct payments to fishermen, net replacement 
Deep Water 
Horizon Oil Spill - Gulf of Mexico Fisheries 
(Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and 
Florida); 
man-made cause: oil spill 2010 $26,000  Ecosystem Services Impact Study; outreach 
and marketing activities for Gulf seafood; to develop a seafood quality assurance program, and enhance existing seafood testing; Gulf 
Fisheries Stock Assessments, including work 
with Gulf states to implement activities to better assess the fisheries stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. 
EU follow up question:  Could the U.S. confirm that a "fishery resource disaster", as stated in its 
answer to Question 41 of the EU, can be triggere d because of a reduction by public authorities in 
total allowable catches following a reduction, beca use of unknown reasons, of a fish stock level? 
RESPONSE: Yes. A fishery resource disaster means a su dden, unexpected, large decrease in fish 
stock biomass or other change that results in significant loss of access to the fishery resource as a result of an allowable cause. Loss of access could include loss of fishing vessels and gear for a 
substantial period of time.  Under MSA 312(a), allowable causes are natural causes, undetermined 
causes, or man-made causes beyond the control of fishery managers to mitigate through conservation and management measures. Regulatory or judicial actions do not constitute 
"man-made" causes, except where imposed to prot ect human health or the marine environment, 
e.g., red tide events. Under IFA 308(b), the allowable causes are natural or undetermined causes. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 221 - 
 
  Under IFA 308(d), the Secretary must determine that harm was incurred as a direct result of a 
fishery resource disaster arising from a hurricane or other natural disaster.  
Fisheries Financing Program (FFP) Accord ing to publicly available information20 this program 
"Provides direct loans for certain fisheries costs. Vessel financing available for the purchase of used 
vessels or the reconstruction of vessels (limited to reconstructions that do not add to fishing 
capacity). Refinancing available for existing debt obligations. FFP loans are not issued for purposes 
which could contribute to over capitalization of the fishing industry. Provides Individual Fishing 
Quota (IFQ) financing (at the request of a Fishery Management Council). IFQ financing available at 
this time to first time purchasers and small vessel operators in the Halibut Sablefish fisheries. Provides long term fishery buy back financing (at the request of a Fishery Management Council or Governor) to purchase and retire fishing permits and/or fishing vessels in overcapitalized fisheries. 
" 
42. Questions: Could the U.S. explain how it measur es "fishing capacity" and how it ensures that a 
"reconstruction" does not add "fishing capacity " when finance with the assistance of public 
loans? Could the U.S. explain what it is meant wi th "over capitalisation of the fishing industry"? 
What are the criteria used by the Administration to assess that a loan could contribute to such 
overcapitalisation? 
RESPONSE:  To begin, nearly all loan applicants are involved in managed fisheries in which the 
total catch is limited. Consequently, individual fishers cannot increase their harvest beyond their individual limits, and the fishers collectively in any given fishery cannot harvest beyond the allowable limit for the fishery. Secondly, the program will not finance reconstruction that increases 
the vessel's carrying capacity. Lastly, the prog ram examines the reconstruction project and 
proposed fishing activity for any other capacity concerns. 
As a general matter, a fishery is considered to be over-capitalized when the capital assets involved 
are greater than what is required to harvest the allowable catch. 
The program's policy is not to lend into fisheries classified as "overfished" or "subject to 
overfishing" as determined by the fishery management staffs using agency standards. 
With regard to the financing of retirement of fishing vessels with the assistance from the FFP, 
could the U.S. explain how is a fishery found to be "overcapitalised"? 
RESPONSE: As noted above, as a general matter, a fishery is considered to be over-capitalized 
when the capital assets involved are greater than what is required to harvest the allowable catch. 
Capital Construction Fund. According to publicly available information (see weblink 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/ffp.htm ) "The purpose of the Capital 
Construction Fund (CCF) Program is to improve the fishing fleet by allowing fishermen to 
accelerate their accumulation of funds with which to replace or improve their fishing vessels. 
Created by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1177), the CCF Program enables fishermen to construct, reconstruct, or under limited circumstances, acquire fishing 
vessels with before-tax, rather than after-tax do llars. The program allows fishermen to defer tax 
on income from the operation of their fishing vessels. Under the CCF Program, the amount accumulated by deferring tax on fishing income, when  used to help pay for a vessel project, is, in 
effect, an interest free loan from the Government." 
43. Question: Does the Capital Construction Fund include the same conditionality provisions (no 
addition of fishing capacity, no contribution to "overcapitalisation") regarding fishing vessels constructed, re-constructed, acquired and/or improved with the help of this program? 
RESPONSE: Currently, there are no restrictions in place, specifically, to prohibit CCF projects from 
adding to fishing capacity. However, the CCF re gulations are in the process of being amended. 
When completed, the amended regulations will include a restriction on using CCF funds for any 
project which increases the harvesting capacity in any fishery. 
                                               
20 
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form &tab=step1&id=37c280c1acf556c255dba16df4086eb8 . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 222 - 
 
  EU follow up question:  In its answer to Question 42, the U.S. states that "As a general matter, a 
fishery is considered to be over-capitalized when the capital assets involved are greater than what 
is required to harvest the allowable catch." Could the U.S. explain how it measures that harvesting capacity of capital assets, to ensure that they ar e not greater than what it is required to fish 
available fishery resources? Does the U.S. use me asurement methods such as Capacity Per Unit of 
Effort (CPUE)? If not, what other methods are used? 
RESPONSE: NMFS conducted a National Assessment of fishing capacity in 2008.
21 That 
assessment used data envelop analysis to provid e various metrics of fishing capacity, including 
harvesting capacity, excess capacity, overcapacity , and overharvest by fishery and species group, 
as well as estimates of harvesting capacity and excess capacity by fleet. 
Harvesting capacity  is the maximum amount of fish that the fishing fleets could have reasonably 
expected to catch or land during the year under the normal and realistic operating conditions of 
each vessel, fully utilizing the machinery and equipment in place, and given the technology, the availability and skill of skippers and crew, the abun dance of the stocks of fish, some or all fishery 
regulations, and other relevant constraints. 
With this definition, harvesting capacity is a measure of the constrained ability of one or more 
specific vessels to catch or land fish. Therefore, the number, size, and horsepower of fishing 
vessels are some of the determinants of harvesting capacity, but they are not measures of 
harvesting capacity. NMFS defines the term "e xcess harvesting capacity" to mean "too much" 
harvesting capacity and uses the following three measures or indicators of excess harvesting capacity: 
 Excess Capacity:  capacity in excess of actual harvests. 
 Overcapacity:  capacity in excess of the quotas. 
 Overharvest: harvest in excess of the quotas. 
For each of these three measures of excess harves ting capacity, the capacity, actual harvests, and 
harvest quotas are for the commercial fisheries. Therefore, the total harvests and harvest quotas could be substantially greater than the commercial harvests and quotas for stocks that are also 
subject to recreational or subsistence fisheries. For a stock without a commercial harvest quota, 
the commercial target catch level or harvest guideline level was used as a proxy for the commercial harvest quota. 
The U.S. does not use overcapacity as a criterion to manage fisheries. Rather, we regulate how 
much fish can be caught through catch shares and Total Allowable Catch, leaving it up to the 
fishermen whether they want to invest in fishing vessels and equipment. 
A vessel can be used, with little modification, in multiple fisheries; therefore, identifying one 
fishery as being "overcapitalized" is a temporal measure with little management relevance. Thus, 
we do not have a formalized measure as described in the question. 
From the Fisheries Financing perspective, we require that a fisherman is able to demonstrate that 
the loan we will make can be supported by the fi shery in which the fisherman intends to engage. If 
NOAA/NMFS indicates that the fishery is overfished, we (the Fisheries Finance Program) make the determination that adding capacity will not usually allow the extra vessel to service its loan and we do not make loans for vessels in that fishery. 
(3) Services 
(ii) Financial services 
Page 122 para 75 on financial services refers to a change of legislation requiring the Federal 
Reserve board when considering a proposed acquisition, merger or consolidation, to "take into 
account " the extent to which a proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidation would result in a greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the US banking or financial system." 
                                               
21 NMFS. 2008. National Assessment of Excess Harvesting Capacity in Federally Managed 
Commercial Fisheries. Silver Spring, MD. 444p. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/ 052208_nat_asse ss_cap_appx_c.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 223 - 
 
  44.  Questions: Can the US give indications as to the criteria that are used to assess the 
"stability" impact of the mergers concerning financial services? 
RESPONSE: Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in assessing the financial 
stability factor in merger proposals may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, FRB Order 
No. 2012-2 (February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36 See: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . 
EU follow-up questions:  Question was asked to learn more about the criteria used by the US to 
assess the "risks to the stability of the US banking or financial system" mentioned at p 122 para 
75 of the WTO Secretariat Report: 
Section 604(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act amends section 3(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 
1956 (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)), making it mandatory 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". 
Does Order No 2012-2 (February 14, 2012) constitute formal US policy? Will the order be codified 
under the Federal Reserve merger guidelines? Does an Order guarantee that the Federal Reserve Board will systematically and meticulously follow the described approach to assess the risks that 
may result from a future merger? Can banks solely rely on this Order for guidance for their 
envisaged mergers? 
RESPONSE: Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in assessing the financial 
stability factor generally may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, FRB Order No. 2012-2 
(February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36; http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . 
Discussion of the financial stability criteria specific to an application by a foreign bank to establish 
a U.S. office may be found at Bank of China Limited, FRB Order No. 2012-6 (May 9, 2012), at 
page 16; http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509c.pdf . 
Decisions made by the Federal Reserve ma y be appealed to the U.S. judiciary. 
See also: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newse vents/speech/tarullo20121010a.htm . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 224 - 
 
  HONG KONG, CHINA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 41 (Para. 24) 
Tariffs Noted that one Uruguay Round concession pertaining to ex 8518.90.10 remains conditional, 
subject to obtaining adequate coverage in Government Procurement. 
Question: 
1.  Having regard to the conclusion of the re-negotiation of the Government Procurement 
Agreement, we would appreciate to have further details regarding this outstanding concession. 
RESPONSE: In 1997, 8518.90.10 was subdivided into 8518.90.20 and 8518.90.40. 8518.90.20 is 
MFN free. However 8518.90.40 remains dutiable as adequate coverage was not achieved as part 
of the renegotiation of the Agreement on Government Procurement. 
Pages 48 – 49 (Para. 48) 
Contingency Measures – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures Noted that the US has modified its methodology since February 2012 in the calculation of dumping 
margins to address the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, expedited and sunset 
reviews. The Secretariat Report states that in administrative reviews, except where the US 
Department of Commerce (US DoC) determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the US DoC will compare monthly weighted average export prices with monthly weighted average normal values, and will grant an offset where the export price exceeds 
the normal value. 
Question: 
2.  What are the types of situations that would warrant the US DoC to depart from the weighted 
average comparison method? Has the exceptional rule ever been invoked? Could the US share 
with us the progress of implementation and feedba ck from domestic and foreign sectors in this 
regard? 
RESPONSE:  As explained in the February 2012 notice, in investigations and reviews, except 
where the Department of Commerce determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the Department of Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant an offset for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping 
and the antidumping duty assessment rate. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, the Department of Commerce has evaluated whether an average-to-transaction comparison 
method is appropriate, based on the facts of the particular case. 
Page 50 (Paras. 50 – 51) 
Contingency Measures – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures 
Noted that the US has introduced several modifications to its methodology for the calculation of 
dumping margins for non-market economies. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 225 - 
 
  Question: 
3.  Will such modifications effectively inflate the dumping margins or conducive to an increase in 
AD and CVD petitions? 
RESPONSE:  Over the past few years, the Department of Commerce has proposed and 
implemented a number of modifications to our regulations with regard to both market and 
non-market economies. Detailed explanations of these modifications can be found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/index.html . A number of these proposals strengthen the Department of 
Commerce's enforcement of the unfair trade laws without directly addressing the manner in which 
we calculate AD or CVD duties. For other proposals, there may be an impact on margins, but any such impact will necessarily be case specific. Whether the impact of that change is to increase or decrease the margin will depend not only on th e change in methodology, but the facts of any 
particular case to which the methodology is being applied. Similarly, with regard to the filing of 
AD/CVD petitions, that is a decision made by a domestic industry, not the U.S. government. There 
can be many factors that impact the timing of the filing of a petition beyond the use of any 
particular methodology by the Department of Commerce. 
Pages 76 – 77 (Para. 129) 
Government Procurement 
Noted exceptions under the Buy American Act may apply under certain circumstances. 
Question: 
4.  We would like to know how often such exceptio n s  w e r e  i n v o k e d  i n  t h e  p a s t  t w o  y e a r s .  I f  
exceptions had been invoked because the exclusion of foreign goods/suppliers was deemed to 
be inconsistent with the public interest, we would be interested to know how the impact on 
public interest was assessed. 
RESPONSE:  The number of waivers that were issued Government-wide in Fiscal Years 2010 and 
2011 by exception category are set out below. We do not have information on the reasons that the 
public interest exception was used.  
 FY10 FY11 
Public Interest 297 139 
Domestic Non-availability 5,531 6,531 
Unreasonable Cost 363 574 
Resale 2,824 2,491 
Commercial Information Technology 5,563 3,624 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Page 119 (Para. 65) 
Environmental Services 
Noted that most consumers are served by pub licly owned or cooperative utilities while the 
private-sector involvement in the collective, ne twork-based environmental services (water and 
waste-water management services, refuse dispos al services) remained relatively marginal. 
Question: 
5.  Is there any plan to privatise those public ly owned or cooperative utilities or any plan to 
increase private-sector involvement in the co llective, network-based environmental services? 
RESPONSE: In the United States, network-based services such as those discussed in Paragraph 
65 of the Secretariat's Report are generally provided by municipalities. We are not aware of any 
widespread efforts across municipalities to increase privatization of the provision of these services.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 226 - 
 
  Page 122 (Para. 74) 
Financial Services 
Noted that when considering an application for establishment of a US office of a foreign bank that 
presents a risk to the stability of the US financial system, the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System is explicitly required to consid er whether the home country of the foreign bank 
has adopted, or is making demonstrable progress toward adopting, an appropriate system of financial regulation for the financial system of such home country to mitigate such risk. The Board 
is also allowed to order the termination of the acti vities of US offices of such foreign banks in the 
absence of these criteria. Similarly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is required to consider the same criteria regarding home country regulation when considering an application for establishment of a foreign broker or dealer that presents a risk. The SEC is authorised to rescind 
the authorisation of such foreign brokers or dealers if the home country authority has not taken 
the steps required. 
Question: 
6.  In determining whether the foreign banks or brokers or dealers present a risk to the stability of 
the US financial system, are there any objective criteria or measurements in the assessment? Is there any mechanism for these companies to lodge appeal against the decision made by the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sy stem or the SEC? So far, are there any 
applications that have been rejected (or offices ordered to terminate) due to the failure in fulfilling the criteria? 
RESPONSE: Discussion of the criteria used by the Federal Reserve in assessing the financial 
stability factor generally may be found at Capital One Financial Corporation, FRB Order No. 2012-2 
(February 14, 2012), at pp. 28-36; 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders /order20120214.pdf . 
Discussion of the financial stability criteria specific to an application by a foreign bank to establish 
a U.S. office may be found at Bank of China Limited, FRB Order No. 2012-6 (May 9, 2012), at 
page 16; http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509c.pdf . 
Decisions made by the Federal Reserve ma y be appealed to the U.S. judiciary. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 227 - 
 
  ICELAND 
"Other questions" category 1.  Despite the fact that eider-down is processed in a sustainable manner without causing any 
harm to eider, the United States still maintains an import prohibition on eider-down. Is the 
United States planning to lift its ban on the importation on eider-down? If not, what 
justification has the US for maintaining this import prohibition, given the lack of scientific evidence to support such a measure? 
RESPONSE:  The common eider ( Somateria mollissima ) is protected under the US Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (Act), the primary purpose of which is to create a comprehensive framework for the conservation of migratory birds. The Act prohibits, among other things, the possession, purchase, sale, import, and export of migratory bird specie s, any part, nest or egg of such bird, or any 
product which consists of any such bird or such part, unless authorized by permit or regulations. 
The common eider is also protected under the Conv ention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals 
under Appendix II, which lists species that have an unfavorable conservation status and that would 
benefit significantly from international cooperation for their conservation and management. With 
the exception of domesticated varieties of barnyard mallards, U.S. regulations do not allow for the import of migratory bird parts for commercial purposes. The United States does not anticipate 
amending the regulations for commercial import of eider down. 
2.  The Unites States maintains a Visa-regime for investors and traders, the so-called E-Visas, 
that allows some WTO Members – but not all – easier access to visas for Investors and Traders. The fact that this system only applie s to some WTO Members but not all has resulted 
in a situation where enterprises from some WTO Members can better take advantage of the US 
Mode 3 Commitments then others. What are the US´s plans for extending the E-Visa program to those WTO Members not currently benefiting from it? 
RESPONSE:  U.S. law provides for the temporary entry of two categories of nonimmigrants 
pursuant to the provisions of a treaty of comme rce and navigation between the United States and 
the foreign state of which that alien is a national, solely to carry on substantial trade (E-1, or 
"Treaty-Trader," visa), or to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the alien 
has invested, or in which the alien is actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital (E-2, or "Treaty Trader," visa). With such a treaty in force, a national of the foreign state may establish eligibility for an E-1 or E-2 visa. The issuance of these types of visas is included in 
the U.S. list of Article II GATS exemptions. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 228 - 
 
  NDIA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT Page 32 (Para 150) 
The trade policy agenda of the United States includes a strong commitment to ensuring that 
workers and their families in America and around the world benefit from trade. … The 
U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is a recent example of how addressing labor issues can support trade liberalization. The agreement includes strong protections for workers' rights that 
reflect a 2007 Congressional-Executive commitment in the United States to incorporate high labor 
standards into trade agreements. 
While the United States has indicated its strong commitment to ensuring that workers benefit from 
trade,  it has not ratified the following ILO conventions: (i) Convention on the Right to Organise 
and Collective Bargaining; (ii) the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the 
Right to Organise; (iii) Convention on Equal Remuneration; (iv) Convention on Discrimination, or (v) Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and (vi) Convention on Minimum Age. 
Question 1 
Could the US state why, on the one hand it has no t ratified some of the ILO conventions, and on 
the other it seeks to incorporate high labour standards in its trade agreements? 
RESPONSE: The United States seeks high labor standards in its trade agreements in order to 
ensure that workers and their families in the United States and around the world benefit from trade. The United States has a comprehensiv e process for ratifying International Labor 
Organization (ILO) conventions that ensures that the United States is in full compliance with any 
conventions it ratifies. While the United States has not ratified some ILO conventions, the United 
States considers, and the supervisory bodies of the International Labor Organization have agreed, 
that U.S. labor laws and practices are in general conformance with ILO core labor standards. In 
June 1998, the International Labor Conference adopted the precedent-setting ILO Declaration on 
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (ILO Declaration) , by an overwhelming majority. The 
ILO Declaration is applicable to all ILO member nations because it flows from the ILO Constitution, 
which member governments must formally accept when they join the Organization. These 
principles apply regardless of whether a country has ratified the corresponding ILO core conventions. In its trade agreements, the United States cites the ILO Declaration. See http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/labor  for more information. 
Part II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
Page 77 (Para 134) 
Under U.S. laws and rules, agencies may reserv e contracts exclusively for certain designated 
groups. These provisions are known as set-asides. 
Question 2 
Could the US state the value of procurement made from the designated groups in which the value 
of the contract was above the threshold of US obligations under the GPA? 
RESPONSE: This information is included in the statistics that the United States submits to the 
WTO Committee on Government Procurement, which are available on the WTO website. 
Page 76 (Para 128) 
For fiscal year 2010, U.S. spending on federal procurement contracts amounted to US$517 billion, 
approximately 16% of 2010 federal government expenditures. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 229 - 
 
  Question 3 
Out of the amount of US $ 517 bn. could the US in dicate the value of procurement through limited 
tendering on grounds of protection of exclusive rights and additional purchases from original 
suppliers? Could the US further indicate the percentage of these procurements made from foreign 
suppliers? 
RESPONSE: The statistics that the United States provides to the WTO Committee on Government 
Procurement include the value of contracts subject to limited tendering. However, those statistics 
do not include the basis for the use of limited tendering, nor do they include the percentage of procurements from foreign suppliers. This is not information that the United States routinely compiles in the ordinary course of business. 
Page 48 (Para 46) 
At the end of 2011, the United States had 237 AD measures in force. 
Question 4 
In respect of the 237 AD measures in force at the end of 2011, could the US indicate the number 
of measures which have been in force for more than (i) 5 years; (ii) 10 years; and (iii) 20 years? 
Could the US provide these details also in respect of AD measures in force at the end of 2010? 
RESPONSE: The results (complete with Federal Register citations and dates of publication of the 
notices) for all of the five-year sunset reviews can be found on the US International Trade 
Commission's website (http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset /). That being said, in the ordinary course 
of business, the United States does not organize its statistics in the form India is requesting. However, from the website one can obtain, on a case-by-case basis, the information that India is 
inquiring about, as well as other detailed information about the various sunset reviews. 
Page 76-82 (Para 128-145) 
The US is an active member of the GPA and has also been encouraging other members of the WTO 
to accede to the same. The GPA is expected to provide access to the parties to the market for 
public procurement in each other's territories. 
Question 5 
The USA requested to provide information on: 
1. Total covered procurement under the GPA. 
2. Break up of total GPA covered procurement into: 
1. Total covered procurement under the GPA 
2. Break up of total GPA covered procurement into 
a. Procurement from within United States 
a. By federal Government 
b. By State Governments 
c. By other entities. 
b. Procurement from GPA members 
a. From European Union 
b. From other GPA countries 
c. Government procurement from non-GPA sources WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 230 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States provides statistics on procurement covered by the GPA to the WTO 
Committee on Government Procurement, as do other GPA Parties. This information is available on the WTO website. 
Page 78 (Para 137) 
The United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a federal excise tax on foreign 
entities receiving payments for goods and services. 
Question 6 
Could the US confirm whether the 2010 legislation (Zadroga Act) is being implemented? If yes, 
could the US state the date from which it has impl emented this legislation? Further, could the US 
provide the value of federal excise tax collected so  far and details of the countries from which this 
tax has been collected? 
RESPONSE: The text of the referenced legislation, Section 301 of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health 
and Compensation Act of 2010, is available on the Internet at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . Pursuant to its 
terms, the effective date of the legislation was the date of its enactment, January 2, 2011. The 
US Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department are in the process of drafting regulations. In the ordinary course of business, the United States does not compile tax information 
in the form India has requested. 
Page 80 (Para 142-143) 
The United States implemented a number of fiscal stimulus measures or government assistance to 
mitigate the impact of the financial crisis including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009. 
Question 7 
Does "Buy American" under ARRA apply to privat e projects, or private contractors on public 
projects? What are the factors, other than 'title' of ownership by a Government entity, that U.S. 
would consider necessary in determining "public building or work" to which the Buy American provision would apply? The Government of India requests for illustrations of the "case-by-case" 
determinations by the Contracting Officer in or der to understand the application of the "Buy 
American" provision. 
RESPONSE: The "buy American" provision under the ARRA applied to ARRA funded projects for 
the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work. In 
implementing the ARRA, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council adopted the following 
definition of "public building or public work" in FAR section 25.601, which characterizes the essence of what constitutes a public building or work: 
Public building or public work" means a building or work, the construction, prosecution, 
completion, or repair of which is carried on directly or indirectly by authority of, or with funds of, a Federal agency to serve the interest of the general public regardless of whether title thereof is in a 
Federal agency (see FAR 22.401). These buildings and works may include, without limitation, 
bridges, dams, plants, highways, parkways, streets,  subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, 
pumping stations, heavy generators, railways, airp orts, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, 
lighthouses, buoys, jetties, breakwaters, levees , and canals, and the construction, alteration, 
maintenance, or repair of such buildings and works. 
Question 8 
ARRA funding requires compliance with the 'Buy American' requirement when such funding is for 
'public works' or 'public buildings'. But there is no requirement under the ARRA that such funding 
should be used only for 'governmental purposes' and not with a view to commercial resale. It is also important to ensure that goods under BA provisions are procured by governmental agencies. 
The U.S. is requested to elaborate whether these are relevant factors in mandating the 'Buy WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 231 - 
 
  American' requirement under ARRA. If yes, what are the tests that are used in determining the 
nature of 'governmental purpose' and ensuring other essential requirements while invoking the BA provisions under ARRA? 
RESPONSE:  The other factors cited in the question were not relevant to the "buy American" 
requirement in the ARRA. 
Question 9 
ARRA funding under BA provision is contingent on use of U.S. manufactured goods. Can the US 
explain how this does not violate Article 3.1(b)  of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures (ASCM), which prohibits any subsidies which are contingent on use of domestic goods? The US is requested to furnish its stand on this aspect of ARRA. 
RESPONSE: The "buy American" requirement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 (ARRA) does not apply to covered procurement from suppliers in WTO GPA parties or US FTA 
partners. Thus, a significant amount of competition results from both US and foreign suppliers. Consequently, the prices paid for government procurement undertaken pursuant to the ARRA are 
market prices.  
Page 74 (Para 126 Table III.20) 
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation 
PBGC is a body corporate established within the US Department of Labor by a federal law - ERISA. 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has been lis ted as a Government Corporation. PBGC, like a 
government, enjoys the effective power to regulate , control and supervise individuals or entities 
through the exercise of lawful authority vested on it through ERISA. It is administered by a 
Director, who is appointed by the President of US , by and with advice and consent of the Senate, 
indicating an element of government control. Th e board of directors of PBGC consists of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Commerce, indicating another 
element of government control. It can also exercise its authority in order to compel or command a 
private body or govern a private body's actions (direction) and may give responsibility for certain tasks to a private body (entrustment). Select inst ances of such an authority can be seen in the 
following cases: 
(a)  PBGC's powers to force involuntary termination of pension plans in case of both 
single-employer as well as multi-employer pension plans, if certain conditions are not met. The 
PBGC derives this authority from section 1342 of ERISA.  
(b)  PBGC's power to prescribe schedules of prem ium rates and bases payable to it, as applicable 
to different types of pension plans, as per section 1306 of ERISA. 
(c)  PBGC's authority to seek annually relevant records, documents, copies of audited financial 
statements from each contributing sponsor as per section 1310 of ERISA, as part of its 
supervisory functions. 
Question 10 
In light of above, would the US agree that PB GC is a public body within the meaning of 
Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the ASCM? If not, why not? 
RESPONSE: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") is a federal corporation created 
by Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). ERISA is a federal 
law that sets minimum standards for pension plans in private industry. Congress specified three 
purposes in Title IV of ERISA, which PBGC is to carry out: 
 to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans for the 
benefit of their participants, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 232 - 
 
   to provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits to participants and 
beneficiaries, and 
 to keep pension insurance premiums at a minimum. 
PBGC operates two separate insurance programs for defined benefit pension plans. A defined 
benefit plan promises to pay a specific monthly amount to employees when they retire. It is funded by the employer. When a single-employer plan terminates without sufficient assets to pay 
all benefits earned under the plan, PBGC beco mes trustee of the plan and pays guaranteed 
benefits to employees and their survivors. Furt her information regarding the PBGC may be found 
at http://www.pbgc.gov/ .  
As to whether the PBGC is a public body within the meaning of Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the Subsidies 
Agreement, we note that the WTO Appellate Body  in United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (DS 379) articulated a standard for determining whether an entity constitutes a public body based inter alia on a fact-intensive analysis. The United States has not conducted an analysis of the PBGC under the standard 
articulated by the Appellate Body. 
Page 74 (Para 126 Table III.20) 
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation 
Section 1305(c) of Employee Retirement Income Se curity Act, 1974 (ERISA) states that PBGC is 
authorized to issue to the Secretary of the Treasury, notes or other obligations in an aggregate amount not exceeding USD 100,000,000, in such forms and denominations, bearing such 
maturities, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of 
Treasury 
Question 11 
Would the US agree that this represents a financial contribution from the US Government to 
PBGC? If not, why not? 
RESPONSE:  Section 4005(c) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1305(c)), was repealed under the Moving 
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), signed by the President on July 6, 2012. See 
section 40234 of MAP-21. Thus, the question is moot. 
Page 97-98 (Para 195) 
The USTR in its annual Special 301 Reports monito rs developments concerning US IPR protection 
in the territories of its trading partners. 
Question 12 
US is requested to inform whether there is any mechanism of monitoring overall IP protection 
within the US of non-US right holders. 
US may also like to elucidate what legal recourse is available to foreign rightholders in the form of 
a special office where they can lodge their infringement complaints given that legal procedures in the US are expensive for right holders from developing countries. 
RESPONSE: Non-U.S. rights holders may avail themselves of the same intellectual property 
protections as U.S. rights holders. Where a non-U.S. rights holder alleges an infringement of intellectual property rights in the United States, that right holder has recourse to the same 
substantive rights and procedural safeguards as do U.S. rights holders. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 233 - 
 
  Page 96 (Para 189-191) 
Many figures on effectiveness of enforcement action have been cited in the said paragraphs. 
However, no figures in USD terms have been provided. At the same time, the Government 
Accountability Office in its April 2010 Report to the US Congress on the impact of counterfeiting on 
the US economy cited instances of use of inaccurate and unsubstantiated figures by both 
Government entities such as Customs and Border Patrol and the FBI as well as by Private entities in this regard. 
Question 13 
US may kindly provide details of the methodology by which the assessment made under Para 
190-191 were quantified. 
RESPONSE:  The customs seizure statistics are based on increases in the total number of 
shipments and in the number of shipments in the specified product categories seized for IPR 
violations in Fiscal Year (October through September) 2011 over the same period in 2009. The rise in seizures resulting from increased funding is based on the increase in IPR seizures in FY 2010 
over 2009. The funding increase included both pe rsonnel and non-personnel costs such as travel, 
training, and tools to assist IPR enforcement. 
Page 97-98 (Para 195) 
In the Special 301 report of 2012, the USTR spec ifically pointed out the case of compulsory 
licensing in India. 
The testimony of the Deputy Under Secretary of  Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy 
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Subcommittee on Intellectual 
Property, Competition and the Internet Commi ttee on the Judiciary of the US House of 
Representatives on the subject of "International IP  Enforcement: Protecting Patents, Trade Secrets 
and Market Access" made on June 27, 2012 stated, 
"Unfortunately, compulsory licenses dissuade pharmaceutical and biotech companies from 
innovating or from bringing their products into countries that grant these compulsory licenses. In the case of India, I was quite dismayed and surpri sed when they did, indeed, decide to grant that 
compulsory license for a reason that, I think, did not meet international standards  and was 
not due to, for instance, a national crisis, 
Question 14 
While India respects the right of United States to ar ticulate its interests, India would like to know if 
the US holds that a compulsory licence for a pharmaceutical product can be issued on under 
conditions of a national crisis. If yes, US may ki ndly identify the relevant provisions under TRIPS 
and any other international legal document for this position. 
US is also requested to provide information on any type of non-voluntary licensing that is 
permitted under US IP laws, especially the law on Patents. 
RESPONSE:  The United States recognizes that Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement permits other 
use of the subject matter of a patent without th e authorization of the rightholder under certain 
conditions. As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, the United States respects a trading partner's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, and supports the vital role of the patent system in promoting the development 
and creation of new and innovative lifesaving medi cines. Consistent with these views, the United 
States respects its trading partners' rights to grant compulsory licenses in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, and encourages its trading partners to 
consider ways to address their public health challenges while maintaining IPR systems that 
promote investment, research, and innovation. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 234 - 
 
  Page 12 (Para 27) 
The United States is aware of the growth potentia l of its services exports and has enacted laws or 
initiated actions to increase services exports,  especially in the travel and tourism sector. 
Question 15 
The US is requested to provide details of laws en acted and actions initiated to increase services 
exports other than travel and tourism sector. Para  27 provides details only of laws/changes for 
travel and tourism sector. 
RESPONSE: The ability to affect services exports through changes in domestic law and regulation 
tends to be concentrated in the limited number of sectors where Mode 2 supply is significant, such 
as travel and tourism. But the United States continuously works cooperatively with its trade partners in seeking agreement on items of mutual interest that can increase exports for all sides.  
Page 27 (Para 31) 
The 2012 model of Bilateral Investment Treaty has 42 pages (including annexes) and is reported 
to build upon the previous model by enhancing tr ansparency and public participation; sharpening 
disciplines that address preferential treatment to state-owned enterprises, including the distortions 
created by certain indigenous innovation policies; and strengthening protection relating to labour and the environment. 
Question 16 
Could the US specify how the 2012 model of BIT addresses preferential treatment to state owned 
enterprises? 
RESPONSE:  The 2004 Model BIT already contained numerous tools to address challenges raised 
by State-led economies, i.e., economies that organize economic activity to a significant degree on 
the basis of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and other mechanisms of state influence and control. The 2012 Model BIT seeks to enhance these tools through new provisions that: (1) discipline the 
imposition of domestic technology requirements; (2) ensure opportunity for participation in 
standards-setting; and (3) clarify the application of BIT obligations to state-owned enterprises and other entities exercising delegated government authority. Additional information about these and 
other revisions in the 2012 Model BIT text can be found at: 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/p rs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm .  
Page 28 (Para 34-35) 
The United States' investment regime has been de scribed as open and transparent with few formal 
encumbrances. For example, there is free movement of capital and profits, and no minimum 
investment thresholds. However, there remain a num ber of restrictions to foreign investment in 
certain areas, and certain information-gathering, monitoring, reporting, and disclosure procedures 
can also have an impact on foreign investment. 
Question 17 
The US is requested to provide details of restri ctions to foreign investment and also of the 
disclosure procedures that may have an impact on foreign investment. Para 35 does not provide 
any details w.r.t. such restrictions/ disclosure procedures except that of Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. 
RESPONSE: The United States maintains an open investment regime. Foreign investors are 
generally free to establish or acquire investments in the United States, subject only to 
non-discriminatory and generally applicable laws and regulations. The CRS report referenced in Paragraph 35 of the Secretariat's Report discusses federal-level measures that "have an impact on 
foreign investment in the United States," including some that relate to the collection of statistical 
information. The report itself (the full title and date of which are contained in the "References" WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 235 - 
 
  section of the Secretariat's Report) provides deta ils with respect to each of the measures it 
discusses. 
Page 72 (Para 120) 
Following the economic downturn the US Government has turned to a number of fiscal incentives 
to help spur the economic recovery. In particular  a number of tax incentives to businesses have 
been adopted in the last few years. 
Question 18 
Could the US clarify whether such tax incentives are available to only the domestic firms or to all 
firms (including foreign ones)? 
RESPONSE: Assuming a subsidiary of a foreign firm is incorporated in the United States and is 
liable for the payment of U.S. corporate taxes, as a general matter, the subsidiary would not be 
excluded from claiming tax incentives. 
Page 16 (Para 10) 
It appears that some changes or updates to U.S. trade laws or procedures would require updated 
or amended WTO notifications. In particular, new notifications are necessary in the areas of 
rectifications and modifications of schedules, preferential rules of origin, quantitative restrictions, and with respect to preference programmes like the GSP. 
Question 19 
What are the US plans and the timeframes with regard to submission of full and up-to-date 
notifications in several important areas, including modifications of schedules, preferential rules of origin, quantitative restrictions, and of preference programmes like the GSP? 
The US is requested to eleborate on the reasons for delay in meeting the notification obligations in 
the above mentioned areas? The US is urged to come forward with full and complete information at the earliest to permit examination and cons ideration of the updated, modified or amended 
notifications in the appropriate WTO bodies. 
RESPONSE:  The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
Page 19-20 (Para 18-19) 
The United States preference programmes are ei ther global, i.e. the Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP), or regional, where the five main preference programmes are the Andean Trade 
Preference Act (ATPA), the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), the Caribbean Trade 
Partnership Act (CBTPA), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and the Haitian 
Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Act. 
In order to receive benefits under one or more of the preference programmes, countries have to 
meet eligibility criteria, which vary by programme, but may include adhering to rules of origin, 
meeting international commitments in worker rights and investment practices, as well as foreign policy objectives such as having an extradition treaty or combating trade in illegal drugs. 
The legal authority for the US GSP programme lapsed on 31 December 2010. In October 2011, 
legislation was enacted re-authorizing the programme until 31 July 2013. US Congress may consider changes or reforms in the GSP when it next takes up renewal of the programme, probably in the first half of 2013. The President's Trade Policy Agenda suggests growing competitiveness of 
emerging  market GSP beneficiaries may be an element in the review/reform of the programme. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 236 - 
 
  Question 20 
We look forward to reviewing an up-to-date notification of the US unilateral preference 
programmes at the CTD pursuant to the GATT 1979 Decision - Enabling Clause (L/4903). The Enabling Clause covers GSP type schemes extended to developing countries, with scope to accord 
further preferences to LDCs (e.g. DFQF treatment). 
We would, in particular, welcome information on the scope, structure, preference margins, volume 
and value of trade covered, and eligibility criteria used in the preference schemes. 
RESPONSE: The United States notified on its GSP program via WT/COMTD/N/1/Add. 8, dated 
July 4, 2012. Pursuant to the Transparency Mech anism for Preferential Trade Arrangements, the 
United States has also submitted guides for each of its preference programs setting forth detailed 
information regarding each preference program,  including product and country coverage and 
statutory provisions governing the program, which set forth the program's eligibility criteria. These 
guides are available at http://ptadb.wto.org/Country.aspx?code=840 .  
Page 41 (Para 24) 
The United States' WTO tariff schedule (Schedule XX) contains concessions mainly from the 
Uruguay Round. The WTO tariff bindings do not yet reflect HS changes from 2007 and 2012 or 
some other changes that the US has made domestically but has not yet notified. Moreover, while 
the HS96 and HS02 nomenclature changes have been implemented for the tariff lines concerned, the Chapter notes have not been updated, and th ey remain as implemented at the time of the 
Uruguay Round. Furthermore, the legal change to amend certain tobacco tariffs, pursuant to GATT 
Article XXVIII renegotiations, has not been implemented at the WTO, while it appears the US 
proceeded domestically with these changes long ago. 
Question 21 
As noted in the Secretariat's report, the US' tari ff schedule (Schedule XX) has not been updated to 
reflect modifications and the transposition to HS 2007 and HS 2012. We urge the US to notify these and any other changes to its WTO bindings made domestically without delay. 
Could the US provide an update on the status of the GATT Article XXVIII renegotiations initiated to 
amend certain tobacco tariffs? The US appears to have amended the tariffs without completing the 
legal formalities pursuant to Article XXVIII. 
RESPONSE: The United States notified the conclusion of the Article XXVIII negotiations (see: 
G/SECRET/2.Add1) and provided a copy of the US HTS changes to the WTO.  
Page 30 (Para 2) 
It is mentioned that the US is developing an Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the 
electronic commercial trade processing system being developed to facilitate trade while 
strengthening border security. ACE will provide a single centralized portal and access point for the 
trade community to interact with CBP 
Question 22 
India will like to know whether with this is a Single Window System under development and 
whether under this system, an importer will need to file all information only once to a single 
agency. What is the time frame within which it is expected to be fully operational? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is developing a new automated customs platform; one of the 
functions that this platform is expected to offer is an opportunity to transit multiple agency data. This core functionality for the Automated Comm ercial Environment (ACE) is planned to be 
completed in approximately 3 years. This core functionality will establish the foundation for the 
import/export process. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 237 - 
 
  Page 34-35 (Para 8) 
Table III.1 indicates that 18 different kinds of preferential rules of origin are applied with respect 
to different FTA partners. 
Question 23 
India will be interested in knowing whether US ha s conducted any Study with regard to the impact 
on the trade facilitation environment at its border on account of such diverse rules of origin. If so, 
India will be grateful if US shares the same. 
RESPONSE: The United States has not undertaken a study of the impact of its rules of origin on 
the trade facilitation environment on its border. 
Page 35 (Para 10) 
It is reported that as per section 304 of the US Tariff Act of 1930, "all articles of foreign 
manufacture" need to contain a mark or label indicating the country where the good originated. It 
is reported that different rules apply for domestic products, for example in order to be labelled as 
"Made in the U.S.A." 
Question 24 
India requests US to clarify as to why different rules of origin have been adopted for these two 
purposes. India will also be interested in know ing that under such circumstances, how does US 
ensure adherence to the principle laid down in Ar ticle 2 (d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin 
that the rules of origin applied to exports and impo rts shall be no more stringent than the rules of 
origin applied to determine whether or not a good is domestic.  
RESPONSE: The United States rules of origin are fully compliant with its WTO obligations. 
Labeling requirements for imported goods are not more stringent than any domestic labeling 
requirement.  
Page 36 (Para 11) 
It is reported that specific labelling requiremen ts, outside of section 304, include the American 
Automobile Labeling Act, the Fur Products Labe lling Act, the Omnibus Tr ade and Competitiveness 
Act for Native American style jewe llery, and various other Acts or Codes relating to agricultural 
products such as meat, eggs, mushrooms, etc. In addition to product specific marking 
requirements, different marking requirements exist, outside section 304, for products subject to 
FTAs such as NAFTA. 
Question 25 
In India's view such different rules of origin for different purposes create a complex trading 
environment. Does US propose to simplify and reduce its various labelling provisions? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have any plans at this time to change current labeling 
requirements. 
Page 36 (Para 12) 
It is reported that Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that all imported articles, unless 
exempted, must be marked at the time of impo rtation so that the "ultimate purchaser" knows 
where the imported article was manufactured. It is further mentioned that if imported articles are 
not marked or if they are inadequately marked , penalties or fines may be applied, and the 
products may be retained by Customs. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 238 - 
 
  Question 26 
India seeks a clarification from US as to what guid elines are observed in arriving at the conclusion 
that origin of imported articles are marked correct ly as there are no notified non-preferential rules 
of origin. 
RESPONSE:  All U.S. non-preferential rules of orig in schemes employ the "wholly obtained" 
criterion for goods that are wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a particular country. For goods that consist in whole or in part of materials from more than one country, U.S. 
non-preferential rules of origin schemes employ  the "substantial transformation" criterion. 
Page 33 (Para 7) 
It is mentioned that CBP determines origin on a case-by-case basis, often relying on a number of 
court decisions, regulations, and agency interpreta tions to confer origin. India will like to know as 
to what guidelines exporters are expected to follo w in marking origin in absence of clear origin 
rules? 
Question 27 
In India's view, this makes the trade policy regi me of US complex. India seeks a clarification 
whether US is considering implementing non-pref erential rules of origin to provide greater 
certainty to traders as reportedly favoured by CBP? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not agree that its trade policy regime is complex.  CBP had 
proposed a regulatory change to apply the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, rather than the case-by-case determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin marking purposes. Based on the comments 
received in response to the proposed changes, in September 2011, CBP issued a final rule that did 
not adopt new origin and marking rules. A total of  70 commenters responded to the solicitation of 
public comments, 14 of which provided multip le submissions. Forty-two of the commenters 
expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of the country of origin rules set forth in 
part 102, while 16 commenters raised specific concerns or questions regarding the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or opposing the proposal. See: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-02/html/2011-22588.htm .  
Page 42-44 (Para 32-36) 
It is mentioned that US charges Merchandise Processing Fees and Harbour Maintenance Tax on ad 
valorem basis. The ad valorem levies appear to be in violation of US commitments under GATT 
Article VIII which provides that all fees and ch arges of whatever character imposed on or in 
connection with importation or exportation shall be limited to the approximate cost of services rendered. 
Question 28 
How does US justify continuance of such levies on ad valorem basis? 
RESPONSE:  The Merchandise Processing Fee which is subject to a cap of $485 is limited in 
amount to the approximate costs of services rendered and is consistent with US WTO obligations. 
Page 105 (Para 24) 
The Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCPs) programme provides support to some specific crops like 
rice, cotton, corn etc. USA notified CCPs as no n-product specific support. However, CCPs are 
product-specific as there are specific target price for crops covered. 
Question 29 
It is requested to explain the reasons for treating CCPs as non-product specific support rather than 
product-specific support. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 239 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Countercyclical payments (CCPs) are reported as non-product specific because 
payments are based on fixed historical area and yields (i.e., production), not current production. Countercyclical payments do not require production of any specific crop, nor any production at all, for a recipient to receive a payment. 
Page 105 (Para 22) 
Outlays for SNAP and other domestic food-aid prog rammes have been increasing steadily over the 
past few years. Most of these funds go towards pr oviding vouchers for purchases of food in retail 
outlets (including imported as well as domestic products) by people and families with low incomes. 
About US$0.9 billion is expended for purchase of commodities through the Food and Consumer Services' food programmes for distribution  to low-income or other needy people. 
Question 30 
It is requested to explain the criteria adopted by USA to identify low income or other needy people 
for the purpose of domestic food aid. 
RESPONSE:  Income eligibility standards for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are 
set by law. Gross monthly income eligibility limits are set at 130 per cent of the poverty level for 
the household size. Net monthly income limits are set at 100 per cent of the poverty level. 
Page 107 (Para 28) 
Cotton-4 countries have raised concerns over cotton subsidies to farmers in USA. Farm bill 2012 
has restructured as well as repealed many prog rammes related to different commodities. Direct 
Payments, Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCPs), the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) 
Program, are repealed at the end of the 2012 crop year. However, USA has introduced a new crop 
insurance policy called Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) with farmer subsidy as a share of 
the policy premium is set at 80% for STAX. 
Question 31 
It is requested to answer the following: (i) Whether or not introduction of STAX for cotton with 80 per cent premium subsidies will 
encourage more production of cotton and thus will hamper the interest of C-4 countries? 
RESPONSE:  Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. . 
(ii) How the premium subsidy on cotton under STAX will be treated in domestic support 
notification? 
RESPONSE:  Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. The United States will notify any new agricultural programs in an appropriate and timely manner. 
Page 58 (Para 70) 
It is indicated that the enquiry point and notification authority under the TBT Agreement is the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (N IST) of the Department of Commerce. However, 
it can be observed that most of these notifications are from the following governmental, 
sub-federal and private companies like: State of California; Government Printing Office; Akamai Technologies (Private); Food and Drug Administra tion; US Department of Agriculture (Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service); California Environmental Protection Agency (Air Resources 
Board); and Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 240 - 
 
  Question 32 
Can the US clarify the role of private firms like the "Akamai Technologies" in the arena of 
standards setting? 
RESPONSE: The United States has not notified any measure from Akamai Technologies, as it is 
not a central or sub-central government entity. Akamai Technologies is a private company and has 
no affiliation with the U.S. government. 
Page 58 (Para 71) 
It is indicated that over the period the U.S. auth orities recognised the need to make improvements 
in their internal procedures for sub-federal noti fications and there is a need for such measures. 
Question 33 
Can the US clarify as to how it proposes to meet sub-federal standard/interests with that of 
international harmonised standard? 
RESPONSE: State regulators actively engage in U.S. based and international standards 
development activities and use international stan dards where appropriate in state regulations. 
Page 60 (Para 79) 
India seeks a clarification on the role of American  National Standards Institute (ANSI) coordinated 
and administered the private sector voluntary standard and system in the United States and their 
implementation process. 
Question 34 
Are these voluntary standards true to the meaning and code or is there any case of violation of 
these voluntary measures by the private sector in the process of procurement of goods from a 
third country. India would like to seek US to clarify on whether was there any reported of violation 
of national treatment principle under the TBT agreement. 
RESPONSE: Private companies may require the use of voluntary standards in their business 
transactions. If the United States requires compliance with any voluntary standard, it would 
establish this through regulation. 
Page 61 (Para 81) 
The GAO of the US has found, "[t]he safety and quality of the U.S. food supply is governed by a 
highly complex system stemming from at least 30 laws related to food safety that are collectively 
administered by 15 agencies." 
Question 35 
India requests US to kindly explain how the US  government balances the WTO commitments under 
the SPS Agreement, given that there are: 
1. dismally low share of notifications with HS code in the case of US notifications since 1995; and 
2. certain critical transparency related issue of the SPS notifications. 
Table 1: the Presence of HS code in the US Notifications 
Year Yearly SPS 
Notification HS already notified Share of notification 
with HS code (%) 
1995 21  0.0 
1996 59  0.0 
1997 40  0.0 WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 241 - 
 
  Year Yearly SPS 
Notification HS already notified Share of notification 
with HS code (%) 
1998 50  0.0 
1999 80  0.0 
2000 163  0.0 
2001 165  0.0 
2002 143  0.0 
2003 198  0.0 
2004 181  0.0 
2005 173  0.0 
2006 396  0.0 
2007 405  0.0 
2008 275  0.0 
2009 116 2 1.7 
2010 190 16 8.4 
2011 223  0.0 
Jun. 2012 133  0.0 
Total SPS 
notifications  3,011 18 0.6 
RESPONSE:  In accordance with obligations set forth in the WTO SPS Agreement, the U.S. 
government notifies new or revised SPS measur es to the WTO for member review and comment. 
The United States is the most active member in terms of the number of notifications submitted to 
the WTO. Since 1995, the United States has submitted 2,384 regular and 84 emergency 
notifications (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5). When submitti ng SPS measures, the United States identifies 
the products covered as specified in the Notification Procedures  contained in Annex B 
Paragraph 5(b) of the SPS Agreement. 
Page 20 (Para 19) 
The Secretariat's report refers to the Congressional  process in reforming or changing United States 
preferential programmes including GSP and ATPA. 
Question 36 
Would the US government please comment on approaches being considered by the 
US Administration to reform the GSP programme, including its eligibility criteria etc. 
RESPONSE: It is not yet clear whether possible reforms to the GSP program will be on the 
Congressional agenda in 2013, and the Administration is not in a position to speculate on what 
specific reforms Congress might consider. For its part, the Obama Administration believes it is 
important that any prospective reform of the GSP program take into account both the needs of the world's poorest countries and the fact that many emerging market countries may no longer need 
preferential access to compete in the U.S. market in some product sectors. 
Page 28 (Para 35) 
According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, "a number of regulations act as 
barriers or otherwise restrict foreign investment in  several areas, i.e. maritime, aircraft, mining, 
energy, lands, radio communications, banking and investment company regulations 
Question 37 
Would the U.S. government please elaborate on the barriers referred to in the CRS report? In this 
regard, it would be appreciated if the USG could provide details of foreign investment policies and 
prevailing restrictions in the field of mining, energy (including natural gas) and radio communications. 
RESPONSE: The CRS report referenced in Paragraph 35 of the Secretariat's Report provides detail 
on each of the federal-level measures it discusses. The report is publicly available, and its bibliographical information is provided in the "References" section of the Secretariat's Report. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 242 - 
 
  Page 30 (Para 2) 
The Secretariat's report provides brief details of several U.S. initiatives to facilitate trade and 
enforce US laws and regulations. Thes e include C-TPAT; ACE; CSI; and SFI. 
Question 38 
Does C-TPAT programme provide preferential tr eatment to those 10,000 partners who are covered 
under the programme? 
RESPONSE:  Information on the C-TPAT program, who may join, and benefits may be found at the 
following link. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/ . 
What is the basis on which the U.S. government pursues Mutual Recognition Agreement with its 
trading partners on C-TPAT? 
RESPONSE: Information about C-TPAT and U.S. efforts in the area of international mutual 
recognition can be found here, 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/ctpat_program_information/international_effor
ts/.  
What is the trade impact of ACE programme? 
RESPONSE: ACE is the commercial trade processing system that is being constructed. The core 
functionality of this processing system will es tablish the foundation for the import/export process 
and automation. Additional information about ACE is available at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trad e/automated/modernization/ .  
Does the US government prescribe standards and detail implementation modalities for the CSI? 
How is the treatment of maritime cargo covered under the CSI different from the cargo that is not 
pre-screened under the CSI? 
RESPONSE TO IV AND V: CSI is a security regime to ensure all containers that pose a potential 
risk for terrorism are identified and inspected at foreign ports before they are placed on vessels 
destined for the United States. More information on the CSI program can be found through this 
link, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/carg o_security/csi/csi_in_brief.xml .  
What is the trade impact of SFI?  
RESPONSE: Estimates for potential costs incurred outside of the United States to implement the 
scanning regime as envisioned by the SAFE Port Act legislation vary based on a number of variables involved in the calculation and the lack of a single perspective on who would bear costs associated with equipment procurement, maintenance and operations; upfront expenditures for 
potential redesigns of ports and facilities; and data analysis and alarm resolution. In the pilot ports 
the US Government bore all the costs. On May 2012, DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a report and letter to Congress extending to July 2014 the deadline to implement 100% scanning. 
Page 31(Para 4) 
Secretariat's report mentions that CBP is working on "the Role of the Broker Initiative". 
Question 39 
Would the U.S. government please provide detailed elements of this proposed initiative and how it 
might impact U.S. trade with its partners? What is the time frame for its roll out? 
RESPONSE: CBP's new Role of the Broker initiative seeks to modernize the relationship between 
the customs broker and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). One key element of this 
initiative is to modernize the broker's role by modifying regulations. The three goals in the new WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 243 - 
 
  and amended regulations are to: clarify brokers' re sponsibilities related to importer validation and 
provide greater visibility of importers; modernize regulations to align with current electronic capabilities and business practices; and reinforce the broker's responsibility to exercise due diligence in conducting business and by introducing a continuing education requirement.  
In order to keep interested parties fully aware and involved in the process, CBP has sought 
comments and inputs on all facets of the broker  regulations from the widest possible audience 
including small-and medium-sized enterprises. The CBP webpage for this topic can be found at 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/tr ade_transformation/broker_role/ . 
At this time there is no time frame indicated for the roll out for the Role of the Broker Initiative. 
Page 33 (Para 8) 
Secretariat's report states that the US follows multiple preferential rules of origin. 
Question 40 
Is there any proposal to harmonize the multiple rules of origin? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not have any plans at this time to change its preferential 
rules of origin. 
Page 38 (para 17) 
The Secretariat's report refers to implementation of HS2012 and states, inter-alia, "The United 
States did not implement one set of changes affecting three six-digit tariff codes of certain photographic films of chapter 37," 
Question 41 
Would the U.S government like to comment on the reason for not implementing the changes on 
the referred three six digit tariff codes of certain photographic films of chapter 37? 
RESPONSE:  With regards to the HS2012 changes, the United States acknowledges the need to 
delete subheadings 3702.91 to 3702.95 and to replace those with new subheadings 3702.96, 
3702.97 and 3702.98. The failure to make this change was an accidental omission and steps are 
being taken to rectify the situation. 
Page 39 (Para 20) 
The United States "maintains TRQs on 200 tariff lines of agricultural products". These include beef, 
dairy, sugar, cotton, tobacco, and peanuts. 
Question 42 
(a)  Is the U.S government considering any revision in its policy towards the TRQs that it maintains 
on various tariff lines? 
RESPONSE:  The US Government does not currently have plans to change its TRQs. 
(b) What is the TRQ regime for Tobacco; its basis and whether it is not discriminatory in denying 
market access to some of trading partners of the U.S.? 
RESPONSE: The United States regularly provides information about the TRQ for tobacco, most 
recently in G/AG/N/USA/85. The TRQ for tobacco is consistent with US WTO obligations 
(c)  What has been the TRQ utilization of Tobacco by various countries that are its beneficiary? 
RESPONSE:  Please see U.S. notification G/AG/N/USA/ 85 concerning imports under TRQs during 
2010 and 2011. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 244 - 
 
  Page 40 (Para 21) 
The Secretariat's report refers to U.S tariff rate s and mentions tariff peaks for several products. 
Question 43  
Does the U.S government have any plan to reduce its tariff peaks on the product categories listed 
in the Secretariat's report? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. duty structure is a result of several successive rounds of multilateral trade 
negotiations. As shown in the Table III.4 of the Secretariat's Report, incidence of international tariff peaks (defined as any tariff rate at or ab ove 15 per cent) in the U.S. schedule has declined 
from 6.6 per cent in 2002 to 5.0 per cent in 2012. As is the case with other Members, the 
incidence of tariff peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule would be further reduced through balanced, ambitious multilateral trade liberalization. 
Page 54 (Para 62) 
Secretariat's reports mentions of a new no tification on quantitative restrictions? 
Question 44 
Could the U.S government indicate the time fram e for the proposed new notification on QRs? 
RESPONSE: The United States most recent notification on Quantitative Restrictions, submitted on 
October 3, 2012, was issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. 
Page 61 & 64 (Para 81 and 84) 
The Secretariat report refers to Food Safety Mo dernization Act (FSMA). The report also mentions 
that according to GAO, "the safety and quality of the U.S. food supply is governed by a highly complex system stemming from at least 30 laws related to food safety that are collectively administered by 15 agencies." Para 84 refers to concerns expressed by various countries under the 
SPS committee. 
Based on paras 81 and 84, would the U.S. government please respond to the following: Question 45 
On FSMA: (a) We appreciate the importance of food sa fety, but would not the FSMA impose unnecessary 
burden on exporter of food products through re-registration every two years; high inspection 
cost of foreign facilities etc.  
RESPONSE: Section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosm etic Act requires food facilities that 
manufacture/process, pack, or hold food for consumpt ion in the United States to register with FDA. 
FSMA Section 102 requires such food facilities to renew their registrations with FDA during the 
period beginning on October 1 and ending on December 31 of each even-numbered year. FDA has 
tried to make the registration renewal process as efficient as possible; we estimate that it will take registrants approximately 30 minutes to renew a registration. Registration renewals should provide 
FDA with more accurate and up-to-date registration information and this is critical to our strategic 
planning and resource allocation efforts. 
Foreign inspections are an important tool in FDA' s oversight of imported foods and FDA bears the 
majority of the resource burden of conducting  these inspections. Pursuant to FSMA, FDA has 
increased inspections of both foreign and domestic food facilities, including manufacturers/processors, packers, repackers, an d holders of foods under FDA jurisdiction, and 
has mandated an inspection frequency,  based on risk, for food facilities. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 245 - 
 
  (b)  What would be the modalities and framework for implementing the Foreign Supplier 
Verification Programme prescribed under FSMA? 
RESPONSE: Under FSMA Section 301 "Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP)," importers 
are required to have a program in place to provide assurances that their imported food is produced 
in compliance with processes and procedures that provide the same level of public health 
protection as FDA's preventive control requirements and produce safety standards as applicable. The provision requires the agency to promul gate regulations to specify the content and 
requirements of FSVPs. FDA is currently drafting a proposed rule. 
(c)  What is the time frame for the issue of implementing rules and regulations under section 301 
of FSMA? 
RESPONSE: There are a number of rulemakings required  by the FDA Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA). One of the rules mentioned above has i ssued and the others are in various stages of 
development. FDA issued the interim final rule on Establishment and Maintenance of Records in February 2012 and it is in effect. The rule ex pands FDA's former records access beyond records 
related to a specific suspect article of food which FDA reasonably believes is adulterated and 
presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals to now include records relating to any article of food that is reasonably likely to be affected in a similar 
manner. In addition, FDA can now access records related to articles of food for which FDA believes 
that there is a reasonable probability that the us e of or exposure to the article of food, and any 
other article of food that is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animal. 
With regard to the other rulemakings, FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by 
FSMA. 
Regarding timelines, the rules that have not issued yet will be, when first published, proposed 
rules. Following the notice-and-comment process, we will take comment on these rules and then, 
considering those comments, finalize the proposals.  There will be several opportunities for public 
engagement during the notice and comment periods for each rule. The timing of when a final rule w i l l  t a k e  e f f e c t  w i l l  d e p e n d  o n  t h e  p a r t i c u l a r  r u l e ,  b u t  w e  d o  e x p e c t  t h a t  t h e  r u l e s  w i l l  h a v e  
phase-in periods. 
(d)  How would the system of third party accreditation be implemented? 
RESPONSE: FDA Section 307 of FSMA, "Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors," provides for 
accreditation of third party auditors/certification bodies to conduct food safety audits of foreign 
food entities and to issue food and facility certifications. The provision states that the food and facility certifications issued by accredited third-party auditors should be used by FDA for the 
following purposes: (1) determining, in conjunction  with any other assurances required, whether a 
food satisfies a condition of admissibility under FD&C Section 801(q); and (2) determining whether 
a facility is eligible to offer food for import into the United States under the voluntary qualified 
importer program described in FSMA Section 302.  FSMA requires FDA to issue implementing 
regulations to establish the program, including conflict of interest provisions. FDA is working diligently to issue a proposed rule.  
Other SPS issues: 
Question 46 
It is understood that the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a tolerance for the maximum amount of a 
pesticide residue that may be legally present in or on a raw agricultural commodity. EPA is also 
authorized to exempt a pesticide residue in a ra w agricultural commodity from the requirement of 
a tolerance. 
We would appreciate if the U.S. could let us know how the MRL is fixed for fungicide Tricyclazole. 
We understand that US FDA's website initially said th at it permits presence of Tricyclazole in rice 
bran, rice hulls, and rice polishing (this was later withdrawn). Whereas for rice, it is learnt that WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 246 - 
 
  there is no MRL for this fungicide. We also underst and that Tricyclazole is used as a fungicide on 
rice in EU, Japan and China where the MRLs  are 1 ppm, 3 ppm and 2 ppm, respectively. 
We would request the U.S. to explain its basic position on MRLs for fungicide Tricyclazole? Is it true 
that USFDA website initially stated that it permits presence of Tricyclazole in rice bran and rice 
hulls and rice polishing? Have U.S. agencies under taken any scientific study on food safety aspects 
of various concentration of Tricyclazole in rice? If yes, have these been on raw rice or cooked rice? 
RESPONSE:  Tricyclazole had been listed on "FDA's Listing on Food Additive Status." The listing 
was based on an animal feed tolerance issued by EPA in 1980 for residues in animal feed. 
Tricyclazole is not, nor has it ever been, an approved food additive for human food. FDA has 
removed tricyclazole from the list to avoid future misunderstandings. 
In the United States, the Federal Food Drug  and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes the 
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set Maximum Residue Limi ts (MRL). The Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides for federal regulation of pesticide 
distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, 
among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications "will not generally cause 
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' 
Detailed information on how to register a pesticide and petition for a tolerance can be found on 
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/bluebook/ .  
To date, the EPA has not established a MRL for Tricyclazole on rice, nor has the EPA received a 
petition to do so. 
Page 72 (Para 121) 
The U.S president had proposed a new framework for business tax reforms which includes 
provisions for eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies. 
Question 47 
Which subsides are proposed to be eliminated by the President's programme referred to in para 
121? 
RESPONSE: The President's plan starts from a presumption that all tax expenditures for specific 
industries would be eliminated, with a few exceptions that are critical to broader growth or 
fairness. Examples include: last in first out accounting, oil and gas tax preferences, tax preferences for corporate owned life insurance, preferential capital gains treatment for carried 
interests, and special depreciation rules for corporate purchases of aircraft. 
Page 78 (Para 137) 
The Secretariat report mentions that the Public Law 111-347 titled James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 
Compensation Act of 2010 will create federal excise  tax on foreign entities receiving payments for 
goods and services. 
Question 48 
(a)  Can the U.S government confirm whether the relevant rules to implement the law have been 
framed or not? 
(b)  Can the U.S comment whether the provision of 2% fee over and above the restrictions on US 
Federal and State government procurement is WTO compliant? Could it also confirm it implementation? 
(c)  Does the U.S support the principle that requirement of funds for domestic programmes could 
be met through increased tax on foreign entities? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 247 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The text of the referenced legislation, Section 301, of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health 
and Compensation Act of 2010, is available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . The US Internal 
Revenue Service and the Treasury Department are in  the process of drafting regulations, and has 
no established deadline for completing that work. The statute is effective for payments received 
pursuant to contracts entered into on and after January 2, 2011. This legislation is fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreements  and, pursuant to the express terms of the 
statute, the U.S. government shall apply the legislation "in a manner consistent with United States 
obligations under international agreements." 
Page 80 (Para 141) 
"The agriculture and energy and fuel sectors are the largest recipients of government assistance." 
Question 49 
Could the United States provide the extent and quantum of Federal and State government 
assistance to energy sector in particular solar,  and natural gas. Could the US provide details of 
specific Federal and State programmes through which such assistance is provided in the two 
sectors? 
RESPONSE:  As noted in the Secretariat's report, the United States submitted its subsidy 
notification to the WTO Committee on Subsides and Countervailing Measures last year. See: 
G/SCM/N/220/USA, 19 October 2011. This notificati on covers solar and natural gas – among many 
other sectors – at both the federal and state level.  
Page 103-104 (Para 15 -19) 
Question 50 
United States Department of Agriculture under its Export Credit Guarantee Scheme (GSM-102)  
provides credit guarantees to encourage financ ing of commercial exports of US agricultural 
products. 
(a)  How does the scheme operate? RESPONSE:  For a detailed response please see: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/ factsheets/gsm102-03.asp . 
(b) Could the US give details of the coverage of the scheme? 
RESPONSE:  See response to (a) above. Currently, GSM-102 covers credit terms of up to two 
years; maximum terms vary by country. 
(c) Has there been a study on the impact of the scheme on export promotion of the agricultural 
goods? 
RESPONSE:  The United States is not aware of any studies on this topic. 
(d) Can the US provide disaggregated informatio n about quantum of guarantees and value of 
exports of each of the beneficiary crops? 
RESPONSE:  Information regarding program usage is available on our website at 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/exc redits/Monthly/ecg.htm . 
Question 51 
Please provide details of the USDA scheme GSM-103. Is the scheme still operational? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 248 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The 2008 Farm Bill eliminated authority for the GSM-103 program; therefore, that 
program is no longer operational. 
Question 52 
What are the salient features of the Facility Guarantee Programme? What are the budgetary 
allocations since the year 2008? Has the programme been formally closed? 
RESPONSE:  The Facility Guarantee Program is still author ized under U.S. law, but it has not been 
made available since 2007. 
Question 53 
Please provide details of the Dairy Export Incent ive Programme (DEIP) of the USDA. What is the  
allocation of funds for the programme? How much was paid to exporters as bonuses based on their export performance? 
RESPONSE: For details regarding the Dairy Export Incentive Program please see: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/deip.asp .  
The DEIP program is not currently operational. It was last made available during the 2008/2009 
and 2009/2010 years due to the reactivation of dairy export subsidies by the European Union 
(EU). The last award under the program was made in October 2009. Program allocations are made consistent with US WTO Uruguay Round annual ex port subsidy budgetary and quantity ceilings. 
The United States refers India to the U.S. expo rt subsidies notifications to the WTO Committee on 
Agriculture for details regarding budgetary outlays and quantities. 
Question 54 
It is mentioned in Paragraph 19 that in July 2010, the USDA announced that due to prevailing 
market conditions, it would not be making invitations for offers available but would continue to 
monitor market conditions. Please provide an update. 
RESPONSE: The DEIP program was last made available during the 2008/2009 and 
2009/2010 years, and the last award under the program was made in October 2009. The program 
has not been operational since that time. 
Page 77 (Para 132-133) 
Question 55 
How is the definition of 'public work or building' applied under the Federal Acquisition Rules (FAR)? 
Will it include any privately owned infrastructure  projects developed with funds from a Federal 
Agency? The U.S. is requested to kindly prov ide illustrations of use of this provision. 
RESPONSE: Please see the U.S. response to Question 7 for the definition of a public building or 
public work. 
Part III: OTHER QUESTIONS  
Page – 10 of TN/AG/W/REV.4 Para 35 (b)  
USA is seeking a special provision in Doha negotiations to redefine Blue box so that Counter 
Cyclical Payments can be treated as blue box support. However, USA has repealed CCPs in Farm 
bill 2012. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 249 - 
 
  Question 56 
Is USA government still seeking to redefine Blue box as CCPs is repealed in farm bill 2012? Please 
throw some light on this issue. 
RESPONSE:  The United States notes that the countercyclical payment program has not been 
repealed. Until new Farm Bill legislation is adopted and implemented, the United States cannot 
speculate what changes will or will not be made. 
In recent years, several US legislative proposals and lawsuits have sought to impose service of 
process and personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers. For instance, in December 2011 
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse reintroduced a ne w version of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal 
Accountability Act (S.1946) and Rep. Betty Sutton reintroduced companion legislation (H.R.3646). 
The scope of the proposals remain similar to legislation they introduced earlier – foreign 
manufacturers of specified covered products would be required to register an agent in a state with 
a substantial connection to the product and consent to personal jurisdiction and service of process in federal and at least one state court for civil and regulatory actions. 
While one certainly recognize the need foreign manuf acturers to be responsible for products they 
sell in the USA, but any sort of FMLAA could prove to be prohibitively expensive to small and medium sized businesses from other countries. Further, we believe, any such proposal would risk 
disrupting important supplier relationships. 
In fact, it is learnt that a number of US bodies such as National Association of Manufacturers, 
Organization for International Investment and US  Chamber of Commerce have strongly expressed 
their opposition to Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act (FMLAA) and to having the 
language of that bill included in any other piece of legislation. 
Question 57 
(a) Could the US explain the rationale behind FMLAA? 
(b) How does the US intend to address the concerns expressed by its trading partners in respect 
of the adverse impact of FMLAA on competitiveness and cost of compliance? 
RESPONSE: The proposed Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, as reflected in bills 
pending before the US Congress, reflects a desire to ensure that consumers in the United States 
can be confident that the products they buy are sa fe and that there are procedures available under 
U.S. law to address effectively any product liability issues they may engender. The United States believes these goals can be accomplished without imposing undue burdens on foreign 
manufacturers. The FMLAA is still pending before Co ngress. We are not in a position to speculate 
on the implications of particular provisions which are subject to further review and possible modification in the United States Congress. 
Question 58 
Despite India's repetitive stand against the use of non-tariff barriers to trade, why USA 
Department of Labour (USDOL) is deliberately linking trade with labour standards affecting India's 
export competitiveness in International Market? It is evident that USDOL has put another two 
items i.e. incense (agarbati) and thread/yarn amo unting a total of 21 items on the TVPRA list. This 
not only violating the ILO Declaration of Social Justice for Fair Globalization 2008, which explicitly states that violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be invoked for otherwise 
used as legitimate comparative advantage but also goes against the basic policy of WTO regarding 
promotion of fair trade. 
RESPONSE:  The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 directed the 
Secretary of Labor to, among other actions, develo p and make available to the public a list of 
goods from countries that the United States has re ason to believe are produced by forced labor or 
child labor in violation of international standards. The purpose of the TVPRA list is to raise 
awareness and promote efforts to eliminate child labor and forced labor. The TVPRA list does not 
prohibit or otherwise limit or restrict goods from entering the United States, nor does any other WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 250 - 
 
  U.S. law limit importation of a product based on whether it has been included in the TVPRA list. 
See http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/tvpra.htm  for more information. 
Question 59 
Why are the domestically produced goods in United States not included on the TVPRA list, while 
USDOL recognizes that both child and forced labour occur in the United States? Does not it violate 
the non-discrimination principles of WTO's trading system? 
RESPONSE: As discussed above, the TVPRA list does not prohibit or otherwise limit or restrict 
goods from entering the United States, nor does any other U.S. law limit importation of a product 
based on whether it has been included in the TVPRA list. Therefore, India's question regarding non-discrimination is not applicable to the TVPRA list. 
Question 60 
In spite of the sincere efforts of Government of  I n d i a  t o  c o m b a t  c h i l d  l a b o u r  i n  t h e  f o r m  o f  
statutory & legislative measures and the resultant de cline in the percentage of child labour in India 
by 45% during the last 5years, why USDOL is deliberately banning India's export in major items in 
the pre-text of child labour? 
RESPONSE: The purpose of the TVPRA list is to raise awareness and promote efforts to eliminate 
child labor and forced labor. It does not ba n, regulate, or control trade with India. 
The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding states: " When Members seek the redress of a 
violation of obligations or other nullification or impairment of benefits under the covered agreements or an impediment to the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements, they 
shall have recourse to, and abide by, the rules and procedures of this Understanding ." It further 
provides that " in such cases, Members shall not make a determination to the effect that a violation 
has occurred, that benefits have been nullified or impaired or that the attainment of any objective 
of the covered agreements has been impeded, except through recourse to dispute settlement ." 
(Article 23.1 and Article 23. 2(a) of WTO DSU.) 
The US has stated in previous TPRs that "a country is placed on the Special 301 list if it is clear 
that it 'denies adequate and effective protection of IPR or fair and equitable market access to U.S. 
persons that rely upon IP protection.'" 
Question 61 
Please explain (a) Whether the USTR considers, when it finds the IP practices in other Members objectionable, 
whether those practices are covered by the TRIPS Agreement, and 
RESPONSE:  Each year, as required by U.S. law, the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) issues a Special 301 Report cataloguing specific IPR problems in numerous 
countries worldwide. The review of each trading partner's IPR regime is done on a case by case 
basis, and all relevant factors are taken into consideration. USTR considers information submitted by interested stakeholders and US Embassies located in foreign capitals. In addition, USTR actively 
encourages foreign governments to submit material which can be taken into account in these 
reviews. A country is placed on the Special 301 list if it is clear that it "denies adequate and effective protection of IPR or fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons that rely upon IP protection." In addition to citing specific concerns, Special 301 also affords an opportunity to give 
credit where it is due, such as by improving th e standing of countries when there are significant 
improvements in IPR protection and enforcement in that country. 
As part of its review process, USTR requests wr itten submissions from the public through a notice 
published in the Federal Register.  This year's notice yielded 42 comments from interested parties. 
USTR also received submissions from 18 trading partners. The submissions that USTR received 
were made available to the public onli ne at www.regulations.gov, docket number 
USTR-2011-0021. USTR also conducts a public hearing that allows interested persons to testify WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 251 - 
 
  before the interagency Special 301 subcommittee about issues relevant to the review. The most 
recent hearing featured testimony from 12 witn esses, including representatives of foreign 
governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations. A transcript of the hearing is available at www.ustr.gov. 
All submissions receive careful examination. USTR, together with the interagency Special 301 
subcommittee, makes a balanced assessment of inte llectual property protection and enforcement, 
as well as related market access issues, in accordance with the statutory criteria set out by 
Congress in the Special 301 statute. 
As noted above, this assessment is necessarily conducted on a case-by-case basis, taking into 
account diverse factors such as a trading partner's international obligations and commitments, the concerns of rights holders and other interested parties. It is informed by the various cross-cutting 
issues and trends identified in the Report's "Section I – Developments in IPR Protection and 
Enforcement". However, the assessment is especially based upon the particular facts and circumstances that shape IPR protection and enforcement regimes in a particular trading partner. 
(b) The US position on the consistency of the Specia l 301 watchlist in particular with the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding. 
RESPONSE: The Special 301 review is not a determination that there has been a denial or 
violation of U.S. rights under the TRIPS Agreement. 
Question 62 
How does the US reconcile its stated objectives for the scale up of HIV treatment with the 
demands for ever increasing IP protection in developing countries in bilateral talks. 
RESPONSE:  Advancing the treatment of HIV/AIDS and promoting strong intellectual property 
protection and enforcement are mutually consistent  objectives. The United States supports these 
objectives in its bilateral as well as regional and multilateral engagement, including in the WTO, 
the United Nations, and other institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and 
the World Health Organization. The United States will continue its engagement to ensure that 
public health challenges are addressed and that  intellectual property rights protection and 
enforcement are supported as mechanisms to promote research and innovation. 
Question 63 
The US has shown support for the Medicines Patent Pool - Does the US agree that companies that 
refuse to voluntarily license their ARV patents to the pool are vulnerable to compulsory licensing? 
What does the US undertake to persuade reluctant companies to license their ARV patents for use 
in Developing and LDCs? 
RESPONSE:  The United States supports patent pools when they are appropriate. As a global 
leader in research and development of medicines, the United States has an important role in 
promoting voluntary mechanisms to increase the competition to provide innovative and affordable health technologies to people in low and middle income countries. 
In particular, the United States has strongly supported the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) since its 
beginnings. The US National Institutes of He alth (NIH) was the first entity to sign in 
September 2010 a license agreement with the MPP with the strong support of the US Administration. The patents shared within the MPP by the US NIH relate to protease inhibitor HIV 
medicines, used mainly to treat drug resistant HIV infections. NIH makes these patents available 
through the MPP to all low and middle income countries on a low royalty or royalty-free basis. 
The agreements and ongoing negotiations between the MPP and patent rights holders, and with 
potential generic manufacturers of medicines, have  already resulted in engagement with several 
companies to produce HIV medicines at a lower cost. The United States encourages other companies to consider arrangements with the MPP to voluntarily make available their patents for 
this important goal. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 252 - 
 
  The United States strongly supports the guiding pr inciples of the MPP as follows: 1) the Pool 
operates on a voluntary basis; 2) the Pool op erates within the current intellectual property 
framework such that patent holders are compensated through appropriate royalties; 3) the Pool is an additional mechanism to promote access to medicines. 
These principles are in line with the U.S. belief that the IP system, including patents, provides 
critical incentives to the development of drugs. Developing new life-saving medicines is a very risky endeavor, and it is necessary to provide ince ntives to the private sector to carry out this 
work. The ability to patent an invention is critical to ensuring that there are incentives for 
developing new life-saving medicines, and also is  fundamental in ensuring that the benefits of 
these medicines can be shared widely. By stressing the voluntary nature of participation, the MPP does not threaten the intellectual property of th e participants, and the system of incentives in 
place for developing new medicines. 
LNG Exports from the US India has been desirous of importing LNG from th e US but permission has not been accorded so 
far although the US permits exports to 17 countries – Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea 
The US Department of Energy's (DOE) authority to  regulate the imports and exports of natural gas 
arises under: 
 Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 USC 717b and 
 Section 301(b) of the DOE Organization Act, 42 USC 7151. 
Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 USC 717b(a), sets forth the statutory criteria for review of 
an LNG export application. 
[N]o person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any 
natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order of the [Secretary of 
Energy] authorizing it to do so. The [Secretary] shall issue such order upon application, unless after opportunity for hearing, [he] finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be 
consistent with the public interest. The [Secretary] may by [the Secretary's] order grant such 
application, in whole or part, with such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the [Secretary] may find necessary or appropriate. 
1992 EPAct created Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act. Section 3(c) requires the following 
applications to be deemed consistent with the pu blic interest and granted without modification or 
delay: 
 (Free Trade Countries) Applications to author ize the import and export of natural gas, 
including LNG, from and to a nation with which there is in effect a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and 
 (LNG Imports) Applications to authorize the import of LNG from other international 
sources. 
Question 64 
Under what provisions of the WTO are the measures  Section 3(a) and 3(c) listed above consistent 
with GATT Art 1 and GATT Art XI? 
RESPONSE: In light of the rapid growth of U.S. natural gas production, with its implications for 
economic growth, exports and the environment, we  are carefully reviewing the issues raised by 
LNG exports. We are, of course, mindful of our WTO obligations and will review such issues to 
ensure that any U.S. actions affecting trade are consistent with our WTO obligations. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 253 - 
 
  The US Department of Energy (DOE) has the auth ority to regulate long-term natural gas imports 
and exports of natural gas, including LNG, under  the Natural Gas Act and the DOE Organization 
Act. DOE is generally required to grant applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement providing for national treatment for trade in 
natural gas. For countries that do not meet this criterion, DOE is required to grant applications for 
export authorizations unless DOE finds that the proposed exports "will not be consistent with the public interest." Factors for consideration include economic, energy security, international, and 
environmental impacts. As part of the public interest determination review process, DOE solicits 
public comment, and considers any protests and mo tions to intervene in the administrative review 
process. 
To date, DOE has approved multi-year long term authorizations of domestically produced LNG 
exports to FTA countries and to non-FTA countries, including India and South Korea, before South 
Korea became an FTA partner of the United States. In light of the significant number of new pending applications for LNG exports, and enviro nmental and other issues raised by the public, 
DOE conducted a two-part export study to examin e the cumulative impacts of additional natural 
gas exports. Information about the export study, applications for and approvals of authorizations 
for LNG exports and imports is available on the DOE website 
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program s/gasregulation/LNGStudy.html . 
On December 11, 2012, DOE published a notice and requested public comment on the export 
study (Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012); Pages 73627-73630.) Initial comments regarding the study will be accepted by DOE for 45 days, followed 
by a reply comment period that will last for 30 days. DOE will evaluate both the study and the 
comments received prior to making its determinations of the public interest on a case-by-case basis, for each of the pending cases. 
SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS FROM INDIA 
Part I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
Page 66 (Para 86) 
A number of different agencies are involved in developing, implementing, and enforcing SPS 
measures. Among the main agencies are: 
 the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in the Department of Agriculture, which is 
responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, an d processed egg products, including imports, and 
the recognition of establishments in other count ries that meet U.S. regulatory standards for 
these commodities and may export to the United States; 
Question 1 
(a) Could United States provide a description of laws  and regulation as applicable with respect to 
import of poultry and poultry products into USA? Furthermore could United States provide a 
list of authorities/agencies involved in processing the import of poultry and poultry products 
into USA. 
RESPONSE: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), within the US Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) is the central competent authority in the United States for poultry and poultry 
products (i.e. poultry products). The Poultry Products Inspection Act and Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9CFR), Part 381, are the requirements for poultry and poultry product produced domestically in the United States or in an establishment certified by the central 
competent authority of an eligible foreign country. Subpart T of 9 CFR, Part 381, applied 
specifically to imported poultry products. These specific regulations allow for and require that foreign inspection systems are "equivalent to all the provisions of the Act [the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act] and the regulations…" 
Consequently, FSIS has developed a specific equivalence process that all countries wishing to 
export to the United States must follow. All prod ucts produced by establishments certified by the 
foreign central competent authority within the equivalent (eligible) foreign country must be WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 254 - 
 
  produced, inspected, and comply with the equivale nt requirements. In addition, the product must 
by re-inspected at the U.S. point of entry be fore entering the U.S. market and the foreign 
inspection system must be periodically audited to ensure ongoing compliance. 
In addition, the USDA Animal and Plant Health In spection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services 
regulates the importation of animals and animal-derived materials to ensure that exotic animal 
and poultry diseases are not introduced into th e United States. Genera lly, a USDA veterinary 
permit is needed for materials derived from animals or exposed to animal-source materials. 
Materials that require a permit include, animal tissues, blood, cells or cell lines of livestock or 
poultry origin, RNA/DNA extracts, hormones, enzymes, monoclonal antibodies for IN VIVO use in non-human species, certain polyclonal antibodies, antisera, bulk shipments of test kit reagents, and microorganisms including bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi. 
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regula tes shell eggs and egg containing products that 
do not meet USDA's definition of "egg product." FDA also has jurisdiction in establishments not 
covered by USDA; e.g. restaurants, bakeries, cake mix plants, etc. Egg processing plants (egg 
washing, sorting, and packing) are under FDA juri sdiction. When appropriate, FDA may exercise its 
jurisdiction under the FD&C Act over meat and po ultry products in interstate commerce. See more 
information on jurisdictional overlap at 
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICEC I/Inspections/IOM/UCM127390.pdf   a n d  
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/C ompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074588.htm  
(b) Does United States allow import of poultry and poultry products from countries reporting 
HPNAI / LPNAI into USA and under what circumstances? Furthermore could United States 
provide a description of the laws and regulations as applicable with respect to import of poultry 
and poultry products from HPNAI / LPNAI countries? 
RESPONSE: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice (APHIS) regulations in title 9 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 93, 94,  and 95 (referred to below as the regulations), 
govern the importation into the United States of specified animals and animal products and byproducts to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including exotic Newcastle 
disease (END) and highly pathogenic avian influenz a (HPAI). Avian influenza (AI) is caused by an 
orthomyxovirus, the same family that includes viruses that cause human influenza. Worldwide, there are many strains of AI virus that can cause varying amounts of clinical illness in birds and poultry. AI viruses can infect chickens, turkeys, ph easants, quail, ducks, geese and guinea fowl, as 
well as a wide variety of other birds. A region will  be added to the list of regions where HPAI exists 
when APHIS receives reports of outbreaks of the disease in commercial birds or poultry in the region from veterinary officials of the national government of the region and/or the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The Administrator of APHIS may also add a region to the list 
based on outbreak reports he or she receives from other sources the Administrator determines to be reliable (e.g., reports from APHIS inspectors ba sed in foreign countries). This last means of 
adding regions to the list allows APHIS to take prompt action as soon as it reliably learns of an 
outbreak, even before reports have been received  and referred by the exporting country's animal 
health agency or the OIE. 
In addition, APHIS prohibits the entry of live birds or poultry that have been vaccinated for any H5 
or H7 subtype of avian influenza. The prohibition will also apply to hatching eggs that were laid by 
birds or poultry vaccinated for the H5 or H7 subtyp es of avian influenza. APHIS does not otherwise 
regulate low pathogenic avian influenza. 
Page 78 (Para 135) 
In August 2010, the United States notified the final Regulation implementing the "buy American" 
provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) pursuant to 
Article XXIV:5(b).22 The rule applied only with respect to  contracts funded with ARRA funds to 
ensure compliance with U.S. obligations under international agreements when undertaking construction covered by such agreements. 
RESPONSE:  This does not appear to be a question. 
                                               
22 WTO document GPA/98/Add.2, 6 September 2010. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 255 - 
 
  Question 2 
(a) Please explain the legal framework within which water utilities operate in the U.S.? What are 
the differences between private and public wate r utilities? We understand that private water 
utilities operate under specific authorization of the state/municipal government authorities? 
What is the nature of such control? 
(b) We understand that water utilities raise their own finances, for example, by issuing bonds, and 
equity and debt instruments, an d that they are required to financially break even and are not 
dependent on governments for their funding need s. Do such utilities also receive government 
grants? What is the proportion of funding of a typical water utility through grants and other 
sources of money? Are grants linked to specific functions of the water utility, and if so, what functions? 
(c) How is the price for sale of water by the water utilities determined? Are rates of water supply 
subsidized by the Government? 
(d) We also understand that there are legislative proposals seeking to amend Section 608 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to incorporate a 'Buy America' provision in respect of iron, 
steel and manufactured goods for certain projects that are funded by the 'State Water Pollution Revolving Fund'. What is the status of these bills? Is the intent of these bills to limit 
the requirement for using U.S. manufactured DI pipes to only those projects that are funded 
by the State fund, and not for all projects, which currently appears to be the case? 
RESPONSE:  There are tens of thousands of public and private water systems in the United States. 
The United States Environmental Protection Agency enforces federal clean water (Clean Water Act) 
and safe drinking laws (Safe Drinking Water Act). Public and private water utilities are generally 
regulated at the sub federal level, and we do not maintain detailed information on their operations, financing or pricing policies. We are not able to comment on pending legislation. However, the 
U.S., as in the case of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ensures that "buy 
American" provisions are applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM INDIA 
Page 84 (Para 151) 
A 2012 report, jointly prepared by the Economics an d Statistics Administration and the US Patent 
and Trademark Office, assessed that U.S. industries that protect their works through patents, 
trademarks or copyrights supported 27.1 million jobs, or close to 19% of all employment in the 
United States in 2010, and indirectly supported a further 12.9 million jobs. A substantial share of 
this IP-intensive employment was in trademark-intensive industries, which sustained 22.6 million  
jobs, while patent-intensive industries accounted for 3.9 million jobs, and copyright-intensive industries for 5.1 million jobs. 
Question:1 
(i) What is the methodology used in classify ing employment on the basis of IP intensive 
industries? 
RESPONSE:  Using data based on the North America Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
covering the period from 1963 to 2008, the authors of the study measured industry patent 
"intensity," defined as the ratio of total patents over the five years in a NAICS category to the 
average payroll employment by industry. Because em ployment is a gauge of industry size, dividing 
patent counts by employment normalizes patenting activity with respect to industry size. This 
approach helps put all industries on an even pl aying field, so that the most patent-intensive 
industries were defined not as the ones with the most patents, but rather those with the most patents per job. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 256 - 
 
  (ii) Whether 27.1 million jobs in IP intensive industry is a reflection of the number of workers in IP 
activities of organizations. 
RESPONSE: It is not necessarily a direct reflection. The employment figures are tied, not to the 
particular IP activities of firms, but to industries —and it is the industries which are "IP-intensive" 
or not. Moreover, the unit of measure is jobs (n ot workers), and about 5% of all workers have 
more than one job—thus, the total number of jo bs is greater than the 139.1 million employed 
persons in 2010, as estimated from the Current Population Survey (see Report at 39, n. 76). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 257 - 
 
  INDONESIA 
Clove cigarette dispute resolution de cision against the United States 
The United States and Indonesia agreed that the United States would have until July 24th, 2013 to 
come into compliance with the WTO decision on clove cigarettes. Specifically, the WTO Panel and 
Appellate Body found that:  
 Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the Family Smoking Prev ention and Tobacco Control Act treated clove 
cigarettes less favorably than menthol cigarettes, which were a like domestic product, in 
violation of TBT Article 2.1; and 
 Section 907(a)(1)(A) was inconsistent with TBT Article 2.12 because it failed to allow a 
"reasonable interval" of 6 months between enactment and entry-into-force of the ban on flavored cigarettes. 
 By failing to notify Section 907(a)(1)(A) to WTO Members through the Secretariat, the 
United States violated Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement. 
Indonesia understands that one way the United States could come into compliance with the first 
finding is by banning menthol cigarettes. We underst and that the Administration is still considering 
all of its options, including banning menthol. If menthol is not banned, however, it is then very 
important for Indonesia that the United States find s a solution that would reopen the U.S. market 
to clove cigarettes, rather than simply ignoring  the WTO decision. Other countries will look at the 
United States' example. We are very concerned th at the unfair treatment given to clove cigarettes 
in the United States may be adopted by the other markets. 
Indonesia would appreciate an update on the United States' plans for eliminating the 
discriminatory treatment of clove cigarettes. W e  a p p r e c i a t e  U S  G o v e r n m e n t ' s  u p d a t e .  T h e  
successful resolution of this dispute remains as a top priority for Indonesia. 
RESPONSE: U.S. authorities are conferring with interested parties and working to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, in a mann er that is appropriate from the perspective of 
the public health. With regard to clove cigare ttes, the United States would emphasize the DSB 
finding that the measure in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act reflects the overwhelming view of the scientific community th at banning clove and other flavored cigarettes 
benefits the public health by reducing the likelihood  that youth will enter into a lifetime of cigarette 
addiction. 
NODA EPA - Palm oil 
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a preliminary Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) in which the Agency interprets the data available in early 2012 as indicating that biodiesel 
and renewable diesel produced from palm oil do not meet the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction thresholds necessary to qualify for the benefits accorded to those fuels under the US 
renewable fuel standard (RFS). If this prelimin ary analysis were confirmed in a final decision, 
denial of these benefits would preclude widespread introduction of palm-based fuels into U.S. markets. 
As indicated in the comments filed with EPA, In donesia does not believe that EPA's preliminary 
analysis is supported by the available scientific information. Apart from technical issues, Indonesia 
and other palm-oil producing countries see this outcome as protective in the context of WTO obligations because it protects U.S. feedstock prod ucers of corn oil, waste oil, and others from 
competition. If the preliminary NODA analysis we re issued as a final Agency decision, it would 
constitute arbitrary, discriminatory and unjustifi ed treatment of Indonesian and other palm oil 
producers because EPA would not have taken into account the special circumstances of palm oil 
production that the developing countries which produce palm oil must address. If EPA were to 
finalize its preliminary NODA analysis, how would the U.S. justifies this outcome with respect to its obligations under the WTO Agreement?  Did the United States notify and consult with the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 258 - 
 
  Committee on Trade and Environment regarding its methodology and before making its 
determinations?  
RESPONSE: EPA's science-based methodology was proposed on May 26, 2009 and finalized on 
March 26, 2010. The TBT committee was notified of both the proposed and final rules. EPA's 
analysis of palm oil is still ongoing and we ap preciate Indonesia's comments and the additional 
information they have provided in that process, but we cannot comment or speculate further on EPA's final palm oil rule. The United States is committed to implementing the RFS2 program 
consistent with our WTO obligations. 
Official support and related fiscal meas ures (The National Export Initiative) 
Paragraph 112 under page 70 (of the Secretariat's Report) indicates that Under Executive Order 
13534 of 11 March 2010, the President set out the Nati onal Export Initiative (NEI) with the goal of 
doubling exports over five years by "helping fi rms – especially small businesses – overcome the 
hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps." 
How does the U.S. ensure the consistency of the National Export Initiative with relevant WTO rules 
and, especially, providing export-based financin g which could be characterized as prohibited 
import-substitution or other supports under the Subsidy and Countervailing Measures (SCM) 
Agreement? 
RESPONSE:  The United States ensures that its trade policies are consistent with U.S. trade 
obligations by subjecting all such policies to various forms of internal review processes, including an interagency review process. 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures: 
 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. 
 Federal Meat Inspection Act. 
 Plant Protection Act. 
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 
Question: 
According to paragraph 81 of the Secretariat's report, at the federal level, institutional 
responsibility for SPS matters continues to be  shared among several government agencies 
depending on the product and type of risk, while  at the state level the authorities may develop 
their own measures, subject to federal laws and regulations. At the federal level, numerous 
statues, along with their implementing regulation s, impose SPS requirements in the U.S. market. 
These statutes include the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act23, the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act; the Plant Protection Act; and the Federal In secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In 
addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act (which amends 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) became law on 4 January 2010. 
Indonesia is concerned about these statutes and ho w they will affect the country's exports to the 
United States. 
(a) When enacting statutes relating to SPS matters, do states follow the criteria for risk 
assessment as stipulated under the WTO? Could the United States describe the action it takes 
when SPS measures established by the States are not consistent with federal rules and 
regulations, and/or with obligations under relevant WTO disciplines? 
RESPONSE: State-level government authorities may establish SPS measures for application within 
their individual states provided that the measur es conform to federal rules and regulations, and 
are consistent with WTO obligations. When conducting risk assessments, state authorities often 
rely on scientific evidence generated by the fede ral government. Various regulatory agencies, as 
                                               
23 21 USC, Section 301 et seq.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 259 - 
 
  well as the Department of Justice and the USTR, review state laws when appropriate to do so. Part 
of that review may entail an analysis of whether the state requirement conflicts with a federal one. 
In a situation where a conflict does exist, federal law will prevail. 
(b) Could the U.S. elaborate on the compliance of the above statutes with its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and relevant WTO Agreement? 
RESPONSE: U.S. laws and regulations are consistent with US WTO obligations, including the WTO 
SPS Agreement. Each of these measures has numerous provisions, as well as implementing 
regulations. Accordingly, we cannot respond to Indonesia's question directly. However, we would 
be happy to discuss any specific questions about specific provisions that Indonesia might have 
(c) Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), including U. S. inspection of Indonesian food production 
facilities. 
Question: 
According to paragraph 82 of the Secretariat's report, Box III.I under subheading "registration" 
indicates that "Under Section 102 of the FSMA, food facilities are required to renew their 
registration with the FDA (required under Section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FD&C Act)) every two years. " Food facilities" include places that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for consumption in the United States , including foreign facilities. This biennial 
registration renewal requirement, which must be submitted between 1 October and 31 December, 
begins in 2012. The FDA may suspend registration if there is reasonable probability  that food 
manufactured, processed, packed, received, or he ld by the facility could have serious adverse 
effect on human or animal health." 
Could the United States clarify what is meant by "reasonable probability" in this context, and how 
this would be determined? 
RESPONSE: Under Section 415(b) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that food manufactured, 
processed, packed, received, or held by a registered facility has a reasonable probability of causing 
serious adverse health consequences or death to  humans or animals, FDA may by order suspend 
the registration of a facility that: 
 Created, caused or was otherwise responsible for such reasonable probability; or 
 Knew of or had reason to know of such reasonable probability AND packed, received or held 
such food. 
FDA will determine whether food, manufactured, processed, packed, received, or held by a 
registered facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals FDA on a case-by-case basis as such a determination depends on an assessment of the unique facts for each situatio n. FDA has issued an order suspending the 
registration of a food facility action under section 415 of the FD&C Act recently. For more 
information on that event and to access a copy of  the Agency's suspension order, please visit: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafe ty/CORENetwork/ucm320413.htm .  
Question: 
According to paragraph 84 of the Secretariat's report, a particular concern of several Members has 
been the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and its implementing regulations. This issue was 
raised by India, China, Mexico, Costa Rica, Pakistan, and the Philippines, and the United States 
responded that the law had not been implemented yet and that trading partners would be able to participate in the process of developing implementing regulations for the Act through the WTO notification process. 
Indonesia is concerned that such statute would have a significant impact on its exports to the 
US Therefore, could the U.S. provide more detaile d information on the status of implementation? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 260 - 
 
  Then, what would be the timeframe given to trading partners to participate in the process of 
developing the implementation regulation as indicated by the United States? 
RESPONSE: There are a number of rulemakings required  by the FDA Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA). FDA issued the interim final rule on Establishment and Maintenance of Records in 
February 2012 and it is in effect. This rule expands FDA's former records access beyond records 
related to a specific suspect article of food which FDA reasonably believes is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals to now 
include records relating to any article of food that is reasonably likely to be affected in a similar 
manner. In addition, FDA can now access records related to articles of food for which FDA believes that there is a reasonable probability that the us e of or exposure to the article of food, and any 
other article of food that is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse 
health consequences or death to humans or animal.  
With regard to the other rulemakings, FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by 
FSMA. 
Regarding timelines, the rules that have not issu ed yet will be, when first published, proposed 
rules. Following the notice-and-comment process, we will take comment on these rules and then, 
considering those comments, finalize the proposals.  There will be several opportunities for public 
engagement during the notice and comment periods for each rule. The timing of when a final rule 
takes effect will depend on the particular rule, but we do expect that the rules will have phase-in periods. 
Quantitative trade measures, restrictions, controls, and licensing 
Lacey Act Question: For an emerging market such as Indonesia, the Lacey Act declaration requirements for exporting 
plants and plant products into the U.S. market ar e cumbersome and not possible to meet in some 
cases. We understand the importance of the purpos e of the Lacey Act, but its implementation acts 
as a non-tariff trade barrier. Is the U.S. willing to address this issue? 
Furthermore, it is our understanding that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
is soliciting comments on regulatory options that can address issues related to the Lacey Act declaration requirements, and is expected to rele ase a report evaluating the implementation of 
declaration standards under the 2008 amendments.
24 When would this report be ready and would 
it be accessible to all countries? 
RESPONSE: The United States considers the Lacey Act to be an important tool in U.S. efforts to 
combat illegal logging and associated trade. We understand that Indonesia and many other WTO 
Members share the objective of combating illegal trafficking in wildlife and plants, including the 
specific objective of combating illegal logging and associated trade. The United States is continuing to work to implement the requirements of the Lacey Act in a careful, measured manner. APHIS is 
preparing a report to Congress on the implementati on of the declaration requirement. No date has 
been set for the release of the report, but the repo rt will be made publicly available when it is 
submitted to Congress. 
Quotas and quantitative restrictions on products outside the agriculture tariff-rate quota 
(TRQs) 
Question: According paragraph 60 of the Secretariat's report, The United States has various laws or 
provisions that allow for quantitative restrictions or prohibitions on imported products. These are 
often maintained to protect the security or economy of the United States, or safeguard the health or well-being of plant or animal life. For exampl e, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered 
                                               
24 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42119.pdf .  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 261 - 
 
  Species Act, the Fishermen's Protective Act, th e Lacey Act, and the Tariff Act of 1930 Section 305 
for obscene materials, and Section 308 pertaining to dog and cat fur products all have provisions to prohibit imports of certain products. CBP has enforcement authority and may restrict goods (on behalf of other agencies) that do not conform to U.S. laws or regulations such as standards or 
consumer protection regulations. 
Furthermore, paragraph 61 indicates that The United States also maintains quotas or quantitative 
restrictions on products outside of the agriculture TRQs. For industrial products, there are TRQs on 
certain tariff lines of tuna fish and for broomcorn brooms. 
Indonesia would like to highlight the importance of  its trade in tuna products with the United 
States. Such quotas or quantitative restrictions could be seen as protective measures applied by the U.S. to protect U.S. producers from import competition. This includes the use of the MMPA as 
the basis for dolphin-free tuna catches. Dolphins are not listed as endangered species under the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Could 
the U.S. justify under its WTO obligations that these statutes are not discriminatory and cannot be 
deemed as unfair barriers to trade? 
RESPONSE: The United States negotiated the US TRQ on certain tariff lines of tuna fish as part of 
the Uruguay Round. 
Regarding dolphin-free tuna catches, Indonesia's question refers to a fishing technique that 
involves the intentional deployment of purse seine nets on or to encircle dolphins. This technique is used on a wide-scale commercial basis only in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) on account of the regular and significant association between ye llowfin tuna and dolphins that only occurs in 
that ocean. This technique is associated with well-documented harms to dolphins and led to the 
depletion of dolphin stocks in the ETP that have not yet recovered. On account of this, Section 101(a)(2)(B) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) sets out conditions under which 
yellowfin tuna caught using purse seine nets in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) may be 
imported and sold in the United States. Those conditions include inter alia  that the nation to which 
the vessel is flagged is meeting its obligations under the Agreement on International Dolphin 
Conservation Program (AIDCP). Section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA and AIDCP apply only with 
respect to tuna caught in the ETP and are intended to address the specific tuna-dolphin association and fishing technique that occur in that ocean. The United States prohibits its flag vessels from intentionally deploying purse seine nets on or to encircle dolphins (or other marine mammals), 
except in the ETP in accordance with the same provisions applicable to foreign flag vessels 
operating in accordance with the AIDCP. 
Product Safety Regulations 
Question: 
The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSIA) was pa ssed and enacted with significantly increased 
requirements, including third party testing, that  affect a wide range of U.S. imports. These 
requirements have been especially difficult to  meet by Indonesia's poorest producers – those 
producing handmade artisanal items. The CPSIA can be viewed as a protective measure for large-scale foreign producers and their large U.S. retailer importers. The CPSIA has also effectively stopped U.S. imports from Indonesia and elsewhere of, for example, apparel, toys, and other 
items for children. Could the United States explain how these requirements comply with WTO 
obligations? 
RESPONSE: We disagree with the characterization of the CPSIA. WTO rules permit reasonable 
measures to protect the health or safety. A major focus of the CPSIA is improved protection, 
especially for children, from hazardous consumer  products. The legislation requiring third party 
testing of children's products applies to all products within its scope, regardless of where they are 
manufactured. Laboratories around the world are eligible to participate in the CPSC's third party 
testing program, if they are accredited by a body that is a signatory to the International 
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) mutual recognition arrangement. The National Accreditation Body of Indonesia is a signatory to the ILAC mutual recognition arrangement. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 262 - 
 
  Import inspection regulations for meat, poultry and eggs 
Question: 
The current U.S. meat, poultry, and egg inspection regulations are unclear. Although the 
US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to make 
several amendments to its meat, poultry and egg products import regulations, Indonesia continues 
to have concerns. Could the United States explain why there would be no limit on the information 
requested by the FSIS in determine the eligibility of a certain a meat, poultry, or egg product to be 
imported into the U.S.? 
RESPONSE: FSIS requests only the information that is required to determine whether the foreign 
country's regulatory system is equivalent to the U.S. regulatory system for meat, poultry, or egg 
products. While such a determination does require FSIS to request significant information from the 
requesting country, FSIS only requests such information as is necessary for it to make its 
determination. FSIS is available to openly discuss any questions a country seeking equivalence may have on the process or in responding to the need for information. In addition, the Foreign 
Agricultural Service (FAS) is often prepared to provide technical assistance to that country, when 
appropriate. 
In addition, FSIS also proposes to require that all imported poultry products be inspected only at 
an official establishment or at an official impo rt inspection establishment, approved by FSIS. 
Indonesia is concerned that this requirement wo uld be used to limit the number of approved 
inspection facilities and, thereby, protect the U. S. domestic poultry industry. Could the United 
States explain why this requirement is being proposed and how does it conform to US WTO 
obligations? 
RESPONSE: FSIS has always required imported meat, poultry, or egg products to be presented to 
a FSIS approved import inspection facility and re-inspected before it can be released into the U.S. 
market. This is not a new requirement. The new requirement is proposing that an establishment 
with a grant of inspection under FSIS jurisdiction and inspection be eligible to perform import 
inspections and clear product for the U.S. market as long as the facilities at the establishment 
allow for such an activity. This is a trade facilita ting provision, not trade restricting. The United 
States believes that such a requirement is consistent with US WTO obligations. 
Import licensing of Animals and animal prod ucts, Certain dairy products, Natural gas, 
and other U.S. imports 
Question: 
Paragraph 63 of the Secretariat's report mentions that The United States requires an import 
license, either automatic or non-automatic for 15 categories of products (Table III.14).25 The 
licensing requirements are required by six different U.S. executive Departments, under various 
statutes, and for various purposes. Generally, it is necessary to contact the focal point at the Department or Agency concerned in order to obtain the necessary license, which is subsequently 
enforced at the border by CBP In general, all pers ons, firms, and institutions are eligible to apply 
for licenses. For certain products, additional criteria  may apply, i.e. being a resident in the United 
States, a registered user, a manufacturer or refiner, etc. 
Indonesia has some concerns that such requirements could restrict or pose unreasonable or 
unjustifiable barriers to trade, and is inconsiste nt with the WTO's TBT Agreement and Agreements 
on Safeguards and import licensing procedure. Could the U.S. explain how its licensing scheme complies with the pertinent WTO Agreements? 
RESPONSE:  We would be more than happy to discuss questions about specific aspects of any of 
our import licensing requirements in light of our WTO commitments. We need more specific information regarding Indonesia's concerns, e.g., what specific aspect of our regime raises 
concerns as considered in regard to a particular WTO Agreement? For further information on the 
U.S. import licensing regime, please see G/LIC/N/3/USA/9, dated 25 September 2012. 
                                               
25 WTO document G/LIC/N/3/USA/8, 10 October 2011. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 263 - 
 
  Subsidies and other U.S. gove rnment assistance measures  
According paragraph 140 of the Secretariat's report, under table III.2 the following Federal 
Subsidy Programs, 2011 (2010 fiscal year) are listed as follow: 
Counter-cyclical payments program with payments linked to target prices as set out in the 2008 
Farm Bill 
Question: If the 2012 Senate Farm Bill does pass, direct and counter cyclical payments would end. To 
compensate that change, the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) payments program would be 
implemented. Will there be any attempts to me asure the change in the impact on Producer 
Supported Estimate (PSE) due to this program shift? Are there any projections on the impact on the PSE that would arise from the shift towards a different farmer payment system that is based 
on price? 
RESPONSE: The Producer Support Estimate (PSE) is an analysis undertaken by the OECD, not the 
United States. 
Direct payment to farmers of maize, corn , and soy averaging $5 billion dollars a year 
Question: In the Senate Agricultural Committee Farm Bill, Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) is given a larger 
pay out than previously before. Direct Payments were capped at $40,000. Despite record gains, 
ARC payouts are capped at $50,000. Is there any indication that a there could be decreased payments, especially in light of budget concerns and the high price of soybean, wheat, maize, and 
other supported commodities? 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. 
Agricultural insurance subsidies for private in surance that depress the price of insurance 
for farmers, reducing their costs 
Question: According to Paragraph 28 of the Secretariat's report, "Insurance coverage is available for over 
100 different crops under a wide variety of insurance policies covering production, price and/or 
revenue risks, under the Federal Crop Insurance Pr ogram. Insurance coverage is provided by the 
private sector at subsidized rates under terms se t by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and 
administered by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA). Most of the policies available from the 
RMA are for crops, although livestock policies are available for cattle, pigs, lambs, and milk to 
insure against declining prices or to cover the difference between sales prices and feed costs. Policies are also available for forage, grazing, an d rangelands. The subsidies provided by USDA are 
on producer premiums paid to private insurance companies for providing the insurance policies, as 
well as on a portion of the companies' operat ing costs and underwriting losses. The premium 
subsidy to producers was US$4.7 billion in CY 2010  and is expected to be about US$7.2 billion for 
CY 2011.
26 The value of crops protected by insurance al so increased, from US$67 billion in 2007 to 
$114 billion in 2011, representing about 80% of area planted to principal crops."27 
According to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM), the stated 
support provided to the agriculture and husbandry insurance industry would constitute a subsidy. 
Will the United States comply with the WTO oblig ations and the SCM Agreement by removing this 
subsidy, as it provides U.S. farmers a distinct competitive advantage? Will the upcoming Farm Bill 
remove address this subsidy? 
                                               
26 USDA Risk Management Agency online in formation "Costs and Outlays". Viewed at: 
http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/budget/cycost2002-11.pdf  [July 2012]. 
27 USDA (2012), pp. 30-31.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 264 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The U.S. crop insurance program is consistent with the WTO Agreement, including 
the SCM Agreement. The United States notifies support under the crop insurance program, and remains in compliance with its WTO obligations. 
Fisheries Finance Program (FFP) 
Question: 
One of the characteristics of the FFP is that the U.S. g ove rnm e nt p rovi de s d i re ct l oans to U.S. 
commercial fishing and aquaculture industries. These loans can be used for capital improvements 
by commercial fishermen, including vessel purcha se. Can the U.S. confirm this? If so, such a 
subsidy is prima facia  inconsistent with the United States' obligation under the SCM Agreement. 
Could the U.S. give justification as to wh y it continues to uphold this measure? 
Question: 
The incredibly low interest rates at which the FFP loans are provided would appear to be a 
prohibited subsidy. The loan borrowing rate is eq ual to the US Treasury borrowing rate plus 2%, 
which makes the FFP loan interest rate extremely favorable and low-cost. Indonesia believes that the loans under this program are not in compliance with the WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures. 
In the face of its budget constraints and for the purposes of complying with the WTO obligations, 
does the United States intend to amend the Merchant Marine Act, the law, which approves this 
unfair subsidy? 
RESPONSE:  The Fishery Finance Program is a program the United States has consistently 
included in its subsidy notifications to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (see, for example, G/SCM/N/220/USA; 19 October 2011). Any subsidy that may be provided under this program is not contingent upon export perf ormance or the use of domestic over imported 
goods. Therefore, absent any showing that the pr ogram is causing adverse effects to the interests 
of another WTO Member, there is no basis to assert that the program is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
Anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders  
Question:  
Despite United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk announcing that the USTR would no longer 
use the zeroing methodology (whereby unfairly tr aded transactions are aggregated with fair 
transactions, contrary to worldwide calculation standards of duties), the Ambassador Kirk also announced that the United States will continue to press for zeroing to be allowed under WTO law. Why does the United States want to continue to  defend this calculation method in the future? 
RESPONSE: The United States has repeatedly explained its concerns regarding the dispute 
settlement findings on "zeroing". Changes to the calculation of dumping margins, notwithstanding 
those concerns, together with our efforts to press for correction of these decisions through ongoing 
negotiations, demonstrate the commitment of the United States to strengthening the rules-based trading system. 
Question: 
Will the United States voluntarily initiate review s to adjust recent AD/CVD orders based on a 
methodology free of zeroing? 
RESPONSE: The final modification provides that the re vised methodology would be applicable in 
any determinations made pursuant to section 129 of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3538). Each year, 
during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, an 
interested party may request that the Department  of Commerce conduct an administrative review 
of the order. The Department of Commerce will conduct administrative reviews consistent with the 
February 2012 "Final Modification". WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 265 - 
 
  Question: 
Can the United States assist with a campaign to inform foreign producers that the zeroing 
methodology might have unfairly caused unnecessarily  large margins and that their government or 
U.S. importers should apply for a duty margin review? 
RESPONSE: No. The procedures by which interested parties may request that the Department of 
Commerce determine the actual amount of antidumping duties to be paid on entries in an annual administrative review are publicly available. See 19 CFR 351.213. 
Question: 
Concerning the imposition of anti dumping duty and countervailing duty for the importation of Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from China, the US Steel Producer had submited a petition to USDOC with regard to the extension of scope rulling on imposition of AD duty and CVD for third 
parties which processed Finished Good Green Pipe from China. 
Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesi a has submitted a submission to USDOC dated on 
10 July 2012. We look forward US response for our submission. 
RESPONSE: The United States appreciates the Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia's 
submission to the Department of Commerce dated July 10, 2012. The Department of Commerce will consider that submission in evaluating whether to clarify the scope of the antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders. 
Financial Services: Swap Market Reforms Question: Page 127, paragraph 94 states: (Trade Policies by Sector, WT/TPR/S/275): "…[C]ompanies that 
use swaps will face new regulatory, business, and operational requirements as dealers, 
counterparties, and other swap market participants become subject to new clearing, margin and collateral requirements, record-keeping and reporting duties, and new trade execution 
alternatives…In Paragraph 95, the Report continues, "Thus far, there has been little guidance from 
the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the cross-border application of swap mark et reforms, but the CFTC has indicated that it 
expects to provide a proposed rule and some interpretative guidance on the provision contained in 
Section 722(d) of Act soon." 
It has been at least two years since the U.S. indi cated that it would provide a proposed rule and 
guidance. What is the current schedule to do so? Does the U.S. intend on liaise further with 
Indonesia and other ASEAN countries with regard  to the implementation of BASEL III financial 
regulations and the implementation of the US Dodd-Frank Act? Specifically, the new rules on 
Swaps may not be consistent with WTO obligat ions. Which forums has the United States 
considered in order to deal with potentially adve rse extra-territorial impact of the US Dodd Frank 
Act? 
RESPONSE: Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, amending § 2(i) of the Commodity Exchange 
Act ("CEA"), provides that swaps provisions of  the CEA shall apply to activities outside the 
United States that have a "direct and significant" connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce in the United States or when they contravene CFTC rulemaking. 
Proposed Guidance: The CFTC has issued Proposed Interpretive Guidance, setting forth its 
interpretation of section 2(i) of the CEA as applic able to Title VII's swap provisions to activities 
outside the United States (http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfede ralregister/documents/file/2012-16496a.pdf ). 
Under the Proposed Guidance, the issue of whether swap activities outside the United States have 
the requisite "direct and significant" connection with activities in, or effect on, U.S. commerce within the meaning of CEA § 2(i) depends on the nature of the counterparties involved in those 
swap activities. Consequently, the CFTC proposed a definition of the term "U.S. person," which 
encompasses persons located within the United States and those located outside the United States WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 266 - 
 
  but whose swap activities, nonetheless, have a "d irect and significant" effect, or connection with, 
the United States within the meaning of CEA sect ion 2(i). Therefore, the "U.S. person" definition 
helps to identify transactions or activities that - individually or in the aggregate - satisfies the jurisdictional nexus of CEA § 2(i). 
Assuming that such nexus is satisfied, in conj unction with the satisfaction of the relevant 
definitional tests promulgated by the CFTC under its joint rulemaking with the SEC, firms are required to register with the CFTC as either swap dealers ("SDs") or major swap participants 
("MSPs"). Under the Proposed Guidance, SDs and MSPs, once registered, are required to comply 
with all of the requirements applicable to SDs an d MSPs for all of their swaps transactions. Such 
requirements are categorized as: (i) Entity-L evel Requirements: capital adequacy, chief 
compliance officer, risk management, swap data re cordkeeping, swap data reporting, and physical 
commodity swaps reporting; and (ii) Transact ion-Level Requirements: clearing and swap 
processing, margining and segregation for uncle ared swaps, trade execution, swap trading 
relationship documentation, portfolio reconciliation and compression, real-time public reporting, 
trade confirmation,; daily trading records,  and external business conduct standards. 
Proposed Exemptive Order: Separately, the CFTC has issued a Proposed Exemptive Order pursuant 
to section 4(c) of the CEA 
(http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfede ralregister/documents/file/2012-16498a.pdf ). The 
Proposed Exemptive Order would permit non-US SDs and non-US MSPs to delay compliance with 
certain Entity-Level Requirements of the Dodd-Fr ank Act and the CFTC's regulations, subject to 
certain conditions. 
With respect to relief under the Proposed Exem ptive Order, non-U.S. registrants would be 
permitted to delay compliance with most of the Entity-Level Requirements until July 2013, 
provided that they: file an application with the Na tional Futures Association ("NFA") to register as 
a SD/MSP and, within 60 days of filing a registra tion application, file with the NFA a compliance 
plan detailing good faith adherence with the applicable Entity-Level and Transaction-Level Requirements under the CEA. 
This issue is a subject of a joint final rule and guidance for further defining the terms "swap," 
"security-based swap," and "security-based swap agreement", regulation of "mixed swaps" and 
security-based swap agreement recordkeeping. See: 
http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/F ederalRegister/FinalRules/2012-18003 . 
Other measures affectin g investment and trade  
Question: Operation of all GSP programs is guided by the Enabling Clause, which has been interpreted 
though various WTO Dispute Settlement decisions, such that preferential treatment by developed 
nations is to be provided to all similarly situated beneficiary countries in a similar manner. 
Although Indonesia understands that there may be  the need for beneficiary country eligibility 
criteria, it questions the application of these criteria to determine beneficiary countries' continued eligibility only in reaction to the receipt of stakeholder petitions that are focused on single 
countries, rather than on a proactive review that looks at all beneficiary countries. Can the United 
States explain how its current system of eligibili ty review is consistent with WTO obligations, 
including application of the Enabling Clause? 
RESPONSE: The Enabling Clause does not address the mechanisms that preference-granting 
countries use to review applicable country eligib ility criteria for unilateral preference programs. 
Therefore, the use of stakeholder-driven petiti ons in determining whether to launch reviews of 
beneficiary country eligibility for GSP trade benefits is not inconsistent with the provisions of the 
Enabling Clause. 
Unfair Trade Practices Acts 
Question: 
Several U.S. states (Washington, Louisiana,  and Massachusetts) have passed Unfair Trade 
Practices Acts whose purpose are to prevent "unfai r competition" by foreign producers due to an WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 267 - 
 
  alleged lack of protection of intellectual proper ty anywhere in the producers' operations. More 
states are preparing to enact similar laws, leading to potentially a 50-state confusing and dissimilar array of such legislation. A company in Thailand has already been affected by the 
application of the Massachusetts' law. 
In its commitments to the WTO, the United States included all its states, territories, and 
possessions. Therefore, how will the United States ensure that these laws are consistent with WTO 
obligations and not used as unfair protections of U.S. companies against foreign producers? 
RESPONSE: The WTO obligations of the United States have been implemented into federal law. 
The Federal government has the authority to pre- empt certain state laws, including state unfair 
competition laws, should they conflict with Federal law. The Federal government may also challenge any state law that is inconsistent with US WTO obligations. The United States is not aware of any inconsistency between the state unfair competition laws in Washington, Louisiana, 
and Massachusetts and US WTO obligations. 
Government procurement  
Question: It is our understanding that if a country is not pa rty to the GPA (which Indonesia is not), then the 
United States can discriminate in terms of its government procurement in implementing the Buy America Act provisions. In one of the U.S. resp onses, the U.S. indicated, "Members that are 
signatories to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement as well as parties to the North 
American Free Trade Agreement enjoy corresponding exemption."
28In fact, U.S. federal agencies 
are not allowed to purchase goods covered by GPA from countries that are not parties to the GPA.
29 If Indonesia was a party to the GPA, then the Buy America Act provisions would not apply. 
RESPONSE: If Indonesia became a Party to the GPA, the United States would be able to procure 
goods and services from Indonesia, and the prov isions of the Buy American Act would not be 
applied to Indonesian goods and services in procurement covered by the GPA. 
As the consequence of the Panasonic Health Care Indonesia (PHCI), it cannot export its medical 
equipment to the United States. (They are currently as one of the suppliers of Bayer Healthcare 
AG, which has a current contract with the US Depa rtment of Veteran Affairs (VA) for supply blood 
glucose monitoring equipment). 
RESPONSE: This does not appear to be a question. 
                                               
28 WT/TPR/M/235/Add.1, Page 267 
29 Ibid.,  p. 413. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 generally prohibits Federal Government agencies 
from purchasing goods and services covered by the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) from 
any country that is not a party to the GPA or a free trade agreement with the United States, or is not a 
Least-Developed Country. For goods and services not covered by the GP A, the Buy American Act and other 
restrictions apply alike to goods and services from other countries. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 268 - 
 
  ISRAEL 
Secretariat Report, Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, Box III.1 
1.  In the Secretariat's review on the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), it was indicated 
that some of the rules and regulations were not yet issued or come into force. We would 
appreciate if the US can clarify what is the ex pected timetable for these rules and regulations 
(specifically-qualified facilities, Produce Safety Standards, Safety of imported food, Intentional 
Adulteration, Laboratory and Third- Party Accreditation, Traceability and records). 
RESPONSE : There are a number of rulemakings required  by the FDA Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA). One of the rules mentioned above has been issued and the others are in various stages of development. FDA issued the interim final rule on Establishment and Maintenance of 
Records in February 2012 and it is in effect. This rule expands FDA's former records access beyond 
records related to a specific suspect article of food which FDA reasonably believes is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals to 
now include records relating to any article of food that is reasonably likely to be affected in a 
similar manner. In addition, FDA can now access records related to articles of food for which FDA believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the article of food, 
and any other article of food that is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious 
adverse health consequences or death to humans or animal. 
With regard to the other rulemakings, FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by 
FSMA. 
Regarding timelines, the rules that have not issued yet will be, when first published, proposed 
rules. Following the notice-and-comment process, we will take comment on these rules and then, 
considering those comments, finalize the proposals.  There will be several opportunities for public 
engagement during the notice and comment periods for each rule. The timing of when a final rule 
takes effect will depend on the particular rule, but we do expect that the rules will have phase-in periods. 
Secretariat Report, Trade Policies by Measure, Government Procurement, Article 144 
2.  We have noticed that there is no legislative expiry for ARRA and would like to understand 
whether there is a possibility that the US will allocate additional budgets under the ARRA funds. 
RESPONSE: We are not aware of any proposals for th e US Congress to appropriate additional 
funds under ARRA. 
Secretariat Report, Trade Policies by Sector, Agriculture, (ii) Agriculture policies, Article 12-16 
3.  What are the reasons for charging tariffs on the F.O.B value rather than the C.I.F value? RESPONSE: This has been the practice of the United St ates since prior to the conclusion of the 
GATT. The United States believes this value is easy for traders and customs to determine, and is 
more trade facilitative. 
4.  While the average tariffs on import agricultural products into the US in 2012 was 8.5%, tariff 
duties on some tariff lines remain very high (u p to 350%). Can the US please explain the need 
for such high tariffs given the fact that the US is a net food exporter? 
RESPONSE: The United States applies tariffs at or below its WTO bound rates, in accordance with 
the commitments made by the United States during the Uruguay Round. Tariff levels reflect a number of different factors and we do not see that  the fact that we may be a net exporter is 
relevant to decisions on what particular tariff levels should be. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 269 - 
 
  5.  Can the US please elaborate on the price-based SSG and the reasons for automatically 
applying it when the import value is below certain level even before it has any negative effect on the local production? (hence in many cases the SSG is applied to small quantities.) 
RESPONSE: The United States automatically applies price-based special safeguards (SSGs) on all 
products that were subject to tariffication in the Uruguay Round. The safeguard rates and trigger 
prices are published in the U.S. national tariff schedule, so that everyone can know when the safeguard duty will be applicable. The safeguard is applied in this manner for ease of 
administration and is fully consistent with the provisions of Article 5 of the Uruguay Round 
Agreement on Agriculture, which does not include an injury test. There is no SSG on in-quota imports so if all imports are within the TRQ, the price-based SSG never comes into effect. The United States annually notifies SSG use and provides quantity data on the use of the SSG by tariff 
line as a Committee on Agriculture best practice (the notification instructions only require 
reporting on whether the price-based safeguard has been used). 
Secretariat Report, Trade Policies By Sector, Agriculture, Article 31 
6.  We would appreciate a clarification with regards to the "assessment rate" charged on certain 
imported dairy products. To our understanding the assessment rate became effective on August1
st, 2011 - requiring importers of certain dairy products defined by HTS number to pay 
an assessment rate of 7.5 cents per hundredweight of milk, or equivalent as part of the 
National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Program). We would like to know 
if this levy is charged on local production as well, and for purpose it will be collected. 
RESPONSE: The dairy import assessment fee is collected as part of the National Dairy Promotion 
and Research Program which conducts dairy product promotion, research, and nutrition education 
as part of a comprehensive strategy to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products. 
The program is financed by a mandatory 15-cent per hundredweight assessment on all milk 
produced and marketed commercially  in the United States, and a 7.5-cent per hundredweight 
assessment, or equivalent thereof, on milk and dairy products imported into the United States. The 2002 Farm Bill mandated that Dairy Promotio n and Research Order be amended to implement 
an assessment on imported dairy products to f und the Program. The 2008 Farm Bill specified a 
mandatory assessment rate of 7.5-cents per hundredweight on milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products imported into the United States, as identified by certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes. Collection of the import assessment began on August 1, 2011. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 270 - 
 
  JAPAN 
Report by Secretariat 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS 
(i) Reciprocal trade agreements 
(a) New agreements with Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and Panama 
Page 17, Paragraph 13 
(Question) In the Chapter on Cross-Border Trade in Servic es of US-Columbia and the US-Panama FTA, no 
commitments on the movement of natural persons are provided, nor is a chapter concerning the 
temporary entry of business persons. This shows that the commitments under these two FTAs are 
rollbacks compared to the US GATS horizontal commitments which include granting the temporary 
entry and stay of natural persons. Please explain this inconsistency with Paragraph 1 (a) of Article 
5 of the GATS. 
RESPONSE:  Under the Cross-Border Trade in Services chapters of both these agreements, 
cross-border trade in services is defined to include the supply of services "by a national of a Party in the territory of the other Party." The obligations of these chapters, including with respect to 
market access and national treatment, therefore apply equally to all cross-border modes of supply 
(i.e., Modes 1, 2, and 4). 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS 
(i) Reciprocal trade agreements 
(b) Overview of the other free-trade agreements 
Page 18, Paragraph 16 
(Question) After the US-Australia FTA, the United States ha s not made any commitments on the movement of 
natural persons, and has not set any chapter relating to the temporary entry of business persons 
under FTAs. Please note releva nt national policy, if any. 
RESPONSE: The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement does not contain a chapter on 
Temporary Entry of Business Persons. The observat ion of Japan is otherwise correct, and reflects 
current U.S. policy. 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES (iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
Page 28, Paragraphs 35,36 
(Question) 
In the field of radio communications, Japan under stands that there is an examination by the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), th e Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the 
Department of Justice, in addition to a security  examination by CFIUS regarding investment by a 
foreign business operator. 
Moreover, Japan understands that there is an interagency examination team called "Team 
Telecom". WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 271 - 
 
  In this connection, Japan would like to ask the following: What are the ground rules of the 
examination concerned? What is the purpose of carrying out the examination? How long is the 
examination period? What is the relationship between CFIUS and Team Telecom? How the transparency of the examination is secured? 
RESPONSE: In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Foreign 
Participation Order which established the framework for foreign investment in the U.S. telecommunications market. There is an open entry standard for foreign investment, either though 
purchase of existing U.S. telecommunications carrie rs or the establishment of a new carrier, from 
a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member country. 
Foreign investment is subject to review for law en forcement, national security, trade, and foreign 
policy concerns. The text of the Foreign Participation Order is available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-97-398A1.pdf .  
The review of law enforcement, national security , trade and foreign policy issues described above 
that is part of the FCC's review of foreign investment in the telecommunications sector (which is 
sometimes informally referred to as "Team Telecom") is a separate legal process from the review 
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES 
(ii) Investment regula tions and restrictions 
Page 28, Paragraph 35 
(Question)  
Regarding radio communications, which federal laws and regulations act as barriers or restrictions 
to foreign investment in specific areas? 
RESPONSE:  Section 310 of the Communications Act of  1934, as amended, governs the foreign 
ownership of spectrum licensees. Section 310(a) states that a foreign government may not directly 
hold a spectrum license. Sections 310(b)(1) and (2) state that foreign individuals and business entities may not directly hold any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical 
en route license. Under section 310(b)(3) a foreign entity is limited to a 20% ownership interest in 
any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. Pursuant to section 310(b)(4), a foreign entity is limited to a 25 per cent ownership interest in a U.S. corporation that [directly or indirectly] controls any common carrier, broadcast or aeronautical 
fixed or aeronautical en route licensee. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), however, 
has the discretion to allow foreign ownership in excess of 25 per cent under section 310(b)(4) of the Act unless such ownership is inconsistent with the public interest. In the case of common 
carrier and aeronautical fixed and aeronautical en route licenses, the FCC presumes that foreign 
investment from WTO member countries does not pose competitive concerns to the U.S. market and is in the public interest. In an August 2012 Order, the FCC adopted a policy to forbear from 
the application of the 20 per cent foreign ownership limit set forth in section 310(b)(3) to common 
carriers in which the foreign ownership in the licensee is held through U.S.-organized entities that do not control the licensee. The text of the August 2012 Order is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC-12-93A1.pdf . There are no statutory 
restrictions on the foreign ownership of wireline telecommunications facilities, although in certain 
circumstances the foreign carrier may need to establish a U.S.-organized subsidiary, but it could have 100% ownership of that subsidiary. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 272 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS (i) Custom procedures 
Page 30, Paragraph 2 
(Question)  
The "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act," enacted in August 2007, 
contain provisions that require the scanning of al l U.S.-bound cargo containers in principle before 
their loading at foreign ports after July 1, 2012 or  a later date. The provisions, depending on how 
they are implemented, could severely disrupt the flow of goods from foreign countries including 
Japan, into the US Please explain the specific views of the U.S. on this concern. And Japan would like to learn relevant information regarding recent  developments of discussion in the U.S. about 
100% scanning mandate. 
According to the U.S. response to the question in the previous Trade Policy Review, the United 
States stated that CBP was using the current pilot ports to identify challenges associated with the 
100% scanning mandate.
 Japan would like to know what progress or results were seen from this 
test, if any. 
RESPONSE: Estimates for potential costs incurred outside of the United States to implement the 
scanning regime as envisioned by the SAFE Port Act legislation vary based on a number of 
variables involved in the calculation and the lack of a single perspective on who would bear costs associated with equipment procurement, maintenance and operations; upfront expenditures for potential redesigns of ports and facilities; and data analysis and alarm resolution. In the pilot ports 
the US Government bore all the costs. On May 2012, DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a report 
and letter to Congress extending the deadline to July 2014 to implement 100% scanning. 
Reports on progress and costs for 100% scanning can be found at 
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets /Mgmt/OIG_10-52_Feb10.pdf ,  
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-12 .  
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(i) Customs procedures 
Page 31, Paragraph Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) 
(Question) 
Japan would like the U.S to explain the future plans for the ACAS (Air Cargo Advance Screening: 
Prior report system 4 hours before load ing) that is temporarily in effect. 
RESPONSE:  US Customs and Border Protection in cooperation with the Transportation Security 
Agency announced in October 2012 that it was formalizing and expanding the Air Cargo Advance 
Screening (ACAS) pilot program which revises the time frame for transmission by pilot participants of a subset of mandatory advance electronic information for air cargo. The ACAS pilot is a 
voluntary test in which participants agree to subm it a subset of the required data elements (ACAS 
data) at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft destined to or transiting through the United States. For information see: https://www.federalregister.gov/ articles/2012/10/24/ 2012-26031/air-cargo-advance-screening-ac
as-pilot-program#h-8 . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 273 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS (vi) Contingency measures 
Page 46, Paragraph 42 
(Question) All Others Rate Provision: The DSB adopted re commendations and rulings that found the U.S. 
statutory provision regarding the "all others" rate to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement in August 2001, over 11 years ago. Although Japan welcomes that the U.S lifted in 
2011 the A.D. measure against hot-rolled steel from  Japan, the provision in question still remains 
in effect. Since this provision has been left un-am ended, the provision in question could be applied 
to new anti-dumping investigations in the future, inconsistent with the WTO Agreements. Japan 
notes that the U.S stated in response to the question of the previous Trade Policy Review, "the 
U.S. administration intends to continue working with the Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter." Please explain what steps the U.S. 
government has taken and will take to complete full implementation in the Congress. 
RESPONSE: With regard to amending the statutory provision relating to the "all-others" rate, the 
legislative process is in the hands of the US Cong ress. The US Administration intends to work with 
the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS (vi) Contingency measures 
Page 46, Paragraph 42 
(Question) 
Model-Matching: In calculating dumping margins, the U.S. government classifies different models 
of export products under investigation and their domestic "like products" in the exporting country 
according to individual characteristics, and then determines domestic products that are "identical" 
to or "closely resemble" the exported pr oducts ("model-matching"). After the annual 
administrative review of anti-dumping measures on ball bearings imported from Japan in FY 2003 
(the 15th review), the Department of Commerce decided to change from the existing model-matching methodology, which compares products of the same measurements (outer diameter, inner diameter and width) and load rating (resistance), to a methodology which 
compares products whose measurements and load rating deviate from each other within 40% in 
total. Japan would like to know the situation of  consideration of revision or improving the 
methodology after the United States-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative (EHI), which was 
held in 2011, and the follow-up officials' meeting of EHI. 
RESPONSE: As noted by Japan, the Department of Commerce determined to modify the 
model-match methodology in the ball bearings cases from several countries, including Japan, in 
2003 to obtain a more accurate calculation of the margin of dumping. At that time, the 
Department of Commerce notified all interested parties that it was considering changes to the model-match, and the reasons for considering changes. The Department of Commerce then provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on whether a change to the 
model-match should be made. After considerin g such comments, the Department of Commerce 
then notified parties of its proposed modification to the model-match methodology, along with its reasons for the proposed change, and provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment 
on the proposed methodology. Only after considering the parties' comments and making changes 
to the model-match based on those comments did the Department of Commerce implement a new model-match methodology aimed at providing a more  accurate margin of dumping in each case. 
Following the USITC's determination that revoca tion of the antidumping duty order on ball 
bearings from Japan would not injure the competing U.S. industry, the antidumping duty order was revoked on July 15, 2011. The USITC's determination is subject to litigation, but until there is WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 274 - 
 
  a final ruling in the court case, administrative reviews are on hold. Therefore, parties have not had 
an opportunity to raise the issue of model match in an administrative review. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(vi) Contingency measures 
Page 46, Paragraph 42 
(Question) 
Byrd Amendment: The Byrd Amendment was found to be inconsistent with WTO Agreements in 
January 2003, and was finally repealed in February 2006. However, revenues from anti-dumping duties on goods imported to the United States before October 1, 2007, continue to be distributed among the relevant parties under the transitional  provision of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 
This means that although the Byrd Amendment was nominally repealed, it continues to stay in 
effect. Therefore, the inconsistency with the WT O Agreements remains at present even after the 
repeal of the Byrd Amendment and up until now, the situation has not been improved. The United 
States mentioned in the response to the question of the previous U.S Trade Policy Review, "the 
United States has taken all actions necessary to implement the Dispute Settlement Body's recommendations and rulings in the referenced dispute." Please indicate the specific grounds for 
this assertion in spite of its continuing the distribution in question. The Government of Japan urges 
the Government of the U.S. to promptly halt th e distribution of revenues, including those from 
anti-dumping duties on goods imported before October 1, 2007, under the Byrd Amendment and resolve the inconsistency with the WTO Agreements. 
RESPONSE:  As Japan notes, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 was repealed 
in 2006. Therefore, the United States reiterates that it has taken all steps necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Moreover, pursuant to that repeal, there has been no 
distribution to domestic firms of antidumping and countervailing duties collected on goods entering 
the United States after October 1, 2007. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(vi) Contingency measures 
Page 48, Paragraphs 46-47 
(Question) 
Removal of Long Continued Anti-dumping Measures 
With regard to anti-dumping measures against products made in Japan, the existing oldest 
measure has been imposed since 1978 and the averag e length of the measures is about 17 years. 
Anti-dumping measures must be ineffective in 5 years in principle in accordance with the WTO 
Agreement. Only if the lifting of the meas ures may cause continued/renewed dumping and 
damages, the period of the measures may be ex tended as an exception. However, upon the 
request of domestic industries, the U.S. government has repeated the extension of the period for 
anti-dumping measures and has continued them ov er a long term in many cases. The Japanese 
government calls for the U.S. to quickly remove unfairly long continued anti-dumping measures as 
well as to hear the U.S. view on this. 
RESPONSE:  The United States' sunset practice is in full compliance with WTO rules and it 
conducts sunset reviews in a manner consistent with the terms outlined in the AD and SCM Agreements. The determinations in each sunset re view are case-specific and the results (including 
Federal Register citations and dates of publication of the notices) for all of the five-year sunset 
reviews can be found on the USITC's website (http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/). From this 
website Japan can obtain, on a case-by-case basis, the information supporting the rationale for 
either the continuation or termination of a measure. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 275 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (iii) Government procurement 
Page 76, Paragraph 129 
(Question) Buy American Provision: Japan is concerned by the recent trend that Buy American provisions are 
built into recent laws such as the American Re covery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Japan 
requests that such regulations and operations are consistent with the obligations of the U.S. under 
the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and that they do not counter international efforts against protectionism. In this context, Ja pan would like to know if the U.S. has established 
or has been planning any new laws with Buy American provisions since 2010. 
RESPONSE:  The US Government has not included "buy American" provisions in legislation that 
has been enacted since the ARRA. The United States is not aware of any proposals for new "buy American" provisions. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
(d) Participation in WTO and international initiatives 
Page 89, Paragraphs 167-168 
(Question) On March 16, 2011, an amendment to Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act (S603; A bill 
to modify the prohibition on recognition by the Unit ed States' courts of certain rights relating to 
certain marks, trade names, or commercial names) was introduced in a Senate committee and read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Also, H.R.1166 was introduced in a 
House subcommittee. However, we are aware that these have not been introduced in a main 
plenary session yet. Please indicate the present status and future prospects of the amendment. 
RESPONSE:  The status of these bills has not changed. Comparable legislation may be 
reintroduced and considered when the 113
th Congress convenes in January 2013. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) 
First- Inventor-to-File Provisions (1) 
Regarding the "on sale" provision, under the pre- AIA system, publicity was not required for "on 
sale" in precluding the grant of a patent on the claimed invention. Whether or not "on sale" is made public does not present a problem under the first-to-invent system because the major issue 
in granting a patent is the time when the invention was completed. Therefore, the practice of not 
requiring publicity for "on sale" may be allowed, if it is under the first-to-invent system. 
Many countries including Japan, which adopts the fi rst-to-file system instead of the first-to-invent 
system, have the condition that an invention that could have been known by the public before the 
filing constitutes prior art. 
For example, in Japan, "inventions that were publicly known and publicly worked" are regarded as 
prior art. However, inventions that have been put under the obligation of secrecy do not form part 
of the prior arts. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 276 - 
 
  It would be appreciated if the U.S. could prov ide the reason, preferably with specific case 
examples, why the new system under the AIA maintains this practice which is unique to the first-to-invent system even when the AIA will ch ange the patent system in the U.S. from the 
first-to-invent system to the first-to-file sy stem or the first inventor-to-file system. 
The U.S.'s view on the matter would be appreciated. Moreover, Japan would like to know whether 
the U.S. has a plan to define a new practice as to "on sale" in the examination guideline without 
waiting for a court decision. 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO is charged with implementing th e AIA as passed by Congress. In July of 
2012, the USPTO published proposed examination guidelines in view of the AIA at 77 Fed. Reg. 43759. Interested members of the public were invited to submit comments. Approximately seventy comments were received from individual s and entities, including some from Japan. The 
comments are available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/la w/comments/fitf_guidance.jsp . The 
proposed examination guidelines acknowledged that the statutory language was not entirely clear 
on the question of whether a non-public sale qualif ies as prior art, stating, "The language of AIA 
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) does not expressly state whether a sale must be 'sufficiently' public to 
preclude the grant of a patent on the claimed invention." At this time the USPTO is considering the comments received, and has not yet taken a position on the question of non-public sales. Final 
USPTO guidelines which address this issue will be published by mid-February. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question)  
First- Inventor-to-File Provisions (2) 
Under the pre-AIA system, the use or sale of inventions for experimental purposes could not 
preclude the grant of a patent on the claimed invention. 
This experimental use doctrine which does not deem incomplete inventions as prior art is also a 
practice that is unique to the first-to-invent sy stem in which the time when the invention was 
completed is the main issue in granting a patent. 
In many countries including Japan, which adopts the first-to-file system instead of the 
first-to-invent system, an invention produced under circumstances where it could have been 
known by the public on the filing date, constitutes pr ior art even if use or sale of the invention is 
for experimental purposes. 
Furthermore, 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) in the AIA provid es a "catch-all" provision that does not grant a 
patent to a claimed invention if it was "otherwise available to the public" before its effective filing 
date. If the experimental use doctrine is maintained together with the presence of such a "catch-all" provision, the experimental use doctri ne will become an exception for the "catch-all" 
provision and make implementation of the "catch-all" provision complicated. 
It would be appreciated if the U.S. could prov ide the reason, preferably with specific case 
examples, why the new system under the AIA keeps an experimental use doctrine that is unique to the first-to-invent system ever when as the AI A will change the patent system in the US from 
the first-to-invent system to the first-to-file system or the first inventor-to-file system. 
The U.S.'s view on the matter would be appreciated. Moreover, Japan would like to know whether 
the U.S. has plans to define a new practice as to experimental use in the examination guideline 
without waiting for a court decision. 
RESPONSE:  The language of 35 USC 102(a)(1) recites "in public use" which was the same 
language as recited under pre-AIA 102(b). In those instances where the AIA recites the exact 
same statutory language as prior art provisions of pre-AIA, the USPTO understands that the same 
case law would be applicable to AIA applications. The experimental use doctrine is not a doctrine WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 277 - 
 
  that is associated with first to invent, rather it relates to the recitation of "in public use" in 35 
U.S.C. 102(b) (102(b) did not involve an invention date inquiry). The experimental use doctrine is not an exception to public use per se. Rather, under the experimental use doctrine, if a use or sale "represents a bona fide effort to perfect the invention or to ascertain whether it will answer its 
intended purpose," the experimental nature of th e use or sale negates the "public" nature of the 
use or sale. See LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 1580-81 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). 
Therefore, United States does not view the AIA as changing the experimental use doctrine of 
pre-AIA case law. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question)  
Grace Period 
The proposed 37CFR §1.77 (b) stipulates as follows: §1.77 Arrangement of application elements. 
(b) The specification should include the following sections in order: (6) Statement regarding prior 
disclosures by an inventor or a joint inventor. 
The proposed §1.77 (b) mentions a statement regarding prior disclosures by an inventor or a joint 
inventor in the specification, and Japan understands that such a statement is not mandatory. Please confirm the accuracy of Japan's understanding. 
Japan would like to know whether there are any differences in difficulty of requesting a grace 
period between when it is done based on proposed  §1.77(b) at filing of the patent application and 
when it is done based on the proposed §1.130 in  the course of examination or reexamination. 
RESPONSE:  Japan is correct in that a statement regarding prior disclosures by an inventor or a 
joint inventor under proposed § 1.77(b)(6) is not mandatory. Proposed § 1.77(b)(6) permits, but does not require, an applicant to provide a statement regarding prior disclosures by the inventor or 
a joint inventor. The grace period is provided by operation of U.S. law and is not provided for at 
the request of the applicant/inventor. Identifying any prior disclosures by the inventor or a joint inventor under proposed § 1.77(b)(6) at filing instead of during prosecution under proposed § 1.130 may save applicants the costs related to a USPTO action and reply and expedite 
examination of the application. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) 
Derivation Proceedings (1): In Final Rules, 37CFR §42.405, Content of Petition, (b)(2), provide as 
follows: "(b) In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.8 and 42.22, the petition must: … (2) Demonstrate that a claimed invention was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner's application, and that the inventor from whom th e invention was derived did not authorize the filing 
of the earliest application claiming such invention." 
This provision requires a petitioner to demonstrate that the invention was derived from 
himself/herself, and does not require a respondent to demonstrate that the invention was not 
derived from the petitioner. The burden of proof of the fact of derivation is imposed on the 
petitioner. It is usually difficult in reality for the petitioner to prove the fact of derivation. From this viewpoint, some court rulings in Japan have held that the respondent must prove the fact that the 
invention was not derived from the petitioner. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 278 - 
 
  In order to make the derivation proceeding more suitable for practical use, it would be possible to 
impose a certain degree of burden of proof on the respondent as well. Please explain the U.S.'s idea on this. 
With a view to making it easier for the petitioner to prove the fact of derivation, Japan would also 
like to learn, with specific case examples, what ki nd of evidence is admissible when the petitioner 
demonstrates that the invention was derived from himself / herself. 
RESPONSE:  35 U.S.C. 135(a) requires that a petition asking the Board to institute a derivation 
must be supported by substantial evidence. Under our rules (37 CFR 42.405(c)), a petition is not 
sufficient unless it is supported by substantial evidence, including at least one affidavit addressing communication of the derived invention and lack  of authorization that, if un-rebutted, would 
support a determination of derivation. The show ing of communication must be corroborated. 
A petitioner usually is in the best position to show that he or she conceived the invention and then 
communicated the invention to the respondent. A petitioner must provide corroboration of the communication as well as any testimony from the petitioner. 
35 USC 135(b) provides for rules that include requiring parties to a proceeding (i.e., after a 
proceeding has been instituted) to prove (petitioner) or rebut (respondent) a claim of derivation. Once a proceeding has been instituted the respon dent would then be in a position where rebuttal 
of the showing of derivation may be required. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) 
Derivation Proceedings (2) 
New section 291 provides an owner of a patent with relief by civil action, and new section 135 
provides a patent applicant with a derivation procedure in the USPTO. Japan understands that 
these two procedures are common in providing a tr ue inventor with remedy. However, the scope 
for section 291 and the scope for the section 135 seem to differ from each other. The scope of 
section 291 is defined as "the same invention" but the scope of section 135 is defined as "an 
invention that is the same or substantially the same." Japan would like to know the reason for this difference of scope. 
RESPONSE:  Derivation proceedings before the USPTO require at least one party to be an 
applicant for patent, whereas derivation proceedings in district courts require both parties to be patentees. Further, in derivation proceedings conducted by the USPTO, the petitioner is not 
required to claim the same invention, since, under the statute (35 USC 135(a)), it may have a 
claim that is substantially the same as the respondent's claimed invention. Our rules (37 CRR 42.401) provide that "same or substantially the same" means patentably indistinct. New Section 
291 provides for possible relief in a district court where the inventions are in issued U.S. patents 
and are directed to "the same invention." 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) Preissuance Submission by a third party When a third party makes a pre-issuance submission, the third party must submit a statement 
which includes a name and signature. Of course, some third parties may want to maintain their WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 279 - 
 
  anonymity and have an attorney make a pre-issuan ce submission instead. However, the name of 
attorney could lead an applicant to identify the third party who used the attorney. If the name of 
the attorney that made the pre-issuance submissi on is disclosed in the process of putting the 
submitted information into the file wrapper and is made available to the applicant, the third party 
might not be able to remain anonymous. Does the U.S. have any plans to take any measures 
against this possible concern? 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO cannot permit a third-party submission to be presented unsigned by the 
submitter in view of the signature requiremen t in 37 CFR 1.4 for papers filed in a patent 
application, which require a person's signature. Third-party submissions are required to be signed 
because 37 CFR 1.290(d)(5) and (g) require statemen ts by the party making the submission. Third 
parties are free to select the practitioner that will  file the submission. There is no requirement that 
the practitioner must be the practitioner who ordinarily prosecutes the third party's applications. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) Inter Partes Review 37CFR §42.100(c) of the Final Rules provide as foll ows: "An inter partes review proceeding shall 
be administered such that pendency before the Bo ard after institution is normally no more than 
o n e  y e a r .  T h e  t i m e  c a n  b e  e x t e n d e d  b y  u p  t o  s i x  m o n t h s  f o r  g o o d  c a u s e  b y  t h e  C h i e f  Administrative Patent Judge, … An inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, which is to be concluded within one year, is preferable for patent users who desire speedy settlement of disputes. At the 
same time, an extension of up to six months  will be granted if there is good cause." 
Please explain what situations are considered to exhibit "good cause". RESPONSE:  Extensions of the one-year period are anticipated to be rare. §§ 42.100(c) and 
42.200(c). Whether good cause is shown will depend on the particular facts of a given case and 
cannot be articulated with certainty in the abstract. One example may be where, through no fault of either party, new evidence is uncovered late in the proceeding that necessitates a motion to 
amend the patent. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) 
Post Grant Review: 37 CFR § 42.200(c) of the Proposed Rules provide as follows: "A post-grant 
review proceeding shall be administered such that  pendency before the Board after institution is 
normally no more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six months for good cause by 
the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, 
A post-grant review (PGR) proceeding, which is to be concluded within one year, is preferable for 
patent users who desire speedy settlement of disput es. At the same time, an extension of up to six 
months will be granted if there is good cause." 
Please explain in what situations "good cause" is demonstrated. RESPONSE:  Extensions of the one-year period are anticipated to be rare. §§ 42.100(c) and 
42.200(c). Whether good cause is shown will depend on the particular facts of a given case and cannot be articulated with certainty in the abstract. One example may be where, through no fault WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 280 - 
 
  of either party, new evidence is uncovered late in the proceeding that necessitates a motion to 
amend the patent. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question)  
Early Publication with "opt out": The early publication system in the United States allows an 
application to "opt out" of publication if an applicant makes a request certifying that the invention 
disclosed in the application has not and will not be  the subject of an application filed in another 
country. Since a third party cannot learn whethe r another person has already filed a patent 
application on the same invention, the system allowing opting out creates serious social and economic loss to investments in R&D. While this presents a serious problem, the AIA has not made 
any changes on the exception from the early publication system. 
Japan urges the United States to implement fully  and promptly what has already been confirmed 
under the Framework Talks: i.e., by abolishing the exceptions from the early U.S. publication 
system, and by publishing all applications except  those which are no longer pending, and those 
which are subject to secrecy orders, after the period  of 18 months from the earliest priority date. 
Please explain the U.S.'s view on this matter. 
Moreover, with regard to the early publication system in the United States, the United States 
initiated a public comment process on "the Feasibility of Placing Economically Significant Patents 
Under a Secrecy Order and the Need To Review Criteria Used in Determining Secrecy Orders 
Related to National Security" in April 2012. Please explain any progress and results with respect to this public comment process. 
RESPONSE:  The opt-out provision is exercised only in very rare cases, having declined from about 
10% of filings in 2002 to only about 5% in 2009. In other words, the USPTO currently publishes 
about 95% of all applications at 18 months, equating in raw numbers to 333,668 published U.S. 
applications in 2009. Moreover, the percentage of opt-outs is expected to decrease further as the USPTO continues to consider operational impr ovements to reduce pendency and decrease 
examination backlogs. The USPTO's strategic plan, for instance, calls for a reduction in first action 
pendency to 10 months and overall pendency to 20 months by 2016. Furthermore, the AIA 
provides a mechanism for prioritized examination and final disposition within 12 months upon payment of an additional fee. These procedur al changes should substantially mitigate, and 
potentially effectively eliminate, opt-outs, as a result of more applicants being provided with more 
information about patentability of the invention in advance of the 18-month publication mark. It is worth noting the absence of any empirical data or other "hard" evidence demonstrating that 
opt-outs, even at current rates, are creating any substantial localized or systemic problems 
requiring a rebalancing of interests under the U.S. approach. 
As stated in 77 FR 23662, Congress asked the USPTO to collect comments on whether the 
currently performed screening of patent applications for national security concerns should be extended to protect economically significant patents from discovery by foreign entities. Comments were accepted from April to June, 2012. 
The USPTO received twenty eight comments from  individuals, associations, universities, 
businesses, and foreign governments. The vast majority of these comments were opposed to the 
idea of a new secrecy order regime. These commen ts were shared with Congress to aid in their 
ongoing oversight of the patent examination system. At this time no further action is contemplated. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 281 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question) Unity of Invention: With regard to unity of inve ntion, under the current U.S. patent system, the 
scope of inventions that can be included in a single application is, according to what we have 
requested so far, narrower than that under the sy stems of the JPO and the European Patent Office 
(EPO). Thus, a patentee is obliged to submit mult iple applications, thereby increasing their burden. 
The Government of Japan wishes to repeat its request to the Government of the United States to adopt the same criterion for its unity of invention as that of Japan and Europe. The U.S.'s view on 
the matter would be appreciated. We understand that the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office (USPTO) is reviewing this matter within its working group for enhancing efficiency of patent examination work. Please explain the progress on reviewing this matter. 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO acknowledges that unity of invention practice results in fewer 
requirements in certain circumstances and that it is the sole practice in other national jurisdictions. An applicant may select the unity of invention practice in the United States by filing an 
International Application and entering the National Stage as to the United States. Alternatively, 
applicants may file a national application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to select our national restriction practice. The USPTO has extensively considered whether and how best to use only the unity of invention practice for all applications. Consistent with the review of unity of invention practice, the 
USPTO is currently undertaking efforts to change other aspects of its patent examination practice, 
such as adopting a cooperative patent classification system which is consistent with international patent classification, which will offset some of the negative concerns that the USPTO has regarding 
adopting unity of invention practice as the sole practice in the United States. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
Page 92, Paragraph 175 
(Question)  
Information Disclosure Requirement of Prior Art Documents 
All applicants for United States patents must disclose important prior art documents to the 
US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as far as they know until they obtain patents. In 
addition, they are obliged to submit English translations of prior art documents as a whole or in 
part, in the case that the documents are not in English. The Government of Japan urges the 
Government of the United States to take meas ures to reduce the burden on foreign patent 
applicants, including eliminating the requirement to submit English translations and shortening the 
period of the information disclosure requirement. Please explain the U.S. view on this. 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO is considering the Government of Japan's concerns over USPTO 
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) requirements. The USPTO is continuing to assess the capacity and capability of machine language translating tools to address the issues raised above 
while also promoting effective and efficient examination. 
The general requirement to provide material do cuments known by applicants throughout the 
examination process, however, is not under review at this time as that requirement promotes 
effective and efficient examination practice and provides an efficient mechanism for applicants to 
comply with the judicially created duty of discl osure. Applicants are often aware of the most 
pertinent prior art which relates to their invention. Since patent prosecution is ex parte and does 
not generally rely on third parties to provide the most relevant prior art documents, it is 
reasonable to require applicants to provide relevant documents that they are aware of. Other initiatives to promptly provide examining office s with access to documents cited in counterpart WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 282 - 
 
  applications will reduce this burden on applicants when the planed information sharing tools are in 
place. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
(i) Enforcement 
Page 96, Paragraph 191 
(Question) With regard to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC establishes a "target date" for final 
determination in each investigation within 45 days of the initiation of an investigation. Please 
indicate the average number of days between the in itiation of an investigation and (1)"the target 
date", or (2) the actual date of final determinatio n. Please provide us with the data of (1) and (2) 
for the past three years (2010-2012 to date). 
RESPONSE:  The question draws a distinction between the "target date" on the one hand and the 
"actual date of completion" on the other. The ITC sets a target date based on a range of factors, 
including the circumstances of the case. After setti ng the target date, the ITC can adjust target 
dates as the investigation proceeds if the need arises based on the circumstances of the case. The 
ITC also adjusts target dates in cases in which the parties reach a settlement prior to the target date or for other reasons. Accordingly, the number of days between institution and the target date 
actual date of completion may vary considerably depending on the circumstances of the individual 
case. 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE 
(i) Agriculture in the United States 
Page 100, Paragraph 5 
(Question) With regard to the increase in the total number of  farms in the past ten years, please provide the 
reason, the particular sector which is being entered, as well as the age composition and the level 
of income of these new farmers. Japan would also like to learn new policy measures, if any, to 
encourage entry into the agricultural sector. 
RESPONSE: While the US Census indicates an increase in total number of farms, the increase is 
not an indicator of the number of new farmers. During the last Census, the US Census Bureau 
made a concerted effort to identify and count very small farms. Much of the increase in total farms 
in the US Census likely reflects the counting of farms that are not new, but just have not been 
counted previously. These farms are not necessarily  operated by beginning farmers. Moreover, it 
should be noted that entry of new farms does not necessarily mean the total number of farms are increasing. The change in the total number of farms is the difference between entry of new farms 
and exit of established farms. In agriculture, as in any industry, there is a considerable amount of 
entry and exit. 
The Census of Agriculture, conducted by USDA, in dicates that both the number and share of farms 
that have principal farm operators with less than 10 years farming their operation have been declining, since at least 1982. In 1982, 38 per cent of principal farm operators had less than 10 years of experience farming, compared with 26 per cent of principal farm operators in the latest 
Census of Agriculture (2007). 
The majority of beginning farmers are under the age of 55, but one-third are over 55 and more 
than 10 per cent are 65 or older. Beginning farms ar e more likely to not have any positive value of 
production than established farms. In 2010, 30 per cent of beginning farms did not have any 
positive value of production. This is true for a variety of reasons, including production failures, or newly planted crops, such as fruit and nut trees th at have not yet matured. However, the majority WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 283 - 
 
  of farms without production likely did not intend to have production because they are largely small 
farms whose operator earns significant off-farm income and/or who is elderly. 
For a full description of the beginning farmer and rancher programs under the 2008 Farm Act see: 
http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1rf5mh0k/http://w ww.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Titles/Underser
ved.htm .  
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE 
(ii) Agriculture policies 
Page 104, Paragraph 18 
(Question) In which category of the DS:1 notification is the budget for "Quality Samples Program", "Market 
Access Program" and the other programmes referred to in this paragraph classified? 
RESPONSE: These programs are not considered domestic support. These programs are widely 
available export promotion and advisory servic es. The funds provided under the programs are 
prohibited from being used to directly reduce export prices. The US Department of Agriculture has 
a rigorous compliance system to ensure that funds are consistent with program requirements. USDA also monitors the implementation of these programs through a network of industry contacts. 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE (ii) Agriculture policies 
Page 107, Paragraph 28 
(Question) Please provide the reason why the premium subsid ies for insurance have substantially increased 
from US$4.7 billion in CY2010 to US$7.2 billion in CY2011. Japan would also like to learn the 
changes in the number of subscribers, covered area s and the insurance premiums (and the rate of 
subsidies), with regard to the increasing value of crops protected by insurance from US$67 billion in 2007 to US$114 billion in 2011. 
RESPONSE: In 2010, total program liability (amount of coverage for producers) was about 
$78.1 billion, with a total premium amount of about $7.6 billion. Expected prices for some major commodities (particularly corn, soybeans, and wheat) increased significantly from 2010 to 2011. As a result, total program liability (which is a direct function of commodity prices) increased to 
$114.2 billion, with a corresponding increase in premium to about $12.0 billion. Because of the 
higher premium amount in 2011, premium subsidy in 2011 increased by a commensurate amount. Additional data is available from RMA's website at the following URL: 
http://www3.rma.usda.gov/apps/sob/national.cfm . 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE 
(ii) Agriculture policies 
Page 107, Paragraphs 28,29 
(Question) With regard to the Supplemental Revenue Assurance Program (SURE), Japan would like to learn if 
farmers suffering from disasters can receive insurance payments both from private insurance 
subsidized by the government and disaster assistance measures such as SURE. Is there a possibility of a case in which a farmer would rece ive subsidies that more than offset the income 
loss caused by disasters? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 284 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States notes that the SURE program is no longer operational and only 
covered crop losses due to natural disasters before  October 1, 2011. To have been eligible for 
SURE, a producer had to obtain a policy or insurance plan for all crops on the farm through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or obtained Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program 
(NAP) coverage, if available, from the Farm Service Agency. 
It was not possible for a farm to receive SURE and crop insurance payments that more than offset 
income loss due to a disaster. The SURE program provided payments of 60 per cent of the 
difference between a farm's SURE Disaster Prog ram Guarantee and Total Farm Revenue. A farm's 
SURE Guarantee could be no more than 90 per cent of total expected revenue for the farm, and Total Farm Revenue included both crop value and crop insurance indemnities, NAP payments and other government support payments. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/275) II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS 
(i) Reciprocal trade agreements (a) New agreements with Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and Panama 
(Question1: Page 17, Paragraph 13) 
Please clarify that the definition of Mode 4 under the GATS is different from that of the 
US-Colombia and US-Panama FTAs, specifically in th at "entry" of foreign service suppliers (natural 
persons) is not within the scope of these two agreements. 
RESPONSE: The two referenced U.S. agreements are si milar to the GATS, both with respect to 
their scope of coverage and definition of Mode 4. For purposes of the GATS, "trade in services" is 
defined to include "the supply of a service … by a service supplier of one Member, through 
presence of natural persons of a Member in th e territory of any another Member" (GATS Article 
I(2)). For purposes of the Cross-Border Trade in Services chapters of the referenced agreements, 
"cross-border trade in services" is defined to include "the supply of a service … by a national of a 
Party in the territory of another Party" ( see, e.g. , Article 11.14 of the United States-Colombia 
Trade Promotion Agreement). However, nothing in these chapters or in any other provision of the referenced agreements imposes any obligation on Parties regarding immigration measures, including admission or conditions of admission for entry. 
(b) Overview of the other free-trade agreements 
(Question2: Page 18, Paragraph 16) Please provide the current U.S. policy with regard to the commitments in US free trade 
agreements on the movement of natural persons, if it is publicized. 
RESPONSE: With few exceptions, U.S. trade agreements do not contain a chapter on temporary 
entry of business persons and do not impose any obligation on Parties regarding immigration 
measures, including admission or conditions of admission for entry. 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREMENTS AND POLICIES 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
(Question3: Page 28, Paragraph 35, 36) 
a) Under the Foreign Participation Order, it is not clear whether agencies other than the FCC 
participate in the review process or not. Could the US tell us the legal rationale of the review by "Team Telecom" and who chooses the team members? Is the review process made public? 
RESPONSE:  As explained in the Foreign Participation Order, the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) review of foreign investment includes a consideration of law enforcement, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 285 - 
 
  national security, trade, and foreign policy conc erns. Typically, the agencies of the Executive 
Branch with jurisdiction over those issues provide the FCC with an analysis of the issue for the FCC 
to consider in its consideration of the public interest under the US Communications Act. Those Executive Branch agencies include but are not limited to the Department of Justice, Department of 
Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the US Trade Representative, and 
Department of State. All FCC proceedings, incl uding those concerning foreign investment, are 
subject to the applicable requirements of the Un ited States Administrative Procedure Act and the 
procedural rules adopted by the FCC itself.  
b)  Is there any possibility that the conclusion  of the CFIUS review and "Team Telecom" review 
will be different? Are the review criteria different? 
RESPONSE: The Federal Communications Commission (F CC) review of foreign investment is 
conducted pursuant to the United States Communi cations Act and the regulations adopted by the 
FCC. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review of foreign investment is conducted pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as 
amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and 
as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as am ended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE 
(vi) Trade-related intell ectual property rights 
(i) Enforcement (Question4: Pages 96, Paragraph 191) 
With regard to the question concerning Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, please provide the 
length of time for the investigations for the past three years in the same manner as provided during the review in 2010. 
(Response from the United States at the review in 2010 (WT/TPR/M/235/Add.1): Generally 
speaking, investigations in the last three years have been completed in approximately 16-17 months. During calendar year 2008, the time fo r completion was somewhat shorter, 15 months. 
During calendar year 2009, the length of time until final determination was longer, approximately 
20 months. And during calendar year 2010 to date, the period of time before final determination has been on average 16.9 months. The length of time may vary depending on such factors as the number of parties, the complexity of the issues , and the schedules of the parties involved.) 
RESPONSE: Generally speaking, section 337 investigations in the last three years, for which data 
is available, have been completed in approximately 14-18 months. During fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the average time for completion was 18 months. During fiscal year 2011, the length of time 
until final determination was 14 months. The length of time may vary depending on such factors 
as the number of parties, the complexity of the issues, and the schedules of the parties involved. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 286 - 
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
PART I: Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report 
III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
Page 31 (Para 3) 
CBP is also responsible for supervision or oversigh t of certain import processes or provisions. For 
example, CBP regulations allow for the "in-bond process", which provides that imported goods may be transported in-bond to another port of entry an d entered there under the same conditions as at 
the port of arrival. CBP recently proposed new rules or procedures for the in-bond process, but 
final rules have not yet been issued. CBP also oversees "Foreign Trade Zones" (FTZs) which are located at or near CBP ports of entry and allo w merchandise to enter and be further processed 
before entering the customs territory of the United States or being re-exported. 
Question 1 
Making customs procedures efficient is essential to ensuring that importers and exporters are not 
unduly harmed by delayed processing and increased costs. U.S. importers who are importing 
goods from Korea are deeply concerned about the time and expense related to customs procedure. 
For instance, CBP examinations could result in a de lay in the release of imported goods of up to 9 
to 12 days if secondary examinations are required. Further, the additional expense associated with 
the primary and secondary examinations would total up to $1,500 per container. Korea 
understands that one of the CBP's missions is to ensure national security, however, it is also important that this mission be balanced with facilitating international trade which is another important mission for CBP. 
Could the United States explain its plans, if any, that it has prepared or is preparing to make its 
customs procedure more efficient and transparent? 
RESPONSE: The United States is recognized as having one of the most transparent and efficient 
customs agencies in the world. Even with this  standing, the U.S. customs agency, CBP, is 
committed to streamlining and modernizing trade practices to benefit trade partners around the world and has enjoyed many successful accomplishme nts. CBP has, in conjunction with the trade 
industry, worked to devise and test programs and processes that streamline work in ways that will 
benefit security and regulatory functions. CBP is committed to approaching its work with imports in a risk-based manner, committing its resources and reviews to those goods that warrant further scrutiny while expediting those goods that present a minimal risk of non-compliance with CBP 
laws, regulations, and procedural requirements. The United States remains committed to a modern 
and cost-effective customs regime by its continued and active participation in the DOHA Round Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation. 
Page 48 (Para 48) 
The United States abandoned the use of zeroing when  calculating margins in original investigations 
based on weighted average to weighted average comparisons in 2006. However, in February 2012, 
after publishing a proposed modification, receiving public comments, and consulting with 
Congress, the US Department of Commerce modified its methodology to address the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, expedited, and sunset reviews. In administrative reviews, 
"except where the Department determines that ap plication of a different comparison method is 
more appropriate, the Department will compare monthly weighted average export prices with 
monthly weighted average normal values, and will grant an offset" where the export price exceeds the normal value. Further, in sunset reviews "it will not rely on weighted average dumping margins 
that were calculated using the methodology determined by the Appellate Body to be 
WTO-inconsistent." The new rules apply to all reviews pending before the Department for which preliminary results were issued after 16 April 2012. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 287 - 
 
  Question 2 
In the amended regulation of the Department of Commerce, it states that in its administrative 
reviews "except where the Department determines that application of a different comparison method is more appropriate, the Department will compare monthly weighted average export prices 
with monthly weighted average normal values." How will the Department make the determination 
whether the application of a different comparison method is appropriate? 
Also, please explain whether such a different comparison method, in particular, "Weighted 
Averaged to Transaction ("A-T") methodology without granting offset" is applicable in the original 
investigation. If it is, please explain the legal basis with regard to relevant international rules as well as the domestic laws and regulations of the U.S. 
RESPONSE: As explained in the February 2012 notice, in investigations and reviews, except 
where the Department of Commerce determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the Department of Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant an offset for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping 
and the antidumping duty assessment rate. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, the Department of Commerce has evaluated whether an average-to-transaction comparison 
method is appropriate, based on the facts of the particular case. 
Page 57 (Para 68) 
A new law pertaining to conflict minerals was contained in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act, which entered into effect on 21 July 2010. The law foresees reporting 
and disclosing the source of four minerals, some of which are mainly used in the electronic 
industry. Reporting would be required by companies listed in the U.S. stock exchanges or those that raise capital in the United States. Draft rules and regulations implementing the law were 
issued by the SEC in 2010 for comment, and final rule s were expected in 2011, but have so far not 
been issued (1 July 2012). Thus, the actual reporting requirements and their impact are not known at this time. The State of California has adopted a similar law pertaining to conflict minerals, which 
will be implemented when the Dodd-Frank rules are finalized. Maryland has also enacted a law on 
conflict minerals. 
Question 3 
With regard to the Conflict Mineral Provision of the Dodd Frank Act, Korea would like to express its 
concerns as this Provision will have widespread  effect on all trading partners of the US. 
The provision requires a due diligence of the supp ly chain to verify whether the four designated 
conflict minerals have been used in the product. As a result, many foreign companies that supply 
goods to the US companies will be obligated to carry  out a due diligence to verify whether they are 
using conflict minerals if they wish to continue supplying to U.S. companies. 
In this regard, the U.S. explained at a bilateral consultation that it has plans to prepare a guideline 
on the implementation of the Provision. Will it include any consideration for exporters and when 
will this guideline be published? 
RESPONSE: The Securities and Exchange Commission is in the process of collecting interpretive 
questions regarding the final rule, and the staff of the Commission may issue answers to the 
questions received. There are no current plans to prepare general guidance on the implementation 
of the final rule. Any specific interpretive questions regarding the final rule should be directed to John Fieldsend at the Commission either by  phone at (202) 551-3430 or by e-mail at 
fieldsendj@sec.gov. 
Page 62 Box III.1: The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 
Registration: Under Section 102 of the FSMA, food facilities are required to renew their 
registration with the FDA (required under Section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FD&C Act)) every two years. "Food facilities" include places that manufacture, process, pack, or WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 288 - 
 
  hold food for consumption in the United States , including foreign facilities. This biennial 
registration renewal requirement which must be submitted between 1 October and 31 December, begins in 2012. 
Question 4 
Is food from a foreign food facility that fails to renew its registration within the specified period 
prohibited from being brought into the U.S. at any point after January 1, 2013? 
RESPONSE: A foreign food facility that manufactures/processes, packs, or holds food for 
consumption in the United States must be registered with the FDA in accordance with section 415 
of the FD&C Act in order to import, or offer to import, food from such facility into the United States. FDA intends to issue further guidance regarding the failure to renew a food facility registration in the near future. In the meantime, it is recommended that food facilities complete 
the registration renewal process in order to remain in compliance with section 415 of FD&C Act, as 
amended by FSMA.  
Question 5 
Will a food facility that fails to renew its registration within the specified period be allowed to 
renew the registration after January 1, 2013? 
RESPONSE:  Section 415 of the FD&C Act specifies that food facilities must renew their 
registrations with FDA during the period beginning on October 1 to December 31 of each 
even-numbered year. FDA intends to issue further guidance regarding the failure to renew food facility registrations in the near future.  
Question 6 
What are the measures to be imposed on a food facility that fails to renew its registration within 
the specified period (for example, the sending of warning notices, the imposing of fines, etc.)? 
RESPONSE:  FDA's enforcement strategy related to food facility registration renewal is still under 
consideration. FDA intends to issues further guidance regarding the failure to renew food facility 
registrations in the near future 
Page 63 Box III.1: The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 
Inspections: (.......) Under section 807 of the FD&C  Act, if a foreign factory, warehouse, or other 
establishment refuses an inspection (defined as no t permitting an inspection within 24 hours of a 
request or such other time period as agreed upon) food from the establishment is subject to refusal of admission into the United States.  
Question 7 
If a food facility agrees to an inspection after 24 hours of a request or another such time period as 
agreed upon, what procedures should the facility follow? Are there any disadvantages such as fine 
for the facility? 
RESPONSE: The purpose of an FDA inspection is to determine a facility's compliance with the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and relevant  regulations of Title 21 of the US Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), including, when applicable, Part 110 (Current Good Manufacturing 
Practices (GMP) in Manufacturing, Packing, or Ho lding Human Food) and any other U.S. regulations 
applicable to the specific type of food produced. For instance, canned foods will be inspected for compliance with the low-acid canned or acidified food regulations in 21 CFR Parts 113 and 114. 
Dietary supplements will be inspected for compliance with good manufacturing practices for 
dietary supplements, 21 CFR Part 111. A single inspection may focus on multiple requirements, such as a canned tuna product that may be inspected for compliance with seafood hazard analysis 
and critical control point (HACCP) systems, canning regulations, labeling requirements and current 
GMPs. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 289 - 
 
  These are routine inspections of individual facilities designed to evaluate a facility's adherence with 
applicable U.S. laws. 
Generally, FDA does not provide checklists for its food inspections. However, for low-acid canned 
foods, facilities can use the FDA inspection forms to conduct self-audits of their canning facility and 
specific processing systems. These forms can be found on FDA's website at About FDA FDA Forms. 
For additional information on FDA's requirements  and inspectional procedures please see the 
following: 
 US Code of Federal Regulations for foods under FDA's jurisdiction- Title 21 Food and Drugs: 
e-CFR-TITLE 21--Food and Drugs. 
 Investigations Operations Manual (IOM): Chapter 5 of the IOM covers general procedures 
used by FDA investigators when conducting inspections: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Insp ections/IOM/default.htm .  
 Compliance Program Guidance Manuals (Compliance Programs) are commodity specific 
inspection manuals used by FDA investigators during inspections: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals /ComplianceProgramManual/default.htm .  
 General information on FDA Inspections, Compliance and Enforcement Activities: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/default.htm .  
 Inspection Technical Guides: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspec tions/InspectionGuides/Inspe ctionTechnicalGuides/default.
htm.  
Question 8 
When does a food facility receive the results of the inspection? 
RESPONSE: As appropriate, FDA may take official action based on the inspectional findings, 
including subjecting the facility and its products to an Import Alert, issuing violation letters, or 
other activities. If the inspection verifies that the facility is in compliance with FDA's requirements 
and food safety standards, a copy of the narrative  Establishment Inspection Report is sent to the 
facility. If significant problems are identified, FDA will provide a copy of the narrative report to the 
facility's management after violations are resolved or after FDA has taken any necessary 
regulatory action. For additional information on FDA's requirements and inspectional procedures please see the websites in the previous response. 
If significant problems are identified during the inspection, FDA issues inspectional observations 
(Form FDA-483) to the company's management at the inspection close-out meeting. Facilities may 
use this meeting to request clarification, to  demonstrate to the FDA inspection team any 
corrections that were implemented during the inspec tion, and to explain any corrections the facility 
intends to make at a later time. After completing a foreign inspection, the investigator completes a 
written narrative of the inspection, known as an Establishment Inspection Report. 
The FDA Form 483 does not constitute a final Agency determination of whether any condition is in 
violation of the FD&C Act or any of its relevant regulations. The FDA Form 483 is considered, along 
with a written report called an Establishment Inspection Report, all evidence or documentation collected on-site, and any responses made by th e company. The Agency considers all of this 
information and then determines what further action, if any, is appropriate to protect public 
health. 
Please visit the following site for additional information on FDA Form 483: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enfo rcementActions/ucm256377.htm .  
Facilities are encouraged to submit their responses to a FDA-483, along with supporting 
documentation, within 15 business days after the close-out meeting.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 290 - 
 
  If the firm is not able to provide information that overcomes a violation, FDA will take this into 
consideration when taking appropriate regulatory action against the firm or its products. Normally, FDA will notify the firm in writing of any regulatory action taken within 2-6 months after the inspection visit. One the inspection is considered closed by FDA, FDA shares a copy of the full 
inspection report with the firm.  
Before the FDA determines whether it will carry out a re-inspection, does the facility have an 
opportunity to appeal the results of the initial inspection? 
RESPONSE: It is FDA's practice for FDA investigators and analysts to discuss observations with 
the person in charge at the establishment while the inspection is being conducted, as appropriate, and at the end of the inspection during the closeo ut meeting. This practice ensures that inspected 
facilities have an opportunity to discuss the investigator's observations before the investigator 
issues the Inspectional Observations form, FDA-483, if one is issued. 
Please visit the following site for additional information on FDA Form 483: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enfo rcementActions/ucm256377.htm .  
FDA investigators will verify any completed corrective actions so long as the verification does not 
unreasonably extend the duration of the inspection . FDA also may verify corrective actions through 
communications with the facility, by conducting examinations or sampling at ports of entry, by 
conducting a compliance follow-up inspection, or any combination of these. If significant problems 
are identified during the inspection, FDA issues an FDA-483 (Inspectional Observations form) to the company's management at the inspection close-out meeting. Facilities may use this meeting to request clarification, to demonstrate to the FDA inspection team any corrections that were 
implemented during the inspection, and to explain any corrections the facility intends to make at a 
later time. After completing a foreign inspection, the investigator completes a written narrative of 
the inspection, known as an Establishment Inspection Report. 
At the inspection close-out meeting, the FDA investigator will provide instructions to the facility 
about how to respond in writing to FDA. The facility's submission should include a letter explaining all corrective actions taken by the facility that were not implemented and verified by the 
investigator during the inspection. In addition, the facility's response should include supporting 
documentation, which may include records of repair, implementation of new monitoring activities, pictures, revised HACCP plans, or any other info rmation that may be necessary to demonstrate 
that appropriate corrective action has been completed. Please refer to the following weblink for 
additional information on how FDA conducts close-out meetings with a facility's management. 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspec tions/IOM/ucm122530.htm#5.2.7 .  
Facilities are encouraged to submit their responses to a FDA-483, along with supporting 
documentation, within 15 business days after the close-out meeting. Please see following website 
for additional information about facilities responses to FDA-483:  
 Discussions With Management20 
(http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspec tions/IOM/ucm122530.htm#5.2.7 ). 
 Procedures21 (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspec tions/IOM/UCM1 22530#5.2.1.1.3 ). 
FDA encourages facilities to submit responses in Acrobat-PDF format to the following e-mail 
account: FDA483responseinternational@fda.hhs.gov. FDA will send a confirmatory e-mail in return 
to acknowledge receipt. 
If electronic submission is not possible, a hardcopy package may be-mailed to the following postal 
address: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nu trition, Office of Compliance, Division of 
Enforcement, Food Adulteration Assessment Branch (HFS-607), US Food and Drug Administration, 
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Fax #: 301-436-2716. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 291 - 
 
  PART II: Questions Regarding the Government Report 
III. Openness and Accountability: Building Support for Trade 
Page 13 (Para 44) 
The United States also continues to develop the FTA Tariff Tool, a free online tool launched in 
2011, which helps more small businesses take better advantage of tariff reduction and elimination 
under U.S. trade agreements. 
Question 9 
Does the U.S. educate, on a regular basis, SME owners to help them better use the FTA Tariff 
Tool? 
RESPONSE:  The U.S. has widely disseminated information on the FTA Tariff Tool to SME 
stakeholders under the NEI and continues to do so at outreach events targeted at small business 
exporters. 
IV. Trade Policy Developments Since 2010 Page 16 (Para 57) 
USTR coordinates the Administration's active moni toring of foreign government compliance with 
trade agreements to which the United States is a party and pursues enforcement actions, negotiating agreements, employing WTO and FTA institutional mechanism, using dispute 
settlement procedures, and applying the full range of U.S. trade laws when necessary. Vigorous 
investigation efforts by relevant agencies help ensure that these agreements yield the maximum benefits in terms of ensuring market access for Americans, advancing the rule of law internationally, and creating a fair, open, and predictable trading environment. Ensuring full 
implementation of U.S. trade agreements is one of the Administration's strategic priorities. 
Question 10 
The statutory time-frames for the ITC's injury investigation and the DOC's AD and CVD 
investigations seem to be harsh on respondent s. Despite the shorter statutory deadlines, the 
extent of information required by both agencies  has multiplied a hundred fold. This combination of 
increased demand for information and shortened de adlines has significantly impaired respondents' 
ability to compile, prepare, and submit all of the necessary data in a timely manner. 
Could the United States consider introducing a mandatory pre-initiation investigatory phase, 
during which the agencies could consult with all of the prospective parties to the investigation, 
thereby minimizing the adverse impact th at can be caused by short deadlines? 
RESPONSE: The United States disagrees that the info rmation requested by the Department of 
Commerce and the USITC to make their respective  determinations has increased a hundred fold, 
or by any substantial measure. Each agency requests information that is necessary to make its 
respective determination in accordance with US WTO obligations. In addition, the United States 
has a very transparent system, which provides a number of opportunities for all interested parties to provide the necessary information in defense of their interests as well as opportunities to brief 
and rebut arguments in their cases. The United States' practice is in full compliance with its WTO 
obligations, and it conducts its investigations within the time frames outlined in the Agreements. It remains unclear what Korea envisions taking place during a "pre-initiation investigation" that includes the participation of all prospective parties. Nonetheless, to implement such a mandatory 
pre-initiation investigation before conducting an actual investigation would not only call into 
question its consistency with WTO obligations, but likely would increase the time, workload and costs on all parties involved. The United States does not believe such a pre-initiation investigation 
is in the interest of any party, nor would it improve our system. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 292 - 
 
  Page 21 (Para 85) 
(…..) In early 2012, the TEC Investment Working Group successfully negotiated a text of shared 
principles for international investment policies, which the two sides will seek to persuade other countries to embrace. 
Question 11 
Could the United States elaborate on the content of  the text of shared principles for international 
investment policies? How is it different from BITs or the OECD's principles on international 
investment? 
RESPONSE: The Shared Principles for International In vestment prescribe elements of a policy 
environment that enables and encourages internatio nal investment, in light of the broad economic 
benefits that such investment engenders. These include: open and non-discriminatory investment 
policies; a level competitive playing field; strong protections for investors and their investments; 
recourse to effective dispute settlement procedures; and high levels of transparency and opportunity for public participation in government rule-making. 
The Principles are a statement of the shared and continuing commitment of the United States and 
the European Union to adopt and maintain open, non-discriminatory, and transparency regimes for 
international investment, and to promote such regimes elsewhere in the world. As such, the 
Principles text is not a legal document, although certain of its elements are often reflected and 
given effect in international agreements such as bilateral investment treaties. The Principles are a complement to existing instruments and initiatives promoting open investment, in some cases making direct reference to, for example, the work of the OECD. 
PART III: Other Questions 
Question 12 
The United States classifies sunscreen products as OTC drugs. Could the United States elaborate 
on the rationale for this classification? 
Background information 
The number of UV blocking agents approved for use in the U.S. is very limited (please refer to the 
table below). It is assumed that it may be related with the unique classification of sunscreen 
products in the US A sunscreen product is classified  as an over-the-counter drug in the U.S. while 
it is classified as cosmetics in Japan, China, Europe and many other countries. For exports to the U.S., manufacturers must submit safety and efficacy  data if they wish to use UV blocking agents 
other than those approved for use in sunscreen products. There are concerns that this creates 
trade barriers to foreign cosmetics businesses. 
Country Korea United States Europe Japan 
Classification of sunscreen products Functional 
Cosmetics OTC drug General 
Cosmetics General 
Cosmetics 
Number of UV blocking 
agent types approved for 
use  34 16 31 34 
RESPONSE: Specifically, under U.S. statutes (the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), a 
product that is intended for use in the prevention of disease, or to affect any structure or function of the body, is a drug (21 U.S.C. § 321(g)). Sun screen products that are intended to help prevent 
sunburn, and, with other sun protection measures, to decrease the risk of skin cancer and early 
skin aging caused by the sun, fall within this de finition. Drugs are subject to legal requirements to 
establish that they are both safe an d effective for their intended uses. 
The UV ingredients identified below are recognized under US regulations (OTC drug monographs) 
for use in sunscreens intended for these uses, without requiring individual product applications. Ingredients not included in existing drug monographs can be used if a new drug application is WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 293 - 
 
  approved for the product. Regulations also perm it additional ingredients to be added to the 
sunscreen monograph, if there is a sufficient history of marketing sunscreens with those ingredients and sufficient safety and efficacy data (21 C.F.R. § 330.14.) The US FDA is considering requests to add several more ingredients to the sunscreen monograph under these procedures. 
 For imports into the U.S., manufacturers must submit safety and efficacy data if they wish to use 
UV blocking agents other than those recognized under the OTC monograph system for use in sunscreen products. There are concerns that this creates trade barriers to foreign cosmetics 
businesses. 
Question 13 
The number of color additives approved for eye area use is very limited in the US Could the U.S. 
explain the reasons for such regulations for the additives? 
Background information 
Of the listing of 36 color additives subject to certification (21 CFR 74, subpart C), the U.S FDA only 
approved 4 types of color additives for eye-area use (Blue 1, Green 5, Red 40, Yellow 5); this is 
quite a limited number of color additives approved for eye-area use compared to Korea, Japan and 
Europe where 29 types, 58 types and 52 types are approved respectively. Generally, most 
countries tend to approve approximately 50% or more of approved color additives for eye-area 
use (Please refer to the table below.). 
Country Korea United 
States Europe Japan 
Tar-derived color additives approved for use in cosmetics  56 36 108 83 
Tar-derived color additives approved for use in cosmetics 
intended for use in the eye area  29 4 52 58 
RESPONSE: Listing color additives is accomplished through the color additive petition (CAP) 
process. FDA received petitions to list color additives for eye area use from color additive 
manufacturers, product manufacturers, trade associ ations, and other interested parties. Color 
additives are required to be specifically authorized  for use in the area of the eye (see 21 C.F.R. § 
70.5(a)). FDA has specifically authorized the use in  the eye area of certain color additives that are 
exempt from certification (21 C.F.R. Part 73) and that are subject to certification (21 C.F.R. Part 
74). The 6 color additives requiring batch certification that are authorized for use in the eye area are:  
74.2052 D&C Black No. 2 74.2205
 D&C Green No. 5 
74.2053 D&C Black No. 3 74.2340  FD&C Red No. 40 and aluminum lake  
74.2101 FD&C Blue No. 1 and aluminum 
lake 74.2705  FD&C Yellow No. 5 and aluminum lake 
Only color additives supported by reports about stud ies of eye area safety were listed for eye area 
use. 
Firms may petition FDA to list a new color additive or new use for a listed color additive as 
described in 21 C.F.R. Part 71. The petition process for color additive approval is described at 
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ColorAdditi ves/ColorAdditivePeti tions/default.htm . We encourage 
petitioners to meet with FDA staff early in the petition process in order to discuss whether 
additional safety studies will be needed, other than those already reported in the scientific literature, and to obtain other helpful information. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 294 - 
 
  MALAYSIA 
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
Page ix (Para 6) 
On the export side, the United States has launched the National Export Initiative, aimed at 
improving trade advocacy and pursuing policies to promote growth; and the Export Control Reform 
Initiative, to reconcile policies for export controls. In addition, the Export-Import Bank has significantly increased its export financing to support the National Export Initiative. 
Question: 
Could the US elaborate on the National Export Initiative and the Export Control Reform Initiative. 
Could the US also provide specific examples of  the positive or negative effects of the two 
initiatives. 
RESPONSE: The President launched the NEI during his State of the Union address on 
January 27, 2010 and established a national goal of  doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014. The 
NEI has five main components. First, the Administration seeks to improve advocacy and trade 
promotion efforts on behalf of U.S. exporters. Se cond, the Administration seeks to increase access 
to export financing. Third, agencies will reinforc e their efforts to remove barriers to trade. Fourth, 
the United States will robustly enforce trade rules, ensuring America's trade partners live up to 
their obligations. Fifth, the Administration will pursue policies at the global level to promote strong, 
sustainable, and balanced growth so that the world economy grows. The annual National Export 
Strategy tracks and measures the Federal Government's progress in implementing the NEI recommendations including specific examples of the effects of the initiative. For full details see the 
2011 National Export Strategy at: http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf . 
The 2012 National Export Strategy is expected to be publically released at the end of the year. 
For the Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative, it is a common sense approach to overhaul of the 
U.S. export control system. The work is being do ne under a three-phase implementation plan. As 
part of its implementation effort, the United States has developed and applied a methodology for rebuilding the control lists, has already published a series of proposed rules for public comment in 
2012, will publish the first final rules in early 2013, and will continue to publish the remaining 
proposed and final rules on a rolling schedule throughout 2013. 
Rebuilding the control list is the cornerstone of the effort. The current system generally treats all 
items the same, resulting in the controls applied to an F-18, for example, being the same as the 
controls for a bolt that is used on that F-18, straining US Government resources without focusing 
on those items that warrant more scrutiny and control. 
The control list-related reforms will move less sensitive items, mostly parts and components, from 
the State munitions list to the Commerce list. The ne t result of the list reforms will be to improve 
U.S. interoperability with close allies and partners while enabling the US Government to focus on transactions of concern. 
To follow developments on the reform initiative, visit www.export.gov/ecr where details on all 
actions on the initiative are posted. 
Page 119, Para 65 
The degree of private-sector involvement in the collective, network-based environmental services 
(water and waste-water management services, refuse disposal services) in the U.S. market 
remains relatively marginal as most consumers are served by publicly owned or cooperative 
utilities. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 295 - 
 
  Question: 
Why is the degree of private sector involvement in the collective, network based environmental 
services in the US market is marginal compar ed to publicly owned or cooperative utilities? 
RESPONSE:  The degree of private sector involvement in water and waste-water management 
services, and refuse disposal services, is reflective of the fact that these services are largely 
provided by public utilities at the state or local level. This is the case in the United States, as well as in many other WTO Members. 
Page 119, Para 66  
The U.S. trade regimes for environmental services appear very open. The United States has full 
GATS commitments on environmental services, as defined by the classic GATS classifications (which do not include the distribution of fresh/drinking water). However for two subsectors, 
sewage services and refuse disposal services, those commitments are limited to services 
contracted by private industry (Table IV.10). U.S. free-trade agreements contain no reservations for national treatment with respect to environmen tal services. With respect to the market access 
obligation, the same modifications apply as in th e GATS, for sewage and refuse disposal services 
contracted by private industry. Commitments by the United States in 1994 and 2012 under the 
WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) are negatively listed and based on the 
MTN.GNS/W/120 list. They therefore include enviro nmental services, subject to the reservations 
listed in annex 4 of the U.S. commitments. While environmental services are not mentioned explicitly in these reservations, the reservat ion on "public utilities services" cover some 
environmental services. The government procurement commitments under the various U.S. 
free-trade agreements echo this exclusion, thou gh in most instances with slightly different 
wording. The applied regime is very open, incl uding for publicly contracted services, with 
numerous foreign firms present and treated according to the national treatment principle. 
Question: 
What conditions must foreign firms comply with to qualify as environmental service 
providers/consultants in the US? 
RESPONSE: Professional services in the United States are regulated at the state level. We are 
unaware of any state that requires licensure in or der to provide environmental consulting services. 
A supplier holding itself out to the public as providing engineering services would require an engineering license. 
Page 105, Para 23  
Direct payments 
Over the past few years, most support to producers has been provided through direct payments 
that are linked to historic planting and yields. Producers with eligible historical production of 
wheat, maize, sorghum, barley, oats, rice, soybeans and other oilseeds, upland cotton, and peanuts during the base period are eligible for direct payments. Payments are not linked to 
production or prices, except for some limits to planting fruits, vegetables, and wild rice, although a 
pilot project has been developed to allow planting of selected vegetables for processing in seven States for the 2009-12 crop years. Since they were  introduced in the 2002 Farm Bill, support to 
producers provided through direct payments ha s been relatively constant, averaging about 
US$5 billion per year. 
Questions: 
1. Please define what is 'historic planting and yields'? 
RESPONSE: Direct payments are made on a farm's "base acres," which are the 1991-1995 or 
1998-2001 average acres of the historically pl anted commodity. The payment yield used in 
calculating direct payments is the 1981-1985 aver age yield, excluding the high and low yields, of 
the historically planted commodity. Under the 2002 Farm Act, producers were given the option of WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 296 - 
 
  updating historical base acres to reflect more recent planting, but there was no option for updating 
payment yields. 
2. What amounts to 'eligible historical production'? 
RESPONSE: Eligible historical production was originally determined under the Production 
Flexibility Contract (PFC) program and included 1) land enrolled in acreage reduction programs for 
any of the crop years 1991 through 1995; 2) land planted or considered planted to program crops under program rules (certified acreage); and 3) land that had been enrolled in the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) and had a crop acreage base under the former deficiency payment 
program associated with it. Base acreage associated with land leaving the CRP could be added to an existing PFC or enrolled in a new PFC at the beginning of a fiscal year. Under the 2002 Farm 
Act, acres historically planted in soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts were made eligible for 
direct payments based on a producer's 1998-2001 planted acres of the newly eligible commodities. 
3. What are the criteria for eligibility for direct payments? 
RESPONSE: To be eligible for Direct and Countercyclical Program (DCP) payments, owners, 
operators, landlords, tenants, or sharecroppers must  share in the risk of producing a crop on base 
acres on a farm enrolled in DCP, and be entitled to share in the crop available for marketing from 
the base acres or would have shared had a crop been produced. They must also annually report 
the use of the farm's cropland acreage; comp ly with conservation and wetland protection 
requirements on all of their land, and with planti ng flexibility requirements; use the base acres for 
agricultural or related activities; protect all base acres from erosion, including providing sufficient cover as determined necessary by the county FSA committee; and controlling weeds. 
Farms may be enrolled in DCP if they have base acres and payment yields established for any of 
the following commodities: wheat; corn; grain sorghum, including dual purpose varieties that can be harvested as grain; barley; oats; upland cotton; long grain rice and medium grain rice (which 
includes short grain rice), excluding wild rice; soybeans; canola, crambe, flaxseed, mustard seed, 
rapeseed, safflower, sesame seed and sunflower s eed, including oil and non-oil varieties, or any 
oilseed designated by the USDA secretary; and peanuts. 
Individuals may not receive more than $40,000 in direct payments annually, and individuals with 
average annual gross nonfarm income greate r than $500,000 or average annual gross farm 
income greater than $750,000 are not eligible to receive direct payments at all. 
4. Who could qualify for direct payments? Could the US provide the up-to-date number of 
'producers' as defined under the Food, Conservation and Energy Act 2008, that are citizen and 
non-citizen of the US, and how many non-citizen 'producers' that has received assistance under the Food, Conservation and Energy Act 2008? 
RESPONSE: See previous responses for eligibility for direct payments. The only non-citizens 
eligible for direct payments are resident aliens. A breakout of payments between U.S. citizens and 
resident aliens is not readily available. 
5. Could the US share on the outcome of the pilot project mentioned? 
RESPONSE: The Planting Transferability Pilot Program (PTPP) was introduced under the 2008 
Farm Act. Under the program, crop producers in seven Upper Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) may plant select vegetables for processing with 
an acre-for-acre loss in DCP payments, rather than the market value loss under regular fruit, 
vegetable, and wild rice (FAV) planting restrictions. Eligible PTPP acreage is capped at specific levels for each participating state, but th e overall total cannot exceed 75,000 annually. 
Based on data from the 2009-2010 period, the average number of acres planted under the 
program equalled 13,075 annually, about 17 per cent  of total allowable acres under the pilot and a 
small share of national processing vegetable acreage. 
Further details on the PTPP can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/826842/vgs350.pdf , 
pp. 36-40. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 297 - 
 
  Page 58, Para 71  
Between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2012, the United States made 520 notifications to the WTO 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade of which, 337 were addenda or corrigenda. The notifications were made on behalf of a number of  government agencies for a variety of reasons, 
including: the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental protection; the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission on product safety; and the Food and Drug Administration for human health and food safety standards. Over the peri od, the U.S. authorities recognized the need to 
make improvements in their internal procedures for sub-federal notifications, and initiated a 
temporary hiatus in notifications in order to make corrections. Therefore, in contrast with the last review period, when 83 sub-federal measures were notified, 16 notifications on sub-federal measures have been made since 1 January 2010, 15 of which have been notified since 
August 2012. 
Question:  
Are the notifications made by sub-federal entities overseen by the States? 
RESPONSE:  The US WTO Inquiry Point staff reviews on a regular basis a database of sub-federal 
proposed measures. The Inquiry Point and the Office of the US Trade Representative work together in close collaboration to notify proposed state technical regulations to the WTO. 
Page 60, Para 77 
The agency or agencies responsible for developing technical regulations depend on the product in 
question and include: the National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration for on-road vehicles and 
tyres; the US Coast Guard for boats; the Alcohol and Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau for alcohol 
and tobacco; the Food and Drug Administration for food, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices; 
the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture for meat, poultry, and 
egg products; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) for consumer products not under other agencies' jurisdictions. The National 
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) is  the federal agency that coordinates standards 
activities among federal government agencies with private sector standards-development 
organizations. 
Question: 
Does the United States recognize any procedure with regard to regulatory cooperation such as 
equivalence of technical regulations or any other instruments of regulatory co-operations? 
RESPONSE: Yes, the United States uses a variety of mechanisms for regulatory cooperation, 
including, for example, cooperation in standards development organizations; regulator-to-regulator dialogues, such as the International Medical Device Regulatory Forum 
(IMDRF); regulatory cooperation efforts through regional fora, such as APEC; bilateral regulatory 
initiatives such as the Regulatory Cooperation Council between Canada and the United States. Depending on the sector and product, U.S. regu lators do make equivalency determinations for 
standards and technical regulations, for exampl e, the Agricultural Marketing Service and its 
organics standard. Its equivalency procedures for this are on-line at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/g etfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5087107 . 
Page 60, Para 78 
The CPSC is an independent agency set up in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act with 
general responsibility for ensuring consumer prod uct safety by encouraging the development of 
effective standards, developing technical regulations where needed, and enforcing compliance with 
product safety laws and regulations, including the overarching requirement that no product may 
present an unreasonable risk of injury or death. Although the official preference is to rely on 
industry's use of voluntary standards, the CPSC an d other agencies with responsibility for product 
and service regulations may develop technical regulations when voluntary standards are not 
considered adequate or when compliance with voluntary standards is considered unlikely. The government agencies may also be required by law to develop or adopt technical regulations, for WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 298 - 
 
  example, the Consumer Products Safety Improvem ent Act required the CPSC to develop technical 
regulations for toys and all-terrain vehicles. About 200 products are currently subject to technical regulations developed by the CPSC. 
Question: 
What measures does the US take to prevent voluntary standards from becoming disguised 
technical barriers to trade? 
RESPONSE: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the U.S. national standards body, 
has accredited approximately 225 standard develo pment bodies (SDOs), both in the public and 
private sectors. ANSI has accepted the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards set out in Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement. 
In addition, to maintain ANSI accreditation, US SDOs are required to adhere consistently to a set 
of requirements or procedures known as the "ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process 
requirements for American National Standards," which reflect the TBT Committee Decision principles on international standards developmen t. These due process requirements ensure that 
standards development processes of ANSI-accredited SDOs are open and impartial manner and 
allow all interested and affected parties an opportunity to participate in a standard's development. Further, they also ensure that ANSI-accredited  SDOs maintain standards development process 
that reflect openness reflect openness, balance, consensus, and other due-process safeguards 
such as an opportunity for appeal. 
Page 61, Para 81 
At the federal level, institutional responsibility  for SPS matters continues to be shared among 
several government agencies depending on the prod uct and type of risk, while at the state level 
the authorities may develop their own measures, subject to federal laws and regulations. At the federal level, numerous statues, along with their implementing regulations, impose SPS 
requirements in the U.S. market. These statutes  include: the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Plan t Protection Act and the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety 
Modernization Act (which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) became law on 
4 January 2010 (Box III.1). In general, many SPS measures are subject to the same administrative rulemaking procedures as technica l regulations (see above). However, according to 
the GAO, "[t]he safety and quality of the U.S. food supply is governed by a highly complex system 
stemming from at least 30 laws related to food safety that are collectively administered by 15 
agencies". 
Question: 
In relation to the rule making process in Sanitary and Phytosanitary how does the US consider the 
parameters to establish that a product is significant or otherwise to US trade? 
RESPONSE: Under Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review," OMB is responsible 
for reviewing "significant regulatory actions" by the agencies, with the exception of the so called 
"independent" agencies (e.g., CPSC) published in the Federal Register. "Significant regulatory actions" are defined in the Order as regulations that may:  
(1)  Have an annual effect on the economy of  $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the ec onomy, productivity, co mpetition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State,  local, or tribal governments or communities; 
(2)  Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken by another 
agency; 
(3)  Materially alter the budgetary impact of enti tlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or 
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 299 - 
 
  (4)  Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles of this Executive Order. 
Those regulatory actions that are likely to impose the economic effects described in subsection 
(1) above are designated by OMB as "economically significant." This definition is functionally 
equivalent to the definition of a "major" rule as that term is used in the Congressional Review Act 
(2). 
For economically significant regulations, the agen cies must submit for OMB review, along with the 
draft regulation, a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).The RIA must provide an assessment of 
benefits, costs, and potentially effective and re asonably feasible alternatives to the planned 
regulatory action (see section 6(a)(3)(C)). Preparing RIAs helps agencies evaluate the need for and consequences of possible Federal action. By analyzing alternate ways to structure a rule, 
agencies can select the best option while provid ing OIRA and the public a broader understanding 
of the ranges of issues that may be involved. Accordingly, it is important that a draft RIA be reviewed by agency economists, engineers, and scien tists, as well as by agency attorneys, prior to 
submission to OIRA. 
OIRA reviews the draft rule and the RIA for consistency with the regulatory principles stated in the 
Order, and with the President's policies and priori ties. The review determines whether the agency 
has, in deciding whether and how to regulate, assessed the costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives (including the alternative of not regulating). 
Page 61, Para 82  
The United States is a member of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the World Organization 
for Animal Health (OIE), and a contracting party to the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC). The contact points are in the Food Safety  and Inspection Service of USDA for Codex, and 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services of the USDA for both the OIE and the IPPC. 
Question: 
If the United States is a Member of the OIE and IPPC why does it make application of the 
international rules and directives conditional upon their appropriateness to the US? 
RESPONSE: U.S. regulatory agencies create and apply SPS measures pursuant to U.S. law. In 
doing so, the regulatory agencies consider  international standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations when applying SPS measures, consistent with US WTO obligations. Such 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations are no t determinative of US SPS measures, however, 
particularly where the United States has a higher le vel of protection than that provided for in the 
international standard, guideline, or recommendation. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 300 - 
 
  MEXICO 
Questions on the Report by the United States 
IV. Trade policy developments since 2010 Page 16, paragraphs 60 and 61 
The United States has announced its goal of concluding TPP negotiations in 2013. The White House 
announced that, during President Obama's visit to  South-east Asia, the ASEAN member-countries 
launched an initiative to expand trade and investment ties in the region, which would lay the 
groundwork for them to join the TPP. Does th e United States believe that the likelihood of 
continuing to add additional members to the TPP w ill lead to a delay in reaching the U.S. goal of 
concluding negotiations in 2013? 
RESPONSE: The United States and the ten ASEAN states launched the "U.S.-ASEAN Expanded 
Economic Engagement" (E3) initiative in November 2012. The E3 is a new framework for economic 
cooperation designed to expand trade and investment ties between the United States and ASEAN, creating new business opportunities and jobs in all eleven countries. For more information on E3, 
please refer to the whitehouse.gov website. 
The United States and its negotiating partners sh are a vision for the TPP based on the long-term 
objective of reaching an agreement that can potentially expand to include additional countries 
from the Asia-Pacific region. We continue to discuss with other countries their interest in 
potentially joining TPP in the future. Potential new entrants must be able to meet the high standards agreed by all TPP members. We believe this is the most effective way to increase trade and investment and deepen regional economic inte gration. We are confident that we can achieve a 
comprehensive agreement and continue to work expeditiously towards that end. For more 
information on TPP, including fact sheets, statem ents by Ministers and Leaders, and FAQs, please 
refer to the USTR website. 
VIII. Small and Medium-Sized Business Trade 
Page 33, paragraph 155 
There are various U.S. agencies responsible for promoting small business exports. There is a 
proposal to merge these agencies into one in order to make it simpler and easier to provide 
support to small business owners. Is this proposal likely to be adopted in the near future? Is the hope that if this proposal is approved, it will boost small business exports? 
RESPONSE:  In January 2012, in an effort to ensure that small businesses have a seat at the 
table, President Obama elevated the Small Business  Administration to a cabinet-level agency. SBA 
will continue to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns, to preserve free competitive enterprise, and to main tain and strengthen the overall economy of the 
United States. 
During the period under review, the Administration  also launched BusinessUSA, a one-stop shop to 
make it easier for businesses to access the servic es and information they need to help them grow, 
hire, export, and compete globally. More information on BusinessUSA can be found at: 
http://business.usa.gov/ .  
The National Export Initiative also continues to be a whole-of-government effort, with exports by 
small and medium businesses as a key priority. Th e NEI's goal of doubling exports by the end of 
2014 is designed so that US Government agencies  are focused and working together to ensure 
that U.S. companies – especially small and medi um businesses - have access to markets and can 
compete on a fair and level basis with foreign competitors, consistent with global trading rules. 
The Administration is also considering actions to restructure and streamline Federal programs 
focused on trade and competitiveness. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 301 - 
 
  As established by Executive Order 13534 of Ma rch 11, 2010, the Export Promotion Cabinet 
consists of: 
 the Secretary of State; 
 the Secretary of the Treasury; 
 the Secretary of Agriculture; 
 the Secretary of Commerce; 
 the Secretary of Labor; 
 the Secretary of Energy; 
 the Secretary of Transportation; 
 the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
 the United States Trade Representative; 
 the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; 
 the National Security Advisor; 
 the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; 
 the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; 
 the Administrator of the Small Business Administration; 
 the President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and 
 the Director of the United States Trade and Development Agency. 
Questions on the Report by the Secretariat 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) Investment agreements and policies 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
Page 33, paragraph 25 [sic--page 28, paragraph 34?] 
This paragraph states that there remain a number of restrictions to foreign investment in certain 
areas. Could the United States specify what area s have restrictions on foreign investment and 
what type of restrictions they are? 
RESPONSE: Foreign investors are generally free to either establish or acquire investments in the 
United States, subject only to non-discriminatory, generally-applicable laws and regulations. 
Federal-level measures treat foreign and domestic investors and investments differently in only a small number of sectors. In most cases, the extent of differential treatment is narrow and does not 
prohibit foreign investment in the particular sector or subsector. A full description of each of these 
measures is available in the non-conforming measures annexes of recent US BITs and FTAs, available at: http://www.ustr.gov/ .  
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
Page 30, paragraph 2 
This paragraph gives a explanation of the Automated Commercial Environment. A CBP document 
on the October 2012 ACE progress report notes that CBP is working with ACE users to determine 
needs and priorities for delivery of ACE. How are the relevant people consulted and how are the priorities set? Is there a tentative date for full deployment of the program? 
RESPONSE:  Core functionality for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is planned to be 
completed in approximately 3 years. This core functionality will establish the foundation for the import/export process. Priorities in scheduling deployments are chosen based on consultation with 
relevant stakeholders, taking into consideration budget and efficiencies to be gained. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 302 - 
 
  Page 31, last section of paragraph 2 
Given that Congress has not yet approved the ex tension for implementing the SAFE Act, which 
requires 100% scanning of all maritime containers  shipped to the United States beginning on 
July 1, 2012, what is the status of implementation  of the Act? When will the extension be set or 
the legal deadline withdrawn? 
RESPONSE: The deadline for the 100% scanning requirement has been extended until July 1, 
2014. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to extend the deadline again at that 
time under the conditions outlined in the statute. 
Page 31, paragraph 2 
What is the status of implementation of the act requiring 100% cargo scanning on international 
U.S. inbound flights by December 3, 2012? What impact will this initiative have on international 
U.S. inbound flight operators? 
RESPONSE: Beginning December 3, 2012, all cargo shipments loaded on passenger aircraft must 
undergo screening for explosives, fulfilling a requirement of the Implementing Recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission Act. The screening process announced takes into account costs, business 
practices, and the potential impact on international partners, both governments and traders. 
Page 31, paragraph 3 
This paragraph notes that CBP recently proposed new rules or procedures for the in-bond process, 
but that final rules have not yet been issued. Does  the USA have a planned publication date for the 
final rules or procedures for the new in-bond process?  
RESPONSE: A new comment period regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking for amendments 
to the inbond process opened in July 2012 and ended in August 2012. CBP is currently analyzing 
those comments. There is no specific target date at this time for publication of the final notice of rulemaking. 
Page 31, paragraph 4 
This paragraph states that the United States is working on the Role of the Broker Initiative. What 
are the main changes put forth in this initiative? How will these changes affect economic 
operators? 
RESPONSE: CBP's new Role of the Broker initiative seeks to modernize the relationship between 
the customs broker and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). One key element of this 
initiative is to modernize the broker's role by amending certain regulations. The three goals in the 
new and amended regulations are to: clarify brokers' responsibilities related to importer validation; 
modernize the regulations to align with current el ectronic capabilities and business practices; and 
reinforce the broker's responsibility to exercise  due diligence in conducting business and by 
introducing a continuing education requirement. 
In order to keep interested parties fully aware and involved in the update process, CBP has sought 
comments and input on all facets of the broker regulations from the widest possible audience. The 
CBP webpage for this topic can be found at 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/tr ade_transformation/broker_role/ .  
(iii) Rules of origin 
Page 35, paragraph 9 
This paragraph states that the United States has not notified the WTO Committee on Rules of 
Origin of its preferential rules of origin since 1997. Is there a particular reason why the United States has failed to carry out this notification? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 303 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
Page 35, (c), paragraph 10 
The Report by the Secretariat notes that different rules apply for domestic products, for example in 
order to be labeled as "Made in the U.S.A." Given that different rules apply for domestic products, 
how does the United States ensure that these provisions comply with GATT/WTO Article III.4? 
RESPONSE: The United States labelling requirements are fully compliant with its WTO obligations. 
(v) Other charges affecting imports 
(a) Customs user fees 
Page 42, paragraph 32 
This paragraph states that the United States is expected to issue the final rule on raising the 
informal entry limit to US$2,500 in the second half of 2012. Does the United States have a 
planned date for issuing the rule? 
RESPONSE: A final rule raising the informal entry limit to $2500 was adopted on 
December 6, 2012. The final rule will go in effect in January 2013. For more information on this 
change, see, 
https://www.federalregister.gov/ articles/2012/12/06/ 2012-29193/informal-entry-limit-and-remov
al-of-a-formal-entry-requirement .  
(c) Agriculture fees 
Page 44 
Under the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, which are for cotton research and promotion, the 
United States levies a fixed assessment on imported cotton and cotton products. It seems the 
most recent assessment is contained in 76 FR 54078. On June 12, 2012 a proposed rule (77 FR 34855) was issued increasing the value assigned to imported cotton. Similarly, U.S. legislation 
states that any importer may be reimbursed for assessments levied on cotton produced in the 
United States. Could you tell us what supporting documents must be submitted by the importer to show that the cotton was produced the in United States? How is this supporting documentation 
evaluated? 
RESPONSE: The Cotton Research and Promotion Program assesses cotton producers and 
importers of cotton and cotton-containing products. The rate of assessment is $1.00 per bale plus 
a supplemental assessment of 5/10 of 1 per cent of the value of the bale on cotton producers. An 
equivalent assessment is calculated on imports of cotton and cotton-containing products. 
The objective of the referenced rule was to amend the cotton import supplemental assessment (or 
the 5/10 of 1 per cent of the value of the bale) and change the value of imported cotton so that it 
reflected the calendar year average of monthly average prices received by U.S. upland cotton 
producers during 2011. This action is mandated annually by the cotton rules and regulations in 7 CFR 1205.510, which requires imported cotton and cotton-containing products to be the same as 
those assessed on domestic production of upland cotton. 
The Cotton Board administers the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. In order for an 
importer to receive a reimbursement, the importer should submit a request to the Cotton Board for a reimbursement form or download a reimbursement form from the website. 
The importer must mail a completed application to the Cotton Board. The reimbursement 
application must show the following: 
(1) Importer of record name, address, phone num ber, customs service identification number, 
and a contact person. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 304 - 
 
  (2) The name for the customs collection district of entry (port) exporting and country of origin. 
(3) Weight of the cotton by HTS. 
(4) Date assessment was paid. 
(5) Total to be reimbursed. 
(6) Certification that the cotton was produced in the United States or is other than upland 
cotton. 
(7) Proof of payment copy of CBP 7501 (customs entry summary). 
(8) A copy of the commercial invoices filed with customs supporting the entry which show the 
country of origin of the merchandise or other evidence such as affidavit from the mill, manufacturer or raw cotton contract. 
(9) If the broker is submitting the application on behalf of the importer of record, he/she must 
submit a letter authorizing the Cotton Board to make the check payable to the broker or a 
copy of the power of attorney. 
The Cotton Board then evaluates the importer's do cumentation in support of a reimbursement to 
determine if the cotton was produced in the United States or if the cotton is non-upland. 
(d) Excise taxes Page 45, paragraph 38 
This paragraph states that the United States maintains over 100 excise taxes at the federal level 
on various products and services. The footnote stat es "For a full detailed description of the taxes 
and their details, see Joint Committee on Taxation (2011)." Could the United States provide the full reference for the document that should be consulted to see a full detailed description of these 
taxes? 
RESPONSE: Joint Committee on Taxation, Present Law and Background Information on Federal 
Excise Taxes, January 2011. It is available on JCT's website, www.jct.gov. 
(vi) Contingency measures 
(a) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Could the United States explain, first, in which type of procedure zeroing continues to be applied 
and, second, what comparison method is used in these cases? 
In the annual reviews, it seems as though zeroin g is not applied only when the weighted average 
method is used, which would mean that zeroing could be used when using any other method under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Is this right? 
In which cases would applying the weighted average method not be considered appropriate in an 
annual review? Cases of targeted dumping? If so, are there other types of cases in which a method 
other than weighted averages could be used? 
In cases of targeted dumping, could the United States used the transaction-to-transaction 
comparison method? If so, would zeroing be applied to these cases? 
RESPONSE: As explained in the February 2012 Federal Register  notice, in investigations and 
reviews, except where the Department of Commerce determines that application of a different 
comparison method is more appropriate,  the Department of Commerce will compare 
weighted-average export prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant offsets for all such comparisons that show export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the 
weighted-average margin of dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rates. In certain WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 305 - 
 
  investigations and administrative reviews, the Department of Commerce has evaluated 
case-specific arguments as to whether an average-to-transaction comparison method is appropriate based the facts of the particular case. The determinations in those investigations and reviews are also published in the Federal Register . 
(vii) Quantitative trade measures, re strictions, controls, and licensing 
(a) Quantitative restrictions, including prohibitions 
Page 54, paragraph 62 
This paragraph states that the United States has not notified quantitative restrictions since 1999 
but that according to the authorities a new notification is under preparation. What type of quantitative restrictions does the new notification  under preparation by U.S. authorities refer to? 
RESPONSE: The United States most recent notification on Quantitative Restrictions, submitted on 
October 3, 2012, was issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. 
(viii) Technical regulations and standards Page 58, paragraph 71 
What were the improvements to the internal procedures for sub-federal notifications? RESPONSE: The US WTO Inquiry Point staff reviews on a regular basis a database of sub-federal 
proposed measures. The Inquiry Point and the Office of the US Trade Representative work 
together in close collaboration to ensure that the United States notifies proposed state technical 
regulations to the WTO. Where appropriate, the Office of the US Trade Representative or other federal agencies work with states as  they implement proposed measures. 
Page 58, paragraph 72 
What is the aim of the annual report published by the United States since 2010 on measures 
considered to represent barriers to trade in other countries? 
RESPONSE: The aim of the annual report is to respond to the concerns of U.S. companies, 
farmers, ranchers and manufacturers, which increasingly encounter non-tariff trade barriers in the 
form of product standards, testing requirements, an d other technical requirements as they seek to 
sell products and services around the world. Th e goal is to identify and address unwarranted 
technical barriers to U.S. exports and discuss area s where engagement has resulted in a reduction 
in technical barriers. 
Page 59, Table III.15 
Could you explain in more detail the procedure for submitting public comments provided for under 
the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946? 
RESPONSE: Under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), before a U.S. agency may 
issue a final regulation, it must first provide an opportunity for public comment on a proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register. Any interested person or party, foreign or domestic, may submit 
comments. The U.S. has enhanced the public's ability to participate in the rulemaking process through its eRulemaking program. A visitor to Regulations.gov can find regulations on a particular 
subject, determine whether they are open for co mment, access important supporting documents, 
file comments electronically on proposals, and read comments filed by others. The APA does not establish a minimum comment period, however Ex ecutive Order 13563 establishes no less than 
60-days as the norm. The final rule must be published in the Federal Register no less than 30 days 
before it is effective. The final rule must provide a statement on the public comments accepted 
and incorporated into the rule, and/or reasons for not incorporating comments. The only public comments that can be considered in determining the rule are those based strictly on the written 
submissions made available publicly. 
Is compliance required for programs of work published under the Regulatory Flexibility Act? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 306 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to consider the impact of their 
rules on small entities and to evaluate alternatives  that would accomplish the objectives of the rule 
without unduly burdening small entities when the rules impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Inherent in the RFA is Congress' desire to remove barriers to 
competition and encourage agencies to consider wa ys of tailoring regulations to the size of the 
regulated entities. 
The RFA does not require that agencies necessarily minimize a rule's impact on small entities if 
there are significant legal, policy, factual, or other reasons for the rule's having such an impact. 
The RFA requires only that agencies determine, to the extent feasible, the rule's economic impact on small entities, explore regulatory alternatives for reducing any significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of such entities, and explain th e reasons for their regulatory choices. Executive 
Order 13272, signed on August 13, 2002, requires  that agencies establish procedures and policies 
to promote compliance with the RFA. 
Page 60, paragraph 76 
What happens if the Office of Management and Budget does not clear new regulations for 
publication in the Federal Register? 
RESPONSE: OMB does not "clear" regulations for publication in the Federal Register. Under 
Executive Order 12866, OMB oversees an interagency review process prior to the publication of 
draft "significant" regulations. When OMB conclude s its review of a draft regulation, the agency 
may publish it in the Federal Register. Executive Order 12866 considers "significant" regulations to be ones that raise novel policy issues, require in ter-agency coordination, and/or are "economically 
significant." During OMB's review, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and the proposed 
regulation at issue are examined, and suggesti ons are made to improve both the RIA and the 
proposed regulation's cost-effectiveness and to make sure that it comports with the Executive 
Order's principles and the President's priorities. If  the agency refuses to make changes identified 
during the interagency review process, or needs more time to make the changes, the agency may withdraw the proposed regulation, or OMB may retu rn the proposed regulation to the agency for 
reconsideration. 
Page 60, paragraph 79 
What mechanisms does the US Government use to promote application of the Code of Good 
Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Ap plication of Standards in Annex 3 of the WTO 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade? 
RESPONSE:  The American National Standards Institute, a private sector organization and the 
official US Representative of the United States, has accepted the TBT Code of Good Practice on 
behalf of its membership of 225 standards development organizations. All public and private 
standards development organizations have volunt arily accepted the Code of Good Practice. 
The United States Government provides informatio n to the public on the Code of Good Practice, 
and the process through which U.S. entities can voluntarily comply, whenever requested. 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
Page 70, paragraph 112 
The National Export Initiative set out by the US  President in March 2010 has the goal of doubling 
U.S. exports over five years. In follow-up reports by the White House (September 2010) and the Government Accountability Office (September 2011) Mexico was recognized as an important 
export market for the USA. What is the U.S. st rategy for promoting greater economic and trade 
integration with Mexico in view of making North America a more competitive region in the global economic and furthering the NEI goals. 
RESPONSE: The United States and Mexico work closely to increase trade and strengthen North 
American competitiveness. In May 2010, President Obama and then Mexican President Calderón WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 307 - 
 
  issued a joint statement in which they noted: "Mexico and the United States enjoy a vital economic 
and trading partnership that the Presidents vowed to enhance, reinforcing efforts to create jobs, promote economic recovery and expansion, and shared inclusive prosperity across all levels of society in both countries." The joint statement, which outlines the work in a number of areas, can 
be found here: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pre ss-office/joint-state ment-president-barac k-obama-and-preside
nt-felipe-calder-n . 
In addition, the United States also works with Mexico and Canada through the North American 
Leaders Summit process and the Free Trade Commission established under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The most recent statement, which describes the trilaterally agreed initiatives, by North American Leaders can be found here: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/ 02/joint-statement-north-american-leaders .  
The most recent joint statement by the NAFTA Free Trade Commission describes the work of the 
Commission and can be found here: 
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press- office/press-releases /2012/april/joint-st atement-2012-nafta-
commission-meeting . 
(1) Other measures affecting investment and trade 
(ii) State trading enterprises, government corporations, and government enterprises 
Pages 74-75, paragraphs 126-127 
Can one company be considered both a government corporation and a state trading enterprise? 
What are the criteria for these categories? For example, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
appears in both categories (Tables III.20 and III.21) Could you expand on this topic? 
RESPONSE:  "State trading enterprises," as used in GATT Article XVII, can encompass both 
government and private entities with special privileges, regulatory or otherwise. In the U.S. 
domestic regime, the term "government corporat ions" refers generally to government-owned 
entities that may provide goods or services with commercial attributes. However, each such entity 
may be structured differently depending on the statutory authority under which it is created or its 
organizational documents. A US Government Co rporation may or may not be a "state-trading 
enterprise" for the purposes of GATT Art. XVII. List ing the Commodity Credit Corporation in both of 
the cited categories demonstrates a sense of full transparency with regard to the role and authority for this agricultural entity. 
(iii) Government procurement 
Paragraph 128 
With regard to paragraph 128, could you provide the percentage of procurement carried out under 
treaties? 
RESPONSE: Current U.S. procurement statistics are based on data contained in the Federal 
Procurement Data System (FPDS) for procurements specifically covered under the WTO Agreement 
on Government Procurement. The data does not capture procurements that are not covered under 
the GPA such as lower threshold procurements under other trade agreements and defense procurements covered under reciprocal defense procurement agreements. Therefore the United 
States is unable to provide the percentage of  procurement carried out under all international 
agreements. 
Paragraph 129 
Could you indicate the amount of procurement carried out under the exceptions mentioned in 
paragraph 129? 
RESPONSE: The United States provides statistics on procurement covered by the GPA to the WTO 
Committee on Government Procurement. The United States does not record procurement statistics WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 308 - 
 
  specifically addressing procurements subject to  Buy American requirements and procurements 
invoking exceptions to Buy American requirements. 
Paragraph 137 
On what amount is the 2% excise tax referred to in paragraph 137 applied? 
RESPONSE: The tax imposed is equal to 2 per cent of the amount of the specified Federal 
procurement payment. The text of the referenced  legislation, Section 301 of the James Zadroga 
9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010,  is available on the Internet at 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . The United States 
would refer Mexico to the text of the legisl ation for an elaboration of its provisions. 
(v) Competition policy Page 83, paragraph 146 
What are the main differences between the responsibilities of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)? 
RESPONSE:  The main differences between the responsibilities of the two agencies are as follows: 
 DOJ has exclusive authority for criminal enfo rcement of the antitrust laws. Therefore, 
conduct for which criminal remedies are most appropriate ( e.g., price fixing, bid rigging) are 
handled exclusively by DOJ. 
 FTC has the authority to bring cases of "unfair methods of competition." 
 FTC also has exclusive authority to bring cases involving "unfair and deceptive acts and 
practices," which is the source of its consumer protection jurisdiction. 
With regard to mergers and civil enforcement against anticompetitive agreements and unilateral 
conduct, the responsibilities of FTC and DOJ are virtually identical. In practice, FTC and DOJ divide 
such cases between them based on agency expert ise and experience. For example, cases involving 
the pharmaceutical industry would normally be handled by FTC, and the DOJ handles cases in 
sectors that are exempted by the FTC Act,  such as banking and telecommunications. 
How is the judicial review process on FTC and DOJ resolutions carried out? RESPONSE:  DOJ is a prosecutorial agency, and thus does not resolve cases itself. Its cases are 
decided by judges of the Federal courts of general ju risdiction, that is by the United States District 
Courts. Those decisions may be reviewed upon application of either DOJ or the parties to the appropriate United States Court of Appeal and, su bsequently by the United States Supreme Court, 
upon application and in its discretion. 
The FTC, on the other hand, uses an administrative model but can seek interim relief in federal 
District Court. When the FTC prosecutes a case directly through the courts, the process is the same as described above. When it prosecutes a case administratively, the process is as follows: 
 First, following an initial investigation by FTC staff, the Commission determines whether 
there is reason to believe that the law may have been violated and whether a proceeding would be in the public interest. If so, the Commission votes to issue a Complaint. At this 
point, the FTC staff becomes the prosecutor ("complaint counsel") and the Commissioners 
change from a prosecutorial to a judicial function. 
 The case is tried by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ,") an independent decision maker 
appointed under the authority of the Office of Personnel Management, who, based on a 
preponderance of evidence standard, makes findin gs of fact and conclusions of law. The trial 
is guided by the FTC Act, the Administrative  Procedure Act, case law interpreting these 
statutes, and the FTC's Rules of Practice. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 309 - 
 
   Complaint counsel or a respondent can appeal the ALJ's decision to the Commission. 
Following briefing and oral argument, the Commission finds liability or dismisses the Complaint. The FTC's final decision can be appealed by the parties – but not by complaint counsel – to the appropriate Court of Appeals, and ultimately to the Supreme Court, in the 
manner described above. 
Can there be disputes between DOJ and FTC resolutions? RESPONSE:  No. At the outset of any investigation, a procedure is used to "clear" a matter to one 
agency or the other. Once a matter has been cleare d to one agency, the other will take no action 
in that case, and there is therefore no possibility of a conflicting resolution of the matter. 
What are the dispute resolution mechanisms for the two agencies? RESPONSE: The sole dispute resolution mechanism between the agencies concerns the question 
of which agency should receive clearance to handle a particular case. Clearance considerations 
may be necessary, for example, when a transaction involves multiple sectors in which the relative expertise of each agency differs, or in new sectors in which neither agency has experience. In such 
cases, the mechanism involves a determination of which agency has the better expertise to 
investigate the particular matter. If not resolved at staff level, clearance disputes are ultimately resolved through interaction between the Chairman  of the FTC and the Assistant Attorney General 
in charge of the Division. 
Page 83, paragraph 147 
What factors are taken into consideration when determining the priority of cases? RESPONSE: FTC and DOJ review all notified mergers and challenge them whenever it appears 
that they will substantially lessen competition. In non-merger cases, the FTC and DOJ leadership 
set priorities, typically considering factors such as: the perceived magnitude of consumer injury, the value of establishing precedent to guide judici al enforcement in cases of novel types of conduct 
or structure of industries, and whether the conduct is likely to be addressed by private 
enforcement. 
What penalties are provided for under the Acts mentioned? How are these penalties imposed? Who 
is the recipient of income from fines? What factors are considered attenuating/aggravating when 
imposing administrative/criminal penalties? 
RESPONSE:  No fines are authorized for civil cases, but restitution and disgorgement can be 
pursued in appropriate cases. The Sherman Act allows fines and imprisonment for criminal 
violations of the antitrust laws. See the US Sentencing Guidelines (United States Sentencing 
Commission, Guidelines Manual (2012).  
Can DOJ/FTC institute protective measures and securities? 
RESPONSE: Both FTC and DOJ may apply to the appropriate Federal District Court for a 
preliminary injunction that will enjoin anticompetitive conduct until a full determination on the merits may take place. In the case of DOJ, the conduct would be enjoined until the court itself 
could make a final decision. In the case of FTC, a successful application would enjoin the conduct 
until the FTC decides the case, or in a case in which a final resolution is sought from a court, when the court makes a final decision. The FTC routinely seeks preliminary injunctions in merger cases and in FTC consumer protection cases. They are sought only occasionally in other cases.  
From DOJ's perspective, how should a surpri se inspection be carried out successfully? 
RESPONSE: This may be done only in cartel cases and only by search warrant issued by a federal 
magistrate or district judge.. 
Can cartels made up of companies that have no presence in the USA in the form of subsidiaries 
but that supply their products from their country of origin be penalized? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 310 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Yes, under appropriate circumstances. See the US Department of Justice and Federal 
Trade Commission's Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for International Operations, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub lic/guidelines/internat.htm .  
What are the limiting factors of the cooperation agreements entered into by DOJ for penalizing 
international cartels? What are the limiting factor s of the cooperation agreements entered into by 
FTC for penalizing international mergers? 
RESPONSE: The FTC and DOJ cooperate with non-U.S. counterparts pursuant to formal bilateral30 
and multilateral arrangements31, although enforcement cooperat ion also takes place in their 
absence. These agreements serve as a catalyst for international cooperation, but they are not legally necessary for cooperation to take place. Except for MLATS and MLAAs, they do not change the signatories' laws, including those concerning  the treatment of confidential information. 
Accordingly, these agreements do not allow for sharing confidential information that is otherwise 
prohibited, absent a waiver from the party. 
How do you determine in practice whether a company has a dominant position? What sort of 
evidence may be used to show this? 
RESPONSE:  Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits unlawful monopolization, attempts to 
monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize.
32 The first two of these offenses concern single-firm 
conduct. The "monopolizing" offense has two elem ents: (1) "the possession of monopoly power in 
the relevant market" and (2) "'the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.'" The second offense, "attempt to monopoli ze," requires that the firm be (1) "engaged in 
predatory or anticompetitive conduct" with (2) "a specific intent to monopolize" and that 
(3) "dangerously threatens" to monopolize. 
The Division and the FTC determine whether a firm has monopoly power, that is, "the power to 
control prices or exclude competition," on a case-b y-case basis, based upon an evaluation of the 
particular situation. The agencies are likely to consider a range of factors (including market shares and market position, durability of market power,  barriers to entry and expansion, economies of 
scale, and buyer power). These factors are applied as  part of an overall assessment of the market 
and the participant's position therein, rather than in a checklist-type manner and it is not possible in the abstract to say how each of them would be weighed in determining whether "the power to control price or exclude competition" was present. 
Evidence used in the assessment of monopoly power typically includes the parties' own 
documents, oral or written testimony by the parties and other market participants, and economic evidence that would establish how firms would be have under different competitive conditions. The 
term "dominance" is not used in U.S. antitrust law. 
                                               
30 The United States has bilateral cooperation agr eements with nine jurisdictions: Germany (1976); 
Australia (1982); the European Comm unities (1991); Canada (1995); Brazil , Israel, and Japan (1999); Mexico 
(2000); and Chile (2011), and the Agencies entered into Memoranda of Understanding with the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (2009), the three Chines e Anti-Monopoly agencies (2011) ), and the Indian 
Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Competition Commission of India (2012). See 
http://www.ftc.gov/oia/agreements.shtm . In addition, the United States is party to approximately 80 Mutual 
Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), which are treaties of general application pursuant to which the United 
States and another country agree to as sist one another in criminal law en forcement matters. The United States 
is also a party to an antitrust-speci fic mutual legal assistan ce agreement (MLAA) with  Australia, an agreement 
authorized by domestic legislation. See International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 
6201 et seq . 
31 The 1995 OECD Council Recommendation on antitrus t enforcement cooperation ("OECD Co-operation 
Recommendation"), provides important general guidance for member countries to follow when an investigation or proceeding may affect another member's importan t interests. The ICN also recently developed the 
International Competition Network's Framework for Merger Review Cooperation, available at: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/u ploads/2011-2012/icn%20framework%20for%20merger%2
0review%20cooperation.pdf . 
32 Section 5 of the FTC Act is solely within the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act is enforced by the US Department of Ju stice; actions under Section 2 also may be brought by 
states and private parties. The Federal Trade Commissi on does not have jurisdiction under Section 2, but 
Section 5 of the FTC Act applies to conduct that would also violate the Sherman Act (including violations of Section 2). See, e.g., FTC v. Cement Institute , 333 U.S. 683, 694 (1948). WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 311 - 
 
  Additional information on the agencies' approach to the Assessment of Substantial Market Power, 
is available a: Section B of the response of the United States Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to the ICN's Unilateral  Conduct Working Group Questionnaire addresses 
http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/ uploads/questionnaires /uc%20objectives/us%20r
esponse.pdf .  
What are the main tasks carried out by DOJ/FTC to advocate for competition? 
RESPONSE: FTC and DOJ both respond to and create opportunities to share with regulators and 
legislators their experience with the costs and benefits of particular types of regulation, with an 
eye to encouraging regulations that promote co mpetition and benefit consumers and discourages 
those that impose inappropriate or unintended barriers to competition and costs to consumers. 
What cross-border cooperation mechanisms do the agencies that monitor competition in the USA 
have? 
RESPONSE: If the reference to "agencies that monitor competition in the USA" means the FTC 
and DOJ, these agencies (as noted above) cooperate with non-U.S. counterparts pursuant to 
formal bilateral33 and multilateral arrangements34, although the agencies are also able and willing 
to cooperate in their absence. The FTC and DOJ encourage informal communication and coordination with their foreign counterparts, subject to confidentiality safeguards. 
How could international cooperation between U.S. and other competition agencies be improved? 
RESPONSE: The existing framework for international cooperation provides incentives for 
competition agencies to engage in, and for businesses to facilitate, international cooperation in instances in which there are contemporaneous investigations and overlapping interests. Increased 
transparency of agency practices and greater awar eness by agencies, parties, and third parties of 
the benefits of enforcement cooperation can strengthen everyone's willingness to engage in and facilitate effective international cooperation. More transparency and certainty about the treatment 
and use of confidential information can increase the willingness of parties to facilitate international 
cooperation and agencies to trust each other in th e context of exchanging information. In addition, 
as a practical matter, the Agencies have found that informal contact between agencies – as early 
as possible in the investigation – is extremely beneficial, and should be promoted. 
Page 83, paragraph 148 
How do DOJ/FTC intercede on laws and regulations that create or incentivize anti-competitive 
practices? 
RESPONSE: DOJ and FTC employ their advocacy tools, described above, to address these issues, 
but do not intervene as parties, but only as amici. 
Do DOJ/FTC have the power to penalize anti-competitive practices by government entities? 
                                               
33 The United States has bilateral cooperation agr eements with nine jurisdictions: Germany (1976); 
Australia (1982); the European Comm unities (1991); Canada (1995); Brazil , Israel, and Japan (1999); Mexico 
(2000); and Chile (2011), and the Agencies entered into Memoranda of Understanding with the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (2009) and the three Chin ese Anti-Monopoly agencies (2011) ), and the Indian 
Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Competition Commission of India (2012). See 
http://www.ftc.gov/oia/agreements.shtm . In addition, the United States is party to approximately 70 MLATs, 
which are treaties of general application pursuant to which the United States and another country agree to 
assist one another in criminal la w enforcement matters. The United States is also a party to an 
antitrust-specific mutual legal assistance agreement wi th Australia, an agreement authorized by domestic 
legislation. See International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 6201 et seq . 
34 The 1995 OECD Council Recommendation on antitrus t enforcement cooperation ("OECD Co-operation 
Recommendation"), provides important general guidance for member countries to follow when an investigation or proceeding may affect another member's important in terests. The ICN also recently developed a Framework 
for Merger Review Cooperation, available at: 
http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org /uploads/2011-2012/icn%20framework%20for%20merger%2
0review%20cooperation.pdf . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 312 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Such powers do exist with regard to certain state and local entities. The power that 
DOJ or FTC has with respect to anticompetitive practices by many federal government entities is the power of persuasion. 
Page 84, paragraph 149 
What is the procedure for investigating and applying conditions/penalties on mergers that have 
anti-competitive effects in the USA? 
RESPONSE: The FTC provides extensive information regarding its merger review process on its 
website. Notably, it has established a "Merger Review" resource page, available at 
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/mergers.shtm , that provides guidance on the investigative process, 
including a document outlining the steps in the review process, and on remedies, including 
guidance on negotiating merger remedies. Please refer to the Antitrust Division Manual , supra, 
with regard to the DOJ. 
What kind of evidence is taken into consideratio n to prove that the potential economic efficiency 
benefits resulting from a given economic merger are greater than the potential negative impact of 
the deal? 
RESPONSE: Information on the U.S. approach to efficiency claims in merger matters is provided 
in the U.S. submission to the OECD Roundtable on  the Role of Efficiency Claims in Antitrust 
Proceedings, available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/international/docs/1210efficiencies_US.pdf  and 
detailed in §10 of the DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines, available at: 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2 010/08/100819hmg.pdf . 
In part, the Guidelines note that efficiencies are difficult to verify and quantify, in part because 
much of the information relating to efficiencies is uniquely in the possession of the merging firms, 
and that it is incumbent upon the merging firms to substantiate efficiency claims so that the Agencies can verify by reasonable means the likelihood and magnitude of each asserted efficiency, 
how and when each would be achieved (and any costs of doing so), how each would enhance the 
merged firm's ability and incentive to comp ete, and why each would be merger-specific.  
What is the procedure for investigating and applying conditions/penalties on international mergers 
that have anti-competitive effects in the USA? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. antitrust agencies review cross-border and domestic mergers and 
acquisitions in the same manner, applying the same processes and legal standards. Thus, the procedures referred to above apply equally to cross-border mergers. 
Page 84, paragraph 149 
This paragraph states that the Federal Trade Commission amended the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act on 
pre-merger notification rules and that the new rules include significant changes. Could you tell us 
what these significant changes are and what their impact will be? 
RESPONSE: Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Department of Justice made changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules, the premerger 
notification form and instructions to reduce the filing burden and streamline the form parties must 
file when seeking antitrust clearance of proposed  mergers and acquisitions under the HSR Act and 
the Premerger Notification Rules. 
The revisions were part of ongoing efforts by the FTC and DOJ to review their regulations, ensure 
that the rules are necessary and up-to-date, and eliminate unnecessary or potentially overly 
burdensome reporting requirements for filers. The changes are intended to make the HSR form easier to complete, reduce the burden for most filers, and make the premerger notification review 
program more effective for both agencies. 
In particular, the revised HSR form deletes severa l categories of information that, over time, the 
agencies have viewed as unnecessary to their pre liminary merger review. For example, HSR filers 
are no longer required to provide copies of docume nts – whether in hard copy or via electronic link 
– filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissi on, report economic code "base year" data, or WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 313 - 
 
  give a detailed breakdown of all the voting securi ties to be acquired. The new form also requires 
filers to provide the FTC and DOJ with narrowly focused additional documents that will help expedite the merger review process. 
The revised form changes certain kinds of required reporting, such as revenue information by 
industry NAICS (North American Industry Classifi cation System) code, and the identity of holders 
and holdings of the entities making a filing. In addition, new concepts are introduced that are 
designed to expedite the antitrust review, including reporting information about "associates" of the 
acquiring person. Changes also include minor revisions to the HSR Rules to address omissions from the 2005 Rule changes involving unincorporated entities. 
The Final Rules and Form are available at: 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/fed reg/2011/07/110707hsrfrn.pdf . 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) Agriculture 
(ii) Agriculture policies 
Page 103, paragraph 16 
This paragraph states that for the year ending September 30, 2011, the Export Credit Guarantee 
Program registered guarantees stood at US$4.1 billion, mostly for exports of wheat, maize, 
soybeans and soybean products, and cotton. Does the United States have public information about the support granted under the Export Credit Gu arantee Program by year, product, country, and 
credit amount? 
RESPONSE: Program utilization by commodity and region  is available at the USDA FAS website: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/exc redits/Monthly/ecg.html .  
Page 104, paragraphs 18 and 19 
Both paragraphs state that the FAS administers a number of programs to promote exports. Does 
the United States have public information about the annual budgets for each program and the amount of support granted under these programs by year, product, country, and promotion 
program? 
RESPONSE:  The requested information is not publically available. 
Pages 103-104, paragraphs 16, 18 and 19 
These paragraph describe a number of programs to promote agricultural exports from the 
United States. Is there a connection between these export promotion programs and the National Export Initiative? 
RESPONSE:  These programs promote U.S. agriculture and therefore, in some cases may support 
the objectives of the National Export Initiative. 
Page 105, paragraph 22 
This paragraph states that the largest budgetary outlays for programs operated by the USDA have 
been under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance  Program and that most of these funds go 
towards providing vouchers for purchases of food in retail outlets (including imported as well as domestic products) by people and families with low incomes. Does the United States have 
statistics that distinguish between the internal aid used to purchase domestic commodities and 
that used to purchase imported commodities, and statistics on the origin of these products? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not collect such statistics or information. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 314 - 
 
  (3) Services 
Page 117 
What action has the US Government taken to comply with its commitments under NAFTA to allow 
international cargo transport services by truck between Mexico and the United States? 
RESPONSE: On July 6, 2011, the US Department of Transportation and Mexico's Secretariat of 
Communications and Transportation signed an agreement that established a reciprocal, phased-in program that provides for the authorization of both Mexican and United States long-haul carriers 
to engage in cross-border operations. Under the program, Mexican carriers have been applying for 
and receiving authorization to engage in cross-border operations.  
(ii) Financial services Page 122, paragraph 72 
With regard to the Dodd-Frank Act of July 2010 re forming the U.S. financial system, What is the 
new and comprehensive regulatory framework and the new markets, entities, and activities to which the regulation will apply, and what are the possible effects of the reform on cross-border 
application? 
RESPONSE: A comprehensive list of ongoing rulemaking under the Act can be found at: 
http://www.stlouisfed.org/regreformrules/ .  
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM MEXICO 
1. Chapter III, Trade Policies and Practices By Measure, paragraph 48, states that the 
US Department of Commerce modified its methodology to address the issue of zeroing in administrative reviews. It further explains that  in administrative reviews, except where the 
Department determines that application of a different comparison method is more appropriate, 
the Department will compare monthly weighted average export prices with monthly weighted 
average normal values, and will grant an offset  where the export price exceeds the normal 
value. That means that the Department of Commerce has modified its comparison 
methodology in administrative reviews from weig hted average against individual transactions 
to weighted average against weighted average,  except where it deems more appropriate to 
use another comparison method. 
a.  Mexico notes that the U.S. regulations do no t define or explain the specific circumstances 
under which the Department would determine that it is more appropriate to apply a different comparison method. Therefore, Mexico is asking the United States to provide 
clarification as to the specific circumstan ces under which the Department would move 
away from its current comparison method of using weighted averages for administrative 
reviews and which comparison method the Department would use in such cases. 
b. Mexico would also ask the United States to comment in particular on whether the 
circumstances under which the Department would deem it more appropriate to use another comparison method are related to finding a pattern of export prices that differs 
significantly among different purchasers, regions, or time periods and using that as 
justification for comparing the weighted average to individual transactions, as provided for in Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement In that case, Mexico would ask the United States to explain the methodology that it would use to determine whether there is a 
significantly different pattern of export prices. 
RESPONSE:  As explained in published Federal Register notices, in investigations and reviews, 
except where the Department of Commerce determin es that application of a different comparison 
method is more appropriate, the Department of  Commerce will compare weighted-average export 
prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant offsets for all such comparisons that show export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of 
dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rate. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 315 - 
 
  2. Moreover, paragraph 48 states that the United  States abandoned the use of zeroing when 
calculating margins in original investigations based on weighted average to weighted average comparisons in 2006. However, it is Mexico's understanding that the Department could also depart from the weighted averages method in original investigations. Mexico would ask the 
United States to list the instances since 2006 in which it departed from the weighted averages 
comparison in original investigations, the reasons for the departure, and the method used in each case. 
RESPONSE:  As explained in published Federal Register notices, in investigations and reviews, 
except where the Department of Commerce determin es that application of a different comparison 
method is more appropriate, the Department of  Commerce will compare weighted-average export 
prices with weighted-average normal values, and will grant offsets for all such comparisons that 
show export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of 
dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rate. 
3. With regard to paragraphs 72 and 77 of the Repo rt by the Secretariat, Mexico notes that the 
US Congress has promulgated laws that fit the definition of "technical regulations" in 
accordance with the TBT Agreement. Technical regulations have been subject to dispute settlement proceedings in which Mexico has participated as a complaining country or third 
party. How does the US Government intend to ensure that Congress complies with Articles 2.5 
and 2.9 of the TBT Agreement regarding the prepar ation, adoption and application of technical 
regulations in drafting its laws? 
RESPONSE: The United States, like Mexico and other Members, endeavors to comply with all WTO 
obligations, including those under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. In addition, 
proposed and final legislation of the US Congress and related information can be found on the THOMAS database of the Library of Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php .  
4. Furthermore, how will it ensure that the laws originated in Congress comply with Article 2.1 of 
the TBT Agreement? 
RESPONSE: The United States, like Mexico and other Members, endeavors to comply with all WTO 
obligations, including those under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 316 - 
 
  NEW ZEALAND 
REPORT BY THE WTO SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/275) 
SECTION II: TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES (4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 28, para. 35-36 
Section II, paragraph 35 notes that a number of federal laws or regulations act as barriers or 
otherwise restrict foreign investment in several areas: one example provided was a provision in 
the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act that requires foreign persons or an interest by a foreign person in agricultural land to submit a report to the Secretary of Agriculture within a specified timeframe. 
Section II, paragraph 36 notes that the number of notices received and investigations undertaken 
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has increased steadily. 
Questions 
1. New Zealand would welcome further information about the report required by the Agricultural 
Foreign Investment Disclosure Act: including a. What information is required to be provided? 
b. What is the purpose of the report? 
RESPONSE: The CRS report cited in paragraph 35 of the Secretariat's Report discusses certain 
federal-level measures that "impact foreign investment in the United States," including measures that do not restrict foreign investment. The Agricu ltural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act is one 
among these types of measures that the report discusses, a measures that is 
"information-gathering and disclosure in nature," rather than a "restriction" on foreign investment. The report itself, which is public, discusses "major requirements" of the Act, and provides a 
citation for the Act within the Code of Laws of the United States. Information about data collected 
pursuant to the Act (and its purpose) can be found at the website of the United States Department of Agriculture (http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/we bapp?area=home&subject=ecpa&topic=afa). 
2. Could the United States account for the 70 per cent increase in CFIUS notices, and the 60 per 
cent increase in the number of CFIUS investigations in the period 2009 – 2011. 
RESPONSE: There was a significant decline in the number of notices of covered transactions from 
2008 (165) to 2009 (65) and then an appreciable in crease in the number of notices from 2009 to 
2010 (93), followed by a further increase in 2011. This trend indicates a general correlation 
between the number of notices and macroeconomic conditions. While there may have been an increase in the absolute number of CFIUS invest igations during the period 2009-2011, the overall 
proportion of cases going to investigation has remained relatively constant from 2009-2011. CFIUS 
considers each transaction on a case-by-case basis, and the disposition of any particular case — be it review or investigation — depends on the unique facts and circumstances of the case.  
SECTION III: TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(iii) MFN applied tariffs 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 39, para 20 
Table III.4 of the Secretariat's Report notes that  the percentage of domestic tariff peaks have 
remained steady at their 2009 levels, after having  increased previously. A vast majority of those 
peaks (50%) are in the textile and apparel sector. The table also suggests that a large percentage 
of non-ad valorem tariffs are still applied by the United States. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 317 - 
 
  Questions 
3. What action is the United States contemplating to address tariff peaks? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. duty structure is a result of several successive rounds of multilateral trade 
negotiations. As shown in the Table III.4 of the Secretariat's Report, incidence of international 
tariff peaks (defined as any tariff rate at or ab ove 15 per cent) in the U.S. schedule has declined 
from 6.6 per cent in 2002 to 5.0 per cent in 2012. As is the case with other Members, the incidence of tariff peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule would be further reduced through balanced, 
ambitious multilateral trade liberalization. 
4. How transparent are the non-ad valorem tariffs and, in the interests of greater transparency, 
is the United States giving any consideratio n to converting these to ad valorem tariffs? 
RESPONSE: The United States remains committed to multilateral trade liberalization and views 
that process as the appropriate means to consider conversions of its non-ad valorem tariffs to ad 
valorem tariffs. 
(vii) Technical regulations and standards 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 58, para 71 
Section III, paragraph 71 notes that the United Stat es instituted a temporary hiatus on sub-federal 
notifications to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), with only 16 sub-federal 
notices made since January 2010 (compared with 83 during the previous review period). We note 
that of the sixteen sub-federal measures notified to the TBT Committee in the review period, fifteen were notified in the three months from August 2012. 
Questions 
5. Does this imbalance of timing reflect the end of the "hiatus" referred to in the report, and are 
there any other reasons why relatively few sub- federal measures have been notified in the 
review period (compared to 83 in the previous period)? 
RESPONSE : The United States is currently notifying sub-federal measures. 
6. What processes exist to ensure that technical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures prepared and adopted by states and sub-federal entities comply with WTO TBT 
Agreement disciplines and obligations? 
RESPONSE: The US WTO Inquiry Point staff reviews on a regular basis a database of sub-federal 
proposed measures. The Inquiry Point and the Office of the US Trade Representative work together in close collaboration to ensure that the United States notifies proposed state technical 
regulations to the WTO. Where appropriate, the Office of the US Trade Representative or other 
federal agencies work with states as  they implement proposed measures. 
7. Is state-level regulation subject to a review process similar to that undertaken by the OMB for 
federal regulation? 
RESPONSE: A number of state governments have developed review processes that are similar to 
the federal-level review process. 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
(a) National Export Initiative 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 70, para 112 
Section III, paragraph 112 notes that the United States has undertaken a National Export Initiative 
since 2010, with the goal of doubling exports over five years. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 318 - 
 
  Question 
8. What has been the impact of the National Export Initiative thus far, and which measures does 
the United States consider to have been the most successful in improving the United States 
export environment? 
RESPONSE: The annual National Export Strategy tracks and measures the Federal Government's 
progress in implementing the NEI recommendations including the effectiveness of policies and measures undertaken. For full details see the 2011 National Export Strategy at: 
http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf .  
The 2012 National Export Strategy is expected to be publically released at the end of the year. 
(3) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING INVESTMENT AND TRADE (ii) State trading enterprises, government corporations, and government enterprises 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 73, paras 124-127 
Section III para 124 notes that the United States has a number of entities that contain elements of 
governmental and corporate organization. Paragrap h 126 notes that some entities have special 
privileges and receive budgetary allocations. 
Question 
9. What level of support is provided for similar entities at the sub-federal level? 
RESPONSE: Support at the sub-federal level in the form of government assistance that could be 
construed a subsidy under the Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures is detailed in 
the U.S. notification to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (see, for example, G/SCM/N/220/USA; 19 October 2011). Data on other support provided at the 
sub-federal level is not collected in a systematic manner on a consistent basis. 
(iii) Government procurement 
(b) United States pr ocurement legislation 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 76, paras 129-130 and WT/TPR/G/275, p.5 
We note that the United States includes "maintenance of open, competitive markets"   among the 
fundamental features of United States trade policy (US Government Report, I.5 on page 5). In the 
area of government procurement, the importance of competition is also reflected in the 
Competition in Contracting Act enacted in 1984 which, as described in the WTO Secretariat's report, "introduced more competition through full and open competition in the awarding of government contracts, with the goal of reduci ng the costs of procurement" (WTO Secretariat 
Report, paragraph 132 on page 77). The United States government procurement regime however 
continues to include a number of competition-restricting measures. 
As discussed in the WTO Secretariat's report (paragraphs 129-130 on pages 76-77), US Federal 
Government agencies are generally required under the Buy American Act 1933 to purchase 
domestic goods (subject to Presidential waivers under the Trade Agreements Act 1979), although an agency is allowed to use a foreign suppli er if the price of the domestic product is 
"unreasonable". The threshold for determining "unrea sonable" is generally 6% (12% for a contract 
involving a small business or labor surplus area, and 50% for the Department of Defense). These explicit value thresholds are a partial restriction of competition, but are at least transparent and allow for evaluation of potential foreign sources. 
At the same time, however, the United States pursues the further policy of reserving contracts 
exclusively for designated groups, including "set-asides" for small business, as described in paragraph 134 on page 77-78 of the WTO Secretariat's report. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 319 - 
 
  Questions 
10. Would the United States clarify how and to what extent procuring agencies are required to 
balance the requirements of the small business  set-aside policy against the acknowledged 
benefits of competition in government procurement? 
RESPONSE:  The U.S. small business set-aside policy is based on federal statute. The statute 
seeks to ensure that a fair proportion of contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the federal government are made to small businesses. As the federal procurement laws and 
regulations recognize, competition limited to sma ll businesses is a type of competitive procedure, 
and therefore the government receives benefits of competition even when using a set-aside. 
11. What proportion of total government procurement spending since the 2010 Trade Policy 
Review was spent in pursuance of 'Buy America' provisions? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not have such information. 
12. From data shown in the Federal Procur ement Data System [https://www.fpds.gov/ 
fpdsng_cms/], the market-opening effect of presidential waivers under the Trade Agreements 
Act 1979 from Buy American Act requirements appe ars to be relatively insignificant. Would the 
United States please comment? 
RESPONSE:  The FPDS has not been able to fully capture the country of origin of goods or services 
procured by a covered federal agency. Because identifying the country of origin of goods and 
services procured by the government is a ch allenge shared by many GPA Parties, the WTO 
Committee on Government Procurement will undertake a Statistics Work Program when the revised GPA enters into force, which will seek , inter alia, to find a more accurate means of 
capturing country of origin statistics. 
(d) Special provisions, exemptions etc. WT/TPR/S/275, p. 78, para 137  
Section III, paragraph 137 notes that the United States "passed new legislation in late 2010 to 
create a federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for goods and services. When the law goes into effect, an amount of 2% is applied to foreign entities not party to an 
international procurement agreement."
  
Question 
13. Could the United States please clarify the present status of this new measure, and why it 
discriminates against foreign, as distinct from domestic, procurement? 
RESPONSE:  The text of the referenced legislation, Section 301 of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health 
and Compensation Act of 2010, is available on the Internet at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . Pursuant to its 
terms, the effective date of the legislation was the date of its enactment, January 2, 2011. The 
US Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department are in the process of drafting regulations. This legislation is fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreements 
and, pursuant to the express terms of the statute,  the U.S. government shall apply the legislation 
"in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements." 
(iv) Subsidies and other government assistance WT/TPR/S/275, p. 79, para 141 
Section III paragraph 141 notes that the agriculture and energy and fuel sectors are the largest 
recipients of government assistance, and have grown in recent years. The report notes growth in the use of incentives to find alternatives to fossil fuels. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 320 - 
 
  Question  
14. Could the United States provide an update on the Administration's plans to reduce and reform 
its programme of fossil fuel subsidies? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. national subsidy phase-out strategy calls for the elimination of around 
$4 billion a year in non-R&D preferential tax incentives for the coal, oil, and gas industries, 
conditional on Congressional action. These tax incentives were also eliminated in the President's FY 2011, 2012, and 2013 budget proposals; to date, Congress has not acted to remove any of 
them. 
(v) Competition policy WT/TPR/S/275, p. 83, para 148  
Section III paragraph 148 notes a range of immunities from United States anti-trust legislation, 
particularly relating to agriculture, in particular the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 
allows the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into marketing agreements with producers and processors of agricultural commodities, and these are specifically exempt from antitrust laws; the 
Export Trading Company Act of 1982 provides ce rtain antitrust immunity for export trade and 
export trade activities; and the Webb-Pomerene Act provides immunity for associations of otherwise competing businesses to engage in collect export sales. 
Question 
15. We would welcome advice from the United States as to how many times these provisions 
allowing exemptions from antitrust laws have been utilised in the last 15 years and to provide a break-down/summary of the various things that have been exempted. 
RESPONSE:  Antitrust exemptions and immunities under U.S. antitrust laws are often not a matter 
of specific notifications or certifications. They are, rather, general applications of law to entities and activities with certain characteristics. Some limited exemptions, particularly those mentioned 
here, do require specific administrative actions before they apply. Many of the competitively 
benign activities granted certificates under these statutes would be antitrust-lawful even without the existence of special exemption rights. 
No agricultural marketing agreements under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act have been 
authorized by the U.S.D.A. since 1997, and 95 Export Trading Company certifications have been issued since 1997. Information on Webb-Pomerene Act Filings can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statute s/webbpomerene/index.shtm . There have been no new 
Webb-Pomerene Association applications made in recent years, and the number of active 
Webb-Pomerene Associations remaining is limited to approximately five 
SECTION IV: TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE 
(ii) Agriculture Policies (c) Exports 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 104, para 19 
Section IV paragraph 19 notes that USDA announced in July 2010 that it would not making 
invitations for offers available under the Dairy Export Incentive Programme (DEIP) but would continue to monitor market conditions. 
Question 
16. Can the United States comment on provisions for DEIP in the next Farm Bill. 
RESPONSE : Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-goi ng, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 321 - 
 
  (iii) Levels of support 
(a) WTO notifications 
WT/TPR/S/275, p. 109, para 36  
We note on page 109, paragraph 36 that total AMS has continued to decline but that total support 
under the Amber Box has been rising. It is indicated that the increase in total Amber box support 
is due to an increase in support notified as non-product specific. 
Questions 
17. Can the United States provide some examples of the "non-product specific" payments that 
have increased under the Amber Box. 
RESPONSE: The United States refers New Zealand to the U.S. domestic support notifications to 
the WTO. The United States notes, as an example of increased non-product specific (NPS) Amber 
Box program spending, that average crop insurance outlays were higher in the 2008-10 period as 
compared to the previous 3-year period of 2005-07. The United States also notes that US NPS Amber Box spending remains well below the de minimis  level. 
18. Can the United States comment on any measure it may be contemplating to reverse the trend 
of increasing total Amber Box payments, in particular any relevant changes being contemplated under the next Farm Bill. 
RESPONSE: Discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill are on-going, and the United States is unable to 
speculate as to content of successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 322 - 
 
  NIGERIA 
Section II: Trade Policy and Investment Regimes (ii) Unilateral Preferences (African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)) 
According to paragraph 25, page 23, of the Secretariat report, we note that the AGOA 
third-country fabric provision, seen as successful in promoting the textile and apparel industry in 
A f r i c a  a s  w e l l  a s  s u p p o r t i n g  m a n y  j o b s ,  i s  s e t  t o  e x p i r e  o n  3 0
th September, 2012. It was also 
mentioned that the US Congress has introduced le gislation in that regard, but it has not been 
enacted into law at the time of the review. 
Question: Is the United States considering making  AGOA permanent, in order to provide greater 
predictability and legal certainty to investors wishing to take advantage of the scheme? 
RESPONSE: AGOA is set to expire in 2015. The Admi nistration has committed to a renewal of 
AGOA and will work with the US Congress to define  what form and length of time that renewal will 
take. 
The Administration was pleased that Congress acted to extend the third-country fabric provisions 
of AGOA until 2015. The legislation, titled the "A frican Growth and Opportunity Amendments," was 
enacted on August 10, 2012. 
(iv) Subsidies and Government Assistance 
Paragraph 141, page 80 of the Secretariat report , citing the U.S WTO notification indicates that 
agriculture and energy and fuel sectors are the largest recipients of government assistance and have grown in recent years. 
Question: (i) Can the U.S explain how its measures in these sectors, are consistent with its 
obligation under the relevant WTO agreements? 
RESPONSE:  None of the programs in the subsidy notifications of the United States to the 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures are contingent upon export performance or 
the use of domestic over imported goods. Theref ore, absent a showing that any of the notified 
programs are causing adverse effects to the interests of another WTO Member, there is no basis to assert that any of the notified programs are inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
(ii) How would the United States treat the implication of shifting towards "amber" policies, 
especially given the fact that it's "amber" bo x progarmmes that address yield and revenue risk 
have expanded? 
RESPONSE:  The United States' notified Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (TAMS) was 
$4.1 billion in crop year 2010, which is a historical low since notifications began 1995. Notified non-product specific support, which includes the primary U.S. yield and revenue risk programs, 
remains well below the de minimis level. 
(iv) Tariffs According to paragraph 17, page 38 of the Secretar iat report, the United States has been included 
in the WTO waiver decision of 30
th November, 2011 which allows U.S. to waive certain WTO 
obligations in order to implement the nomenclature changes. As at the deadline of 30th September, 
2012 and the time of the review, the U.S is yet to submit its documentation to the WTO in order to effect the necessary changes to its WTO tariff schedule. 
Question: Could the U.S. confirm the status and indi cate when action will be taken in that regard? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 323 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States submitted our Schedule XX in HS2012 to the WTO Secretariat on 
October 3, 2012. 
Also, in paragraph 24, page 41, of the Secretariat report, we note the WTO tariff bindings of the 
U.S do not reflect HS changes from 2007-2012, as is the case with most Members, or some other 
changes that the United States has made domestically but has not yet been notified. Furthermore, 
while the HS96 and HS02 nomenclature changes have been implemented for the tariff lines concerned, the Chapter notes have not been updated, and they remain as implemented at the 
time of the Uruguay Round. 
Question: Could the U.S. clarify the situation and when it intends to address this gap? 
RESPONSE: The United States has submitted its Schedule XX of bound commitments in both 
HS 2007 and HS 2012 to the WTO Secretariat according to the submission dates established in 
WT/L/830 and WT/L/831, respectively. 
(vii) Quantitative Trade Measures, Re strictions, Controls, and Licensing 
With reference to paragraph 62, page 54, of the Secretariat Report we note that the United States 
last notified quantitative restrictions in 1999, an d cross –referenced three notifications in the areas 
of safeguards, import licensing, and textiles, alth ough it was reported that a new notification is 
under preparation. 
Question: How soon would the U.S. bring its notification up-to-date for sake of transparency? 
RESPONSE: The United States' most recent notification on Quantitative Restrictions, submitted on 
October 3, 2012, was issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 324 - 
 
  NORWAY 
Anti-dumping and countervailing sunset reviews Norway`s experience from participation in US sunset reviews of antidumping and countervailing 
measures is varied. A case in point relates to the 2011 sunset reviews of the US antidumping and 
countervailing measures against Norwegian salmon. Extensive participation by the Government of 
Norway along with the Norwegian industry concerned ultimately proved to be productive. This was not, however, because the US Department of  Commerce (DOC) changed its practice in the 
reviews. The outcome of the 2011 sunset review s rather changed because the US International 
Trade Commission (ITC) unanimously voted that no  i n j u r y  c o u l d  b e  f o u n d  o n  t h e  U S  i n d u s t r y .  
Consequently the measures on Norwegian salmon were revoked. 
The Secretariat's report, in the chapter on Trade policies and practices by measure, presents in 
Table III.10 an overview of the 738 US anti-dum ping sunset reviews conducted from 1998 to end 
of 2011. It shows that in 271 reviews (36.7%  of the cases) the order was revoked. 
We would appreciate a breakdown of (i) the number of cases revoked due to a no likelihood of 
dumping finding by the DOC, (ii) the number of cases revoked due to a no likelihood of injury 
finding by the ITC and (iii) the number of cases revoked due to findings by both the DOC and the ITC. 
Similarly, Table III.12 provides an overview of the 125 US countervail sunset reviews conducted 
until the end of 2011. It shows that in 60 reviews (48% of the cases) the order was revoked. We 
would like to be enlightened of (i) the number of cases revoked due to a no likelihood of subsidy 
finding by the DOC, (ii) the number of cases revoke d due to a no likelihood of injury finding by the 
ITC and (iii) the number of cases revoked due to findings by both the DOC and the ITC. 
RESPONSE:  The results (complete with Federal Register citations and dates of publication of the 
notices) for all of the five-year sunset reviews can be found on the US International Trade 
Commission's website (http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset /). That being said, in the ordinary course 
of business, the United States does not organize its statistics in the form Norway is requesting. However, from the website one can obtain, on a case-by-case basis, the information that Norway 
is inquiring about, as well as other detailed information about the various sunset reviews. 
We hear occasionally that interested parties deci de not to engage actively in sunset reviews, 
possibly linked to the perception that participation would be a waste of resources as the outcome of a review is expected to conform with the position of the domestic US industry participating in 
the review anyway. 
We would therefore appreciate information as to the number of cases where the US industry has 
requested continuation of (i) antidumping and (ii) countervailing measures, respectively, but 
where the US authorities have nonetheless revoked the measures in sunset reviews since 1998. 
RESPONSE:  See response to question above. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM NORWAY 
Trade in Services 
The National Report by the United States stresses  that the US maintains one of the world's most 
open trade regimes. The current U.S. simple average tariff is quite low and U.S. service markets are open to foreign providers and U.S. regulatory  processes are transparent and accessible to the 
public. 
Also, the Report says that the United States remains committed to preserving and enhancing the 
WTO's irreplaceable role as the primary forum for multilateral trade liberalization, and will seek to 
create momentum for market-opening measures that present significant opportunities for 
producers and consumers. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 325 - 
 
  Maritime services have benefited in recent years by considerable expansion fostered by 
globalization. Many restrictive maritime policie s have disappeared or ceased to be applied. 
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 regulates the maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between 
U.S. ports. Section 27, the Jones Act, implie s certain restrictions related to for example 
shipbuilding. We would be interested to hear if there are any processes ongoing or initiatives taken 
with a view to evaluating the costs and benefits of these various restrictions. 
RESPONSE: There are no initiatives in place to modify either the shipbuilding or domestic 
transportation requirements under the Jones Act. 
Intellectual Property Intellectual property (IP) has a central place in the domestic economy and the international trade 
profile of the United States. The United States is one of the most well established and mature IP 
jurisdictions, and the legal, economic, and trade policy context of IP continue to evolve 
significantly. Chapter III. 3. (vi) document s the economic importance of trade in IP. 
In the light of the legislative changes brought by the America Invents Act, and which are coming 
into effect step by step, what are the likely effects of the Act upon the backlog of patent 
applications observed at the USPTO – will the Act contribute to reduce it in practice? 
Which other measures is the US Government taking or preparing to take in order to further 
increase patent quality and reduce backlog at the USPTO? 
RESPONSE: The America Invents Act (AIA) helps applican ts avoid any backlog by providing a fast 
track option for Patent Processing within twelve months, known as "Track One." The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been able  to offer growing companies an opportunity to 
have important patents reviewed with a guaranteed twelve-month turnaround. In Fiscal Year 
2012, Track One applications reached final disp osition in an average of only 5.1 months. 
The additional fee resources provided in the law allowed the USPTO to continue to combat the 
backlog of patent applications and significantly reduce wait times. In FY 2012, the Office was able 
to hire 1,500 new patent examiners, which contri buted to reducing the backlog by 60,000 cases in 
FY 2012 alone, and allowed pendency to be cut to its lowest level in six years. 
In addition, several provisions of the AIA directly improve patent quality, including the creation of 
pre-issuance submissions and a su pplemental examination process. 
More details on the AIA can be found at the USPTO website: 
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_im plementation/index.jsp .  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 326 - 
 
  PAKISTAN 
Question No. 1:  The Secretariat Report on Trade Policies an d Practices by the US has stated that 
the Customs and Border Protection Department determines the country of origin for non-preferential imports on a case to case basi s, often relying on number of court decisions, 
regulations and agency interpretation to confer or igin. This is a complex process, especially where 
imports from certain origins would attract levies relating to trade defence laws like safeguard and anti-dumping duties etc. The US is requested to reply: 
(a) Is there a possibility to simplify non-preferential rules of origin to facilitate trade at the MFN 
applied tariff? 
(b) Whether the US would consider multilaterally agreed non-preferential rules of origin, being 
developed by the Committee on Rules of Origin, to remove ambiguities and facilitate trade? 
RESPONSE: The US Customs administration, CBP, proposed a regulatory change to apply the 
NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, rather than the case-by-case determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin 
marking purposes. Based on the comments received in response to its proposed changes, in 
September 2011, CBP issued a final rule not adopti ng new origin and marking rules. A total of 70 
commenters responded to the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple 
submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform 
application of the country of origin rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters raised specific concerns or questions regarding the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or opposing the proposal. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2011-09-02/html/2011-22588.htm .  
The United States has always taken an active role participating in the WTO Rules of Origin 
Negotiation, and has no plans to change its participation. 
Question No. 2:  The Secretariat Report has highlighted the contours of preferential rules of origin 
maintained in various preferential programmes, including RTAs. Market access on preferential tariff 
can be denied in case of non-compliance of the ru les of origin determined by the US authorities. 
The US is requested to comment: 
(a) Whether these requirements are compatible with the phenomena of global value chain where 
the value addition would fall short of the valu e content requirement specified in different 
programmes. 
(b) Since the US can remove specific products imported into the US under the GSP Scheme when 
a country breaches Competitive Need Limitations (C NLs), the rules of origin can play a critical 
role in determining the quantum of import from  specific country. Is there any attempt to 
simplify the rules of origin or remove Competit ive Need Limitations from the GSP Regulations? 
RESPONSE: The United States preference programs are compatible with global value chains and 
with the policy goals of the United States. The unilateral preference programs are intended to 
benefit those countries so designated. In the case of reciprocal preference programs, the benefits 
accrue to those partners that have entered into such an agreement with the United States. 
With respect to GSP, the rules of origin are set forth in the statute governing the GSP program. We 
are not aware of any proposals before the US Congress to change the GSP statutory provisions regarding either the rules of origin or competitive need limitations (CNLs). 
Question No. 3: 
(a) The Secretariat Report has given a detailed account of "country of origin marking", maintained 
by the US since 1890, with various subsequent  amendments. Since the ambit of fragmented 
process of manufacturing is expanding, country of origin marking will not serve its purpose of 
providing information to the consumers. Is ther e any attempt to rationalize this discipline by 
the US? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 327 - 
 
  (b) The US domestic product marking rules prescribe that a product which is made solely of 
domestic content and the US labour is necessary for the product to be market as "made in the 
USA"; and the concept of substantial formation does not apply. The US may comment whether 
the same criteria is applied for export of US products; and whether this criteria would require a 
change in view of fragmented manufacturing of various parts of a product in different countries 
as a global value chain. 
RESPONSE: The United States believes the U.S. marking disciplines are rational as they were 
created and are maintained to ensure that the ul timate U.S. purchasers are informed as to the 
country of origin of a good. 
The United States does not maintain rules of origin and marking for goods being exported. Question No. 4: Although the average MFN applied tariff is very low, tariff peaks exists in 7% of 
the tariff lines. The vast majority of peaks (around 50%) is in the textile and apparel sector 
followed by Agriculture products (35%) and footwe ar (7%). These are the tradable products of 
developing countries. Can the US consider to unilaterally soften the tariff peaks, which are in the 
export interest of developing and least developed countries? 
RESPONSE: The U.S. duty structure is a result of several successive rounds of multilateral trade 
negotiations. As shown in the Table III.4 of the Secretariat's Report, incidence of international 
tariff peaks (defined as any tariff rate at or ab ove 15 per cent) in the U.S. schedule has declined 
from 6.6 per cent in 2002 to 5.0 per cent in 2012. As is the case with other Members, the incidence of tariff peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule would be further reduced through balanced, ambitious multilateral trade liberalization. 
Question No. 5: Tariff suspensions and reductions, providing new or extended temporary duty 
relief under the "US Manufacturing Enhancement Act 2010" will expire on 31
st December 2012. Is 
the programme likely to continue in 2013 and beyond? 
RESPONSE: The US Manufacturing Enhancement Act was passed by Congress in 2010. The United 
States is not in a position to speculate on whether Congress might take action in the future to provide new or extended temporary du ty relief through new legislation. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 328 - 
 
  PERU 
1. The document states that, "although US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) oversees the 
'Foreign Trade Zones' (FTZs), the establishment of FTZs, and their rules and regulations are under the purview of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board. The FTZ Board recently revised the 
regulations pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act in order to improve flexibility and 
enhance clarity for U.S.-based operations..." 
 Our question is whether the FTZ regulations contain any special provisions for customs 
valuation of goods, bearing in mind that FTZs are not considered part of the customs territory. 
In our view, not being part of the customs territory would disallow the use of the First Valuation Method, because there would be no export to the country of importation according to the definition of "importation" as "the action of introducing a good into a customs territory" 
used by the WCO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation in Advisory Opinion 14.1. 
RESPONSE: The United States laws, regulations and pr ocedures are in conformity with the WCO 
Technical Committee on Customs Valuation Advisory Opinion 14.1. The U.S. laws, regulations, and 
procedures recognize that foreign merchandise that arrives in the United States and is admitted 
into an FTZ are imported goods, while not being entered or released into the customs territory of the U.S. 
2. The document also states that since 1980 "there have been no legislative changes to the basic 
valuation method, as prescribed by the GATT/WTO Customs Valuation Agreement." 
 Our question is whether, since the advance valuation rulings were issued, changes have been 
introduced in the customs valuation regulations (not just to the first method) as a result of the 
advance valuation procedures, bearing in mind that the Trade Promotion Agreement between 
Peru and the United States mentions issuing advance rulings that would establish customs valuation criteria for goods. We would therefore like to know whether the scope of valuation 
criteria has been defined in the legislation. In other words: what are valuation criteria? 
RESPONSE:  The U.S. has not modified any of its laws or regulations that set forth the basic 
valuation methods. The U.S. does issue advance rulings that help interested parties understand 
how particular facts about their sales terms, costs, and additions, may be accounted for in 
applying the basic valuation methods. Please s ee the CBP regulations for the appraisement of 
merchandise at, 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title19-vo l2/pdf/CFR-2012-title19-vol2-part152.pdf .  
3. Circular OMB A-4 on regulatory analysis was issued on September 17, 2003. It encourages the 
use of voluntary standards over technical regulations for goods and services and a focus on performance rather than design standards (that is the outcome rather than the means to 
achieve it). This is despite the acknowledgement in U.S. trade policies on the use of technical 
standards of the importance for compliance of i ssuing technical standards raised to the level of 
technical regulations. 
 Our question is: Why was the use of voluntary standards encouraged, in light of the 
monitoring work carried out by the customs authorities? What advantages are there to using them? 
RESPONSE:  The question is unclear. Circular A-4 provides guidance to Federal agencies on 
regulatory analysis for purposes of rulemaking. Circular A-4 is designed to assist regulatory 
agencies by defining good regulatory analysis and standardizing the way benefits and costs of Federal regulatory actions are measured and reported. Regulatory analysis is a tool regulatory 
agencies use to anticipate and evaluate the likely consequences of rules. It provides a formal way 
of organizing the evidence on the key effects – good and bad – of the various alternatives that 
should be considered in developing regulations. The motivation is to (1) learn if the benefits of an 
action are likely to justify the costs or (2) discover which of various possible alternatives would be 
the most cost-effective. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 329 - 
 
  In providing this guidance to Federal agencies on regulatory analysis, Circular A-4 recognizes that 
particular forms of government regulation can at  times impede market efficiency. Circular A-4 
identifies certain types of regulatory action fo r which the burden of demonstrating the need to 
regulate will be higher, including "mandatory mini mum quality standards for goods or service if the 
potential problem can be adequately dealt with through voluntary standards or by disclosing 
information of the hazard to buyers or users." Circular A-4 does not discourage Federal agencies from mandating compliance with voluntary standards where such regulation is justified based on 
good regulatory analysis. Some factors considered  in the decision to promulgate a regulation 
include the expected costs and benefits (anticipated and unexpected) of the rule as well as potential alternative regulatory approaches. 
4.  Moreover, the document states that, "although compliance with voluntary consumer product 
safety standards is not a legal obligation, non-compliance may indicate the existence of a 
hazard." Is this reasoning what makes voluntary standards compulsory? 
RESPONSE: The use of a voluntary standard by a private enterprise to establish specific product 
performance requirements is a business decision, and requirements to use specific voluntary 
standards are often imposed by importers and distributors on their suppliers. 
If the CPSC becomes aware of injuries, or the potential for injuries associated with a product that 
fails to comply with a consensus voluntary standard, this indicates to the CPSC that the product 
may contain a defect that presents a substantial product hazard. A consumer product that does not meet a voluntary standard, but which also does not create a hazard, normally would not result in action by the CPSC. 
5.  In addition, we would like to know if any of the voluntary technical standards have been 
included in any law, customs procedure or similar document such that compliance can be required, regardless of whether the decision is made to raise them to the level of technical 
regulations. 
RESPONSE: The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and OMB Circular 
A-119 direct Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards, in lieu of 
government-developed standards, except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. 
Thus, where a Federal agency determines that mandatory compliance with a standard is needed to address a particular public policy objective, it sh all rely on voluntary consensus standards rather 
than developing its own unique standard. Federal agency use of voluntary consensus standards is 
summarized in annual reports prepared by NIST, in collaboration with the Interagency Committee 
on Standards Policy (ICSP). The link to NTTAA Annual reports is: http://standards.gov/NTTAA/agency/index .cfm?fuseaction=NTTAAReports.main . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 330 - 
 
  KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA 
I. Questions regarding Section III on Tr ade Policies and Practices by Measure.  
In Section 3 of the Report by the Secretariat, paragraph 1&2 outlines that the US took various 
security procedures and a number of initiatives to better secure U.S. borders in order to address 
the threat to border security posed by the use of maritime container shipments. 
1. Would the U.S. allow other members to implement the same security procedures in USA ports 
that U.S. implements in other members' ports? 
RESPONSE: At this time the United States has not received requests from other countries to 
station their customs officers at U.S. ports in order for them to conduct security screenings of cargo destined for their customs territory. 
II. Questions related to Section III on Trade Policy and Practices by Measure  
In Section 3 of the Report by the Secretariat, paragraph 92 indicates that the United States 
maintains export restrictions and controls for national security and foreign policy reasons, including addressing shortages of scarce materials. 
1. What would be the position of the U.S. if other members undertake similar procedures? 
RESPONSE: The United States generally supports the elimination of export restrictions on raw 
materials. While the United States recognizes that WTO members have certain rights and 
obligations with regard to measures necessary for national security and other exceptions under 
WTO rules, the position of the United States with regard to any specific export restriction or control taken by another WTO member would depend entirely on our analysis of the measures and facts involved in each instance
 
III. Questions regarding Section II  on Trade Policy and Investment Regime. 
In Section 2 of the Report by the Secretariat, paragraph 37 indicates that a separate, but parallel 
mechanism established through Executive Order is the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) 
for the protection and safeguarding of classified  information that may be released to industry. 
1. Could the U.S. comment whether the implementation  of this program hinder trade rather than 
facilitate it? 
RESPONSE:  To the best of our knowledge, the NISP does not in any way hinder trade. We have 
recurring contacts with industry and they have not identified any provision of the NISP that hinders trade. 
IV. Question regarding "movement of natural persons".  
USA calls on Members States to comply with the American standards regarding labor without 
taking into account the circumstances of each country and its right to protect its national security with regard matter of the expansion of the concep t of "movement of natural persons", and without 
taking into consideration the matter of national sovereignty and national security while USA laws 
and regulations are more stringent and careful regarding the movement of natural persons compared to the ability of developing countries to control labor matters and its negative security 
implications. 
1. Would the U.S. show understanding for the uniqu e and special circumstances of each country 
in this regard, and how? 
RESPONSE: The United States believes in the importance of protecting and promoting 
internationally recognized labor rights and that these objectives are fully consistent with national 
security interests.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 331 - 
 
  SINGAPORE 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT Summary Page x (Para 11) 
1. Para 11 states that "Long-standing laws and regulations on rules of origin and marking 
requirements remain virtually unchanged, albe it their complexity and application remain 
unnecessarily cumbersome with the possibility of several different rules being applicable across 
sectors and final outcome being dependent on a number of factors." Could the US share (i) if 
there are plans to reduce the complexity of both  non-preferential and preferential FTA rules of 
origin across all sectors, and (ii) if the US has plans to a move towards a regime with more regional value content rules in current and future FTAs to help reduce the complexity for 
companies' application of rules of origin for exports to the US? 
RESPONSE: While the United States does not agree with Secretariat's characterization of the U.S. 
rules of origin, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), did propose a regulatory change to apply 
the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), which rely primarily on changes in tariff classification, 
rather than the case-by-case determination of substantial transformation, for all country of origin marking purposes. In September 2011, CBP issued a final rule not adopting new origin and 
marking rules, based on the comments received in re sponse to its proposed changes. A total of 70 
commenters responded to the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of the country of origin rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters raised specific 
concerns or questions regarding the uniform rules proposal without expressly supporting or 
opposing the proposal. For more specific information on the comments and replies, and rational please see, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2011-09-02/html /2011-22588.htm .  
Page xi (Para 13) 
2. The US uses various trade remedies as part of its trade policy. Some of these, such as 
anti-dumping measures, can be trade restrictiv e. With international trade and investment 
policies playing an important role in the US' econ omy, could the US elaborate on its stance on 
such measures that could be trade restrictive? 
RESPONSE: The United States disagrees with Singapore's characterization of trade 
remedies. Members have a right to apply trade remedy measures consistent with Article VI of the 
GATT, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures. Trade remedy measures are remedial mechanisms that all WTO members have agreed 
are necessary to the maintenance of the multilateral trading system. The legitimate use of these 
measures plays an important role in maintaining support for open markets and increased trade.  
Trade Policy and Investment Regimes Page 27 (Para 31)  
3. The US has announced a new 2012 model BIT. Could the US share how the new 2012 BIT 
model sharpens disciplines that "address(es) preferential treatment to state-owned enterprises" specifically relating to "the distortions created by certain indigenous innovation policies"? 
RESPONSE: The 2004 Model BIT already contained numerous tools to address challenges raised 
by State-led economies, i.e., economies that organize economic activity to a significant degree on 
the basis of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and other mechanisms of state influence and 
control. The 2012 Model BIT seeks to enhance these tools through new provisions that: 
(1) discipline the imposition of domestic techno logy requirements; (2) ensure opportunity for 
participation in standards-setting; and (3) clarify the application of BIT obligations to state-owned 
enterprises and other entities exercising delegate d government authority. Additional information WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 332 - 
 
  about these and other revisions in the 2012 Model BIT text can be found 
at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm . 
Page 28 (Para 34 – 35)  
4. The Secretariat Report reflects the US as having an open and transparent investment regime 
with free movement of capital and profits, and no minimum investment thresholds, but that 
there remain a number of barriers to foreign investment in certain sectors (e.g. maritime, aircraft, mining, energy, etc). Could the US share details of steps taken to reduce these 
barriers during the period of the review and if  there are plans to lift these barriers in the 
future? 
RESPONSE:  There are not at present any proposals within the US Government for significant 
revision to measures impacting foreign investment. The CRS report cited in Paragraph 35 of the 
Secretariat's Report, also noted that foreign investment in the United States is subject to 
restrictions in only a very small number sectors. 
Page 28 (Para 36)  
5. The US' Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) has the authority to review transactions 
that could result in control of a US business by a foreign person, in order to determine the national security effects of such transactions. Where CFIUS identifies national security 
concerns with a transaction that cannot be adequately and appropriately addressed by other 
laws, CFIUS is authorised to negotiate or impose mitigation measures. If the risks cannot be mitigated, CIFUS can also make recommendations for the President to suspend or prohibit the 
transaction. While CFIUS operates on a voluntary basis, CFIUS also has the authority to initiate 
a review of any transaction that may raise national security concerns. Could the US clarify 
under what circumstances CFIUS would initiate such a review and what aspects in a transaction could trigger national security concerns? In addition, could the US share if there 
are plans to review CFIUS to improve transparency in its decision-making process? 
RESPONSE: Foreign investors are not required to notify CFIUS of their transactions, but instead 
decide themselves whether to file if they believe national security considerations might arise. 
However, while the process is essentially voluntary and the vast majority of CFIUS cases are the 
result of voluntary notices, CFIUS has the authority to initiate a review of any transaction that may raise national security concerns. CFIUS agencies monitor merger and acquisition activity, identify transactions that have not been voluntarily notified to CFIUS but may present national security 
considerations, and assess whether additional information regarding the transaction or the 
authority of section 721 is required to identify or address any national security concerns. When a CFIUS agency believes that a non-notified transaction may be a covered transaction and may raise 
national security considerations, the agency may self-initiate a review of the transaction under 
section 721. Alternatively, if CFIUS believes that the transaction may raise national security considerations and may be a covered transaction, CFIUS may contact the parties and request 
further information about the transaction, partly to help to determine whether the transaction is a 
covered transaction. If CFIUS makes such a determination, it may request that the parties file a notice. In most cases in which CFIUS has made inquiries of parties to transactions, the parties respond by filing a voluntary notice. 
CFIUS has published guidance on types of transactions that have posed national security 
considerations. (See guidance that Treasury published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal 
Register,  available on the CFIUS webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ). Furthermore, the statute, executive order, regulations, and guidance setting forth the 
CFIUS process are fully and publicly disclosed on the CFIUS website. 
Trade Policies And Practices By Measure 
Page 30 (Para 2) 
6. The US is implementing, in phases, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), an 
electronic commercial trade processing system developed to facilitate trade and strengthen WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 333 - 
 
  border security. Could the US share other examples, such as risk-based targeting, which the 
ACE system adopts/ practices to facilitate tr ade while strengthening border security? Also, 
would the ACE system be available or applicable  to all traders? Would traders without an ACE 
account still be able to interact with the CBP? 
RESPONSE: Yes, ACE is envisioned to be available to all importers and parties involved in the 
international supply chain. ACE utilizes accounts, and is a web-based portal. Traders without an ACE account would be able to interact with CBP, but not through ACE. 
Page 42 (Para 32 and Para 35) 
7. The US charges fees for the processing of commercial merchandise and to recover processing 
costs in ensuring that carriers, passengers, and their personal effects entering the US are compliant with customs laws. Could the US clarify how these Customs user fees would be 
collected (i.e. through electronic means or ph ysical payment at goods' point of entry)? 
RESPONSE: Customs users will continue to have the same options that are currently available, 
which includes physical payment, electronic payment, and periodic monthly payments. 
Page 44 (Para 36) 
8. The US charges a fee on certain merchandise arriving by vessel in order to maintain the 
navigation channels, where the ad valorem fee of 0.125% is assessed on the declared value 
for commercial cargo entering the US. Could the US clarify if the Harbor Maintenance Tax 
would be applicable to empty or private vessels? 
RESPONSE: The HMT is not applicable to non-commercial vessels, nor is it applicable to a vessel 
that is either not loading or unloading commercial cargo. 
Page 53, (Para 57): 
9. There have been two changes with respect to the practice and procedure of US safeguard laws 
The second involves the USITC "publishing notice of an interim rule as part of its Rules of 
Practice and Procedure to amend its rules rela ting to the conduct of investigations under 
legislation implementing safeguard investigations under the NAFTA and make them applicable to other FTAs with similar procedures." Could the US share how these changes in rules would 
be made "applicable to other FTAs with similar procedures", specifically the USSFTA? 
RESPONSE: The rule, which the USITC has since adopted as a final rule (see next paragraph), 
addresses matters that are common to the FTA safeguard investigations that the USITC is authorized to conduct, such as the types of entities that may file a petition, the information that 
must be included in a petition, the time for US ITC determinations and reporting, and procedures 
for the limited disclosure of confidential business information under administrative protective order in those instances in which the USITC is authorized to make such disclosure. The rule also 
identifies the U.S. statutory provisions that implement the FTA safeguard provisions and authorize 
the USITC to conduct investigations and make determinations. 
The interim rule was adopted as a final rule (subject to correction of three typographical errors) 
effective June 25, 2012, the date on which the USIT C's notice of final rulemaking was published in 
the Federal Register  (77 Fed.Reg. 37804); a copy of the notice can be viewed on (and downloaded 
from) the USITC's website at http://usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/2012-15346.pdf .  
The full text of the final rule can be found on the USITC's website at 
http://usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/itcrules0212.pdf .  
Pages 62-63, (Para 82 Box III.1) 
10. Singapore notes that the US is working out the deta ils of the specific regulations relating to the 
Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA). We woul d appreciate if the US could share further 
details on the proposed implementation plans and timelines, especially in relation to the 
sections on "Preventive Control", "Safety of Im ported Food", "Inspection" and "Laboratory and WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 334 - 
 
  Third-party Accreditation". This would allow Singapore to better apprise our companies so that 
they can comply accordingly with the regulations. 
RESPONSE: There are a number of rulemakings required  by the FDA Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA). One of the rules mentioned above has i ssued and the others are in various stages of 
development. The interim final rule on Establishment and Maintenance of Records issued in 
February 2012 and is in effect. FSMA expands FD A's former records access beyond records related 
to a specific suspect article of food which FDA reasonably believes is adulterated and presents a 
threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals to now include 
records relating to any article of food that is reas onably likely to be affected in a similar manner. 
In addition, FDA can now access records related to  articles of food for which FDA believes that 
there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the article of food, and any other 
article of food that is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health 
consequences or death to humans or animal. 
With regard to the other rulemakings, FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by 
FSMA. 
Regarding timelines, the rules that have not issued yet will be, when first published, proposed 
rules. Following the notice-and-comment process, we will take comment on these rules and then, 
considering those comments, finalize the proposals.  There will be several opportunities for public 
engagement during the notice and comment periods for each rule. The timing of when a final rule takes effect will depend on the particular rule, but we do expect that the rules will have phase-in periods. 
Page 60 (Para 77)  
11. Singapore understands that the Food and Drug Administration is the agency responsible for 
developing technical regulations for medical devices. We would like to seek more information 
on how the upcoming excise tax on medical devices will be implemented. We would appreciate 
clarification on the following:- 
 How will the excise tax be implemented? 
RESPONSE: The United States' Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has published documents 
providing guidance on this issue. In particular, on December 5, 2012, the IRS issued final regulations providing guidance on the excise tax.  These regulations were published in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2012.
35 Additionally, the IRS issued Notice 2012-77, available on the 
IRS's website, which provides interim guidance regarding the determination of the sale price and 
other issues related to the tax.  
Like other manufacturers excise taxes, the medica l  d e v i c e  e x c i s e  t a x  i s  t o  b e  r e p o r t e d  o n  I R S  
Form 720. Chapter 11 and 12 of IRS Publication 510,  also available on the IRS website, provide 
information regarding filing, deposits, and payments.36 
 What will the timelines be for the roll out of the tax? 
RESPONSE : The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after December 31, 2012. We 
would also encourage you to consult the aforementioned documents. For example, Notice 2012-77 addresses when transition relief from deposit penalties may be available. 
 How will the tax be implemented on importers and overseas manufacturers? 
RESPONSE : In general, the tax is imposed on the sale of a taxable medical device in the United 
States. Thus, an importer will be liable for the tax when the importer sells the device. Overseas 
manufacturers will not be liable for the tax, unless the overseas manufacturer is also the importer, 
and thus seller, of the device for excise tax purposes. 
                                               
35 77 Fed. Reg. 72924 (Dec. 7, 2012).  
36 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p510.pdf .  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 335 - 
 
   How will the tax be enforced on foreign entities? 
RESPONSE:  The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices in the United States by the 
manufacturer, producer, or importer of the devices. Thus, if a foreign manufacturer exports taxable medical devices to the United States, the U.S. importer will pay the tax, if applicable, on 
the sale of the device. 
 How will the tax impact foreign exports of medica l technology equipment and products into the 
US? 
RESPONSE:  The excise tax does not discriminate against products manufactured abroad. 
 How will the US ensure the universal applicability of the tax to all products, both foreign and 
domestically produced? 
RESPONSE:  As noted, the tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices in the United States, 
regardless of where production of the device occurs. 
 Who will bear the eventual costs of the tax? Wo uld it be the consumers, product owners, or 
co-shared among all suppliers? 
RESPONSE:  Since the tax is imposed upon the sale of a taxable medical device by the importer or 
manufacturer, there is generally no action required by an individual consumer. 
 Will the tax create an imbalance in the market conditions for imports versus domestically 
produced products? 
RESPONSE:  As noted previously, the excise tax does not discriminate against products based on 
where they are manufactured. 
Page 61 (Para 81) 
12. Paragraph 81 mentions that at state level, authorities may develop their own measures, 
subject to federal laws and regulations. Singap ore notes that in California, there is a ballot 
initiative known as Proposition 37 requiring foods manufactured from Genetically Modified 
(GM) Food Ingredients to be labelled as such . We are concerned over the requirement's cost 
implications to businesses. The US has consiste ntly advocated voluntary labelling of GM food 
products. In this context, could the US' clarify its stance regarding the labelling of GM food 
products and its views on California's Proposition 37? 
RESPONSE:  California's Proposition 37 was not adopted. FDA draft guidance on labelling of food 
produced using bioengineering is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceReg ulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLa
belingNutrition/ucm059098.htm .  
Page 65 (Paras 89 and 90) 
13. Singapore notes that the data collected through Automated Export System (AES) would be 
used for statistical purposes, as well as to support controls. Could the US share how risk 
management is applied to the advance information collected to ensure the security of US' exports? 
RESPONSE: The Automated Export System (AES) is a joint venture between CBP, the Foreign 
T r a d e  D i v i s i o n  o f  t h e  B u r e a u  o f  t h e  C e n s u s  ( C ommerce), the Bureau of Industry and Security 
(Commerce), the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (State), other Federal agencies, and the export trade community. It is the central point through which export shipment data required by 
multiple agencies is filed electronically to Customs. AES is a nationwide system operational at all 
ports and for all methods of transportation. It  was designed to ensure compliance with and 
enforcement of laws relating to exporting, improv e trade statistics, reduce duplicate reporting to 
multiple agencies, and improve customer service. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 336 - 
 
  CBP verifies AES records and related export documentation to determine that the Electronic Export 
Information (EEI) is properly filed, and to determine the appropriate enforcement procedures. One such enforcement activity is the verification that the Internal Transaction Number (ITN), exemption citation or in-bond number is clearly st ated on export documents and provided to the 
carriers within the prescribed timeframes. In a ddition CBP will utilize its Automated Targeting 
System (ATS) to screen the electronic export information to target those export shipments that are deemed at risk for being noncompliant with U.S. export laws and controls. 
14. Singapore further notes that hardcopy documents on exports are not required for submissions 
filed electronically through the AES. Could the US  share if fees are payable by AES users when 
filing the export information? Also, what is the processing period in which the user would be able to expect a response? Could the US share ex amples of the type of export data collected 
through the AES? 
RESPONSE: Since late 2008, the paper Shipper's Export Declaration has been eliminated 
and US Principal Parties in Interest or their agents have been required to file electronically through 
the AES. There is no fee to file exports, although direct filing to AES requires the filers to establish 
a telecommunications infrastructure with CBP at their own expense. To permit companies unable to establish this infrastructure to file electronically, the Census Bureau established and maintains 
an internet interface to the AES, called AESDirect. There is no charge to the filer to report through 
AESDirect. 
Unless approved to participate in the postdeparture filing program (also known as Option 4), filers 
must submit their information prior to exportation. The precise deadline varies by mode of transit. 
Postdeparture filers have up to 10 calendar days to file. (A proposed regulation change would 
reduce that to 5 calendar days.) They receive responses from the AES within a few minutes as to any errors or improbable responses. Errors incl ude format issues, invalid codes, etc. Improbable 
responses include items such as an unusually high price or an unlikely mode of transit (e.g. coal 
via mail). There are also compliance alerts if it appears that there was a violation of regulations (such as licensed goods being filed postdeparture). 
Additional questions for the exporter may arise from CBP's targeting activities. 
The following link lists the data elements colle cted in the AES. The commodity information is 
collected under the Census Bureau's authority. The Vessel Manifest information is collected under CBP's authority. 
http://www.census.gov/foreign -trade/aes/documentlibrary /aesparticipantsdata.html .  
Page 69, Para 107: 
15. The US has launched the Export Control Reform Initia tive (ECR Initiative), which is slated to be 
implemented in three phases. Could the US sh are the expected time frame in which the 
implementation of all three phases is expected to be completed? 
RESPONSE:  The United States has deployed a thr ee-phase implementation plan. The United 
States has developed and applied a methodology for rebuilding the control lists, has already 
published a series of proposed rules for public comment in 2012, will publish the first final rules in early 2013, and will continue to publish the remaining proposed and final rules on a rolling schedule throughout 2013. Some aspects of implem entation could require legislation to implement 
a government reorganization that would consolidate the current system into a single control list, 
single licensing agency, single primary enforcement coordination agency, and single information technology system. To follow developments on the reform initiative, visit www.export.gov/ecr 
where details on all actions on the initiative are posted. 
Page 76 (Para 128) 
16. The US' "spending on federal procuremen t contracts amounted to US$517 billion 
approximately". Could the US provide the tota l estimated value of state level government 
procurement contracts and the percentage of such contracts that are made available for 
participation by foreign suppliers, or covered under US' GPA commitments? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 337 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States includes statistics on the procurement conducted by the 37 states 
covered by the GPA in the statistics reported to the WTO Committee on Government Procurement. 
Page 78 (Para 138) 
17. Paragraph 138 states that "procurement at sub-central level is a matter of state law". Could 
the US provide more information on how it ensures that the state entities committed under the 
WTO-GPA comply with the obligations, especially given that these entities are not covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulations? 
RESPONSE:  Each state is responsible for the conduct of its own procurement, including 
compliance with international agreements where its procurement is subject to such an agreement. 
The federal government does not monitor such compliance. However, it may consult with a state if concerns are raised with regard to the state' s compliance with an international agreement. 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT  
Trade Policy Developments since 2010 
Page 18 (Para 75) 
18. The US has worked with APEC member economies to establish commercially useful de minimis 
values that will exempt low-value shipments from duties or taxes. What is the de minimis value and how was the value determined? 
RESPONSE:  In 2011 APEC economies agreed to establish commercially useful de minimis values 
that under normal circumstances exempt express and postal shipments from customs duties or 
taxes and from certain entry documentation requirements. Economies participating in the APEC "Pathfinder to enhance supply chain connectivity by establishing a baseline de minimis value" 
agreed to exempt express and postal shipments from customs duties or taxes and from certain 
entry documentation requirements for shipments valued at or less than $100 USD recognizing, however, that economies may choose not to apply such exemptions for restricted goods or from 
taxes that are also applied to domestic g oods. These economies could also commit to 
implementing a de minimis value of $100 USD or higher by the end of 2012. 
Page 28 (Para 126) 
19. We understand that the US has restrictions on the import of meat, poultry, and egg products 
from Singapore, as we are not listed as an e ligible source. Could the US please elaborate on 
the criteria of being placed on the eligibility list and the prospects of including Singapore on the eligibility list? 
RESPONSE: In order for a country to be listed as eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products 
to the United States, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) must first determine that that country's applicable regulatory system is equivalent to USDA's system. 
Singapore has only requested USDA make an eq uivalency determination for meat and poultry 
products. USDA has responded to the request and sent its initial equivalence package, Self Report Tool (SRT) to Singapore. The SRT contains the eq uivalence criteria and questions that Singapore 
needs to complete and submit to USDA. As of date, USDA has not received any response from 
Singapore. 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
BSE Measures 
20. Singapore notes that US has, in consultation with trade partners and various stakeholders, 
proposed a final set of rules for BSE measures. Singapore would like to request for updates to this set of rules. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 338 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The BSE comprehensive rule is currently being finalized for publication. It is expected 
that the final rule will be published in 2013. 
Foot and Mouth Disease 21. Singapore further notes that the intent of this ru le is to align the US BSE measures with those 
of OIE, thus rendering the recognition of BSE risk status to be based on OIE's definition. 
Singapore would like to clarify if the US intends to do the same for other diseases, such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). Singapore would like to reiterate that Singapore is free from 
FMD. The recognition of that status by the US could thus facilitate the export of meat from 
Singapore to the US. 
RESPONSE: The United States does not intend to alter its FMD rules at this time. Upon official 
request from Singapore, the United States would evaluate Singapore's FMD status through 
established procedures as outlined in USDA regulations. 
Customs – Single Window 22. Does the US have plans to bring the ACE (for im ports) and AES (for exports) under one single 
window to facilitate all import and export trade submissions to the US? 
RESPONSE: Core functionality for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is planned to be 
completed in approximately 3 years. This core functionality will establish the foundation for the 
import/export process. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 339 - 
 
  SOUTH AFRICA 
REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/275) 
Financial Services Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (3 ) Services (ii) Financial Services: 
Paragraph 69, Page 121 
The Secretariat Report states that foreign banks from 57 countries and territories have a presence 
in the United States of America. 
1.  Can the USA elaborate on what proportion of foreign banks operating in the USA are from 
developing countries and the type of presence (e.g. branch, representative office, etc.)? 
RESPONSE: Foreign owned or controlled banking institutions operating in the United States are 
listed in detail at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/iba/201209/bytype.htm .  
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (3 ) Services (ii) Financial Services: 
Paragraph 74, Page 122 
The Secretariat Report notes that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve must 'consider 
whether the home country of the foreign bank has adopted, or is making demonstrable progress 
toward adopting, an appropriate system of financ ial regulation for the financial system of such 
home country to mitigate such risk. 
2. Can the USA explain what criteria are employed to determine whether or not a system of 
financial regulation for risk mitigation is 'appropriate'? 
RESPONSE: Under the Bank Holding Company Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System ('Board") must find comprehensive cons olidated supervision ("CCS") when approving a 
merger or acquisition involving a foreign bank. See 12 U.S.C. § 1842(c)(3)(B). The Board found 
CCS for Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited on May 9, 2012. See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve nts/press/orders/order20120509a.pdf .  
Under the Board's Regulation Y, the Board determines whether a foreign bank is subject to 
consolidated home country supervision under the standards set forth in the Board's Regulation 
K. See 12 CFR 225.13(a)(4). Regulation K provides that a foreign bank is to consolidated home 
country supervision if the foreign bank is supervised or regulated in such a manner that its home 
country supervisor receives sufficient information on the worldwide operations of the foreign bank 
(including the relationships of the bank to any affiliate) to assess the foreign bank's overall financial condition and compliance with law and regulation. 12 CFR 211.24(c)(1)(ii). In assessing 
this standard under section 211.24 of Regulation K, the Board considers, among other indicia of 
comprehensive, consolidated supervision, the exte nt to which the home country supervisors: (i) 
ensure that the bank has adequate procedures for monitoring and controlling its activities 
worldwide; (ii) obtain information on the condition of the bank and its subsidiaries and offices 
through regular examination reports, audit reports, or otherwise; (iii) obtain information on the dealings with and relationship between the bank and its affiliates, both foreign and domestic; (iv) 
receive from the bank financial reports that are consolidated on a worldwide basis or comparable 
information that permits analysis of the bank's financial condition on a worldwide consolidated basis; (v) evaluate prudential standards, such as  capital adequacy and risk asset exposure, on a 
worldwide basis. No single factor is determinative, and other elements may inform the Board's 
determination. Under U.S. law, the Board's CCS determination is specific to the particular banking 
organization applying to acquire a U.S. bank. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 340 - 
 
  REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/275) 
Part III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(viii) Technical regulations and standard 
Paragraph 70, Page 58 
Title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, is the legal basis for implementing the 
TBT Agreement in the United States. The Trade Agreements Act designates the Office of the USTR 
as the lead agency within the federal Government for coordinating and developing international 
trade policy on standards-related activities and in discussions and negotiations with foreign countries on standards-related matters. The Trade Agreements Act requires the USTR to inform and consult with federal agencies with expertise in the matters under discussion and negotiation. 
The United States submitted a notification on th e implementation and administration of the TBT 
Agreement in February 1996. The enquiry point and notification authority under the Agreement is 
the National Institute of Standards and Techno logy (NIST) of the Department of Commerce. 
1. Can the USA state if any of the discussions or ne gotiations have been concluded? If yes, with 
which WTO members, and on which specific standard-related matters? 
RESPONSE: The following notifications under Article 10.7 have been made regarding agreements 
and negotiations with other countries during the review period: 
•  Memorandum of Understanding between the State Committee of Ukraine for Technical 
Regulation and Consumer Policy and the American National Standards Institute. (Notification made by the Ukraine on August 20, 2012 G/TBT/10.7/N/114). 
•  Mutual Recognition Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the United Mexican States for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications Equipment. (Notification made by Mexico, August 22, 2011 
G/TBT/10.7/N/109). 
The following notifications were made to the WTO Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
during the review period: 
•  Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement, which includes a chapter on Technical Barriers 
to Trade, was notified on March 15, 2012 (WT/REG311/N/1). 
•  Colombia-United States Free Trade Agreement, which includes a chapter on Technical 
Barriers to Trade, was notified on May 8, 2012 (WT/REG314/N/1). 
•  Panama-United States Free Trade Agreement, which includes a chapter on Technical Barriers 
to Trade, was notified on October 29, 2012 (WT/REG324/N/1). 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector 
(1) Fisheries 
(ii) Trade 
Paragraph 51, Page 113 
Exports have increased steadily over the past fe w years and are much more diverse than imports; 
the top nine products (at HS 2002 six-digit level) make up just over half of total fish exports. The main exports are frozen fish fillets but export gr owth has been particularly strong for Pacific and 
sockeye salmon (Table IV.7). The main destinat ions for the principal exports are the European 
Union and Canada with considerable quantities sent to China for processing. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 341 - 
 
  1. (Highlighted sentence) Can the USA indicate if th e final products, after processing by China are 
recorded in the USA trade data as value added products, or as final products by China? 
RESPONSE: U.S. products shipped to China are counted in U.S. exports. Products processed in 
China and exported to countries other than the United States would not be reflected in U.S. trade 
statistics. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 342 - 
 
  SWITZERLAND 
Report by the Secretariat 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(1) Monetary, Fiscal and Other Policies 
Paras. 11/12, Table 1.1. The Secretariat's report suggests that fighting against the economic 
and financial crisis required an unprecedented level of budgetary stimulus. Regarding long-term fiscal challenges, could the U.S. authorities indicate whether there are any plans to stabilize the 
public debt to GDP ratio in the medium term? Also, did the U.S. government run a stress-test of its 
public finances by assuming a considerable rise in interest rates? 
RESPONSE: Budget negotiations for the coming year are going on at this time. However, the 
President's proposed framework for deficit reduction, laid out in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, 
charts a sustainable fiscal course, ensuring that the budget deficit will fall to a sustainable level in 
the next 10 years and beyond. Deficit-reduction measures are phased in gradually to avoid disrupting the economic recovery. Ineffective spending programs are eliminated, while tax 
expenditures on the Nation's wealthiest taxpayers are limited. Targeted investment initiatives, 
including those for education, infrastructure, and personal saving, are paid for by eliminating ineffective tax cuts to high-income taxpayers. The deficit reduction from the cuts mandated by the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 and the expiration of the tax cuts on upper-income Americans enacted 
between 2001 and 2003, combined with the windin g down of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, 
will bring deficits down to approximately 2.8 pe r cent of GDP near the end of the 10-year budget 
window. 
The Administration bases it budget projections on the most reasonable and accurate economic 
forecasts available. 
In para. 13, the Secretariat's report notes that the Fed has been very active in recent times, using 
a wide range of  policies, some unconventional, to aid economic recovery. From late 2010 to 
mid-2011, the Fed conducted a second round of quantitative easing due to the financial crisis and its aftermath. Inflation expectations have risen recently in the United States. This raises the 
question on how the U.S. authorities intend to ma nage a stabilization of inflation expectations to 
avoid at some point a possible sharp surge in in flation given the very expansionary monetary 
policy pursued in recent years? 
RESPONSE:  The Federal Reserve is an independent agency and responsible for U.S. monetary 
policy. Its Chairman, Ben Bernanke, reported recently that inflation in the United States has 
averaged close to 2 per cent per year for several decades and is close to that today, low interest rate policies that the Fed has been following for about five years have not led to increased 
inflation, and the public's expectations of inflation over the long run remain quite stable 
(http://www.federalreserve.gov/ newsevents/speech/bernanke20121001a.pdf). 
The Federal Reserve Act mandates that the Federal Reserve pursue policies to promote effectively 
the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. The Federal Reserve recently announced that low rates would continue as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5 per cent or until inflation looks likely to exceed 2.5 per cent. 
In paras 21 and 22, the Secretariat's report notes that technological developments and 
innovation in the U.S. energy sector are credit ed with improving the trade balance (in volume 
terms) with falling import volumes. Also, the prospects for further increases in domestic production 
of oil and natural gas are quite high. In light of th e rising domestic energy production, do the U.S. 
authorities consider changes in their export regime for crude petroleum? 
RESPONSE:  U.S. crude oil exports are governed by the Export Administration Act of 1979, as 
amended; 50 U.S.C. App. 2406 (see notification: G/MA/QR/N/USA/1, 5 October 2012). We are not 
in a position to opine on whether the US Congress may consider legislative changes to this law. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 343 - 
 
  In para. 29, the Secretariat's report notes that given the beneficial impact of FDI on the US 
economy and jobs, the US Administration has recently created SelectUSA, described as a one-stop shop to seek and attract investment in the United States. Could the U.S. authorities indicate whether the SelectUSA initiative will actively s eek to diversify the sources of foreign direct 
investment? If so, what are the foreign countries  where SelectUSA will predominantly be active? 
RESPONSE: Established by an Executive Order of the President in 2011, SelectUSA is the first 
federal initiative to promote business investment in the United States. SelectUSA works with firms 
and U.S. economic development organizations to provide information, guidance, and counseling on 
the U.S. economic climate and federal rules and regulations related to business investment in the United States. It operates under strict geographic neutrality and does not steer investments towards one U.S. location over another. While Sele ctUSA works with investors around the world, it 
has focused its FY12 and FY13 proactive outreach and engagement efforts in 30 global markets 
that represent nearly 90 per cent of all FDI in the United States. They are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China and Hong Kong, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, 
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Me xico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, 
Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Swed en, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, 
and the United Kingdom. 
The Website for SelectUSA is: http://selectusa.commerce.gov/ .   
II TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK 
(3) Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements (i) Unilateral preferences 
Para. 19 : The Secretariat's report notes that according to the President's Trade Policy Agenda, the 
growing competitiveness of many emerging mark et GSP beneficiaries may prompt review and 
reform of the GSP programme. To avoid causing uncertainties and unpredictability to GSP users 
and in view of ensuring long-term efficiency of the GSP, in particular via predictability for its users, 
the EU decided in 2012, as of 1.1.2014, to grant it s GSP an unlimited duration (Switzerland did so 
also in 2007). What are the views of the U.S. auth orities on this? Wouldn't an unlimited duration 
increase the use of the system beyond its pres ent rather modest if not minimal use (<1% of 
imports)? Also, are there already first thoughts about a review and reform of the GSP past July 31, 2013? Would this review entail focusing on the countries most in need for preferences, similar to the EU GSP, which will as of 1.1.2014 exclude Upper Middle Income Economies as well as 
countries with which Free Trade Agreements are in force? 
RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat's report, the US Congress is responsible for initiating and 
passing legislation to amend and re-authorize U.S. unilateral preference programs, including GSP. 
In the past, the Administration has supported the longest possible extension of GSP authorization 
so as to provide greater certainty for both U.S. businesses and developing country exporters who benefit from these programs. However, in determin ing the length of the period for authorization, 
the Congress is bound by its rules to find funding offsets for the foregone tariff revenue caused by 
GSP and other such programs. As a result, in recent years the challenge of identifying long-term funding offsets has led to reauthorization periods for the GSP program of two years or less. 
It is not yet clear whether possible reforms to the GSP program will be on the Congressional 
agenda in 2013, and the Administration is not in a position to speculate on what specific reforms 
Congress might consider. For its part, the Obama Administration believes it is important that any prospective reform of the GSP program take into  account both the needs of the world's poorest 
countries and the fact that many emerging market countries may no longer need preferential 
access to compete in the U.S. market in many product sectors. 
Para. 20 : While being well aware that the unilateral pr eferences granted by the United States do 
go beyond the GSP, it is rather puzzling to witness an almost 20% decrease in its use in 2011. 
While the Secretariat's report explains it as a consequence from the graduation of Equatorial Guinea and the shifting of imports from one prefer ence programme to another, i.e. Angola moving 
from GSP to AGOA preferences, could the U.S.  authorities explain how one country and one 
commodity such as crude oil can can have such an important role on imports under the GSP? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 344 - 
 
  RESPONSE: As shown in Table II.4 in the Secretariat's report, crude petroleum – which is eligible 
for duty-free entry under GSP only for least-developed beneficiary countries – was the top product category among U.S. imports under the GSP program in 2010. Given the high volume of trade in this product, a change in the GSP eligibility of an oil-producing beneficiary country or shifts in 
claims from one preference program to another could certainly affect the level of total U.S. imports 
under the GSP program.  
(4) Investment Agreements and Policies 
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
In para. 36 , the Secretariat's report states that the number of notices and the number of 
investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has increased steadily between 2009 and 2011. Table II.11  shows that the notices withdrawn during 
investigation have increased in that timeframe too. With clear procedures it could be expected that 
companies should be in position to structure transactions and to judge whether to submit a notice or to avoid review. Could the U.S. authorities indicate how this increase in notices withdrawn is to 
be explained? Was the number of companies seekin g a review increasing? Is there data available 
for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011? 
RESPONSE: There has been no material change in the number of notices withdrawn during 
investigation. Furthermore, as discussed in the CFIUS Annual Report, available at 
www.treasury.gov/cfius, parties have requested withdrawal for a number of reasons over the 
years, and some of these cases are subsequently re-filed. CFIUS considers each transaction on a case-by-case basis, and the disposition of any particular case depends on the unique facts and 
circumstances of the case. The number of notices had increased from 65 in 2009 to 111 in 2011 
coinciding with recovery from the global financial crisis in correlation with the global macroeconomy. Data from 2009 to 2011 is available in Table II.11. 
Also, according to para. 36 , the CFIUS is authorized to negotiate or impose mitigation measures. 
Could the U.S. authorities indicate with how many companies the CFIUS has negotiated or 
imposed mitigation measures (agreements) in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011? 
RESPONSE: CFIUS negotiated five mitigation agreements in 2009, nine in 2010, and eight in 
2011. Additional information regarding CFIUS mitiga tion measures is available in the CFIUS Annual 
Report. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(i) Customs procedures 
Para. 2  of the Secretariat's report states that th e "SAFE Port Act, as amended, requires 100% 
scanning of all maritime containers shipped to the United States by 1 July 2012. On 2 May 2012, 
in accordance with the statute, DHS Secretary submitted to Congress her intent to extend the 
deadline by two years. New proposed legislation to  extend or eliminate the statutory deadline has 
not been passed into law." Could the U.S. author ities clarify what this means for the requirement 
of 100% scanning of all maritime containers shipped to the United States? We understand that the DHS Secretary submitted to Congress the proposal to extend the deadline by two years. Does this 
mean that the requirement does not apply until further legislation is passed that will set the 
deadline for the requirement to apply? 
RESPONSE:  The deadline has been extended until at least July 1, 2014, and further legislation is 
not needed to extend it again. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to extend the 
deadline again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute. 
Para. 2  equally states that "The law required 100% cargo scanning on international U.S. inbound 
flights, originally by 31 December 2011. Howeve r, the TSA postponed this deadline and instituted 
a new deadline of 3 December 2012 for implementation." Has the deadline of 3 December for the 
100% cargo scanning been met and is the requirement for 100% cargo scanning on international U.S. inbound flights now in force? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 345 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Beginning December 3, 2012, all U.S. in bound cargo shipments loaded on passenger 
aircraft must undergo screening for explosives. 
Para. 4  of the Secretariat's report describes the rule s pertaining to customs brokers. U.S. laws 
only allow licensed customs brokers to transact customs business on behalf of others. The 
paragraph states that "CBP regulations prescribe eligibility requirements (age, citizenship, etc.) 
and qualifications (licence exam, fees, and a pproval by CBP) to become a licensed customs 
broker." Could the U.S. authorities sp ecify the exact eligibility requirements? 
RESPONSE: To be eligible to be a US Customs broker an individual must: be at least 21 years of 
age, not be a current Federal Government employee, be a U.S. citizen, and possess good moral character. Once eligible to be a Customs brok er, an individual must: pass the Customs Broker 
License Examination, submit a broker license appl ication with appropriate fees, and be approved 
by CBP. 
(iv) Tariffs 
(a) Tariff nomenclature 
According to para. 17  of the Secretariat's report, the United States did not implement one set of 
HS2012 changes, i.e. the deletion of subheadings 3702.91 to 3702.95 and the insertion of new subheadings 3702.96, 3702.97 and 3702.98. Could the U.S. authorities indicate for which reasons 
this set of HS2012 changes has not been implemented and when it will be the case? 
RESPONSE: With regards to the HS2012 changes, the United States acknowledges the need to 
delete subheadings 3702.91 to 3702.95 and to replace those with new subheadings 3702.96, 3702.97 and 3702.98. The failure to make this change was an accidental omission and steps are 
being taken to rectify the situation. The United States intends to make these changes and submit 
the necessary documentation to the WTO as soon as possible. 
According to para. 18  of the Secretariat's report, the United States did not notify 11 sets of 
changes involving the footwear sector. Thus, the nomenclature of the US WTO schedule does not 
match the one of the national tariff. Could the U.S. authorities indicate when the US intends to notify these 11 sets of change? 
RESPONSE: On October 31, 2011, the President issued Proclamation 8742 to modify the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States with respect to certain footwear, in conformity 
with United States obligations under the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. These changes became effective on December 3, 2011. 
The United States will be notifying the Co mmittee on Market Access of modifications to 
Schedule XX of the United States to reflect these changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon as possible. 
(b) MFN applied tariffs 
Para. 22  of the Secretariat's report indicates that several hundreds of tariff duty suspensions and 
reductions have been grouped into a law and provide temporary duty relief for certain products 
(cars, chemicals, medical devices and sporting  goods) until December 2012. Could the U.S. 
authorities indicate whether the duty relief will be extended? If yes, until when and for which 
products? 
RESPONSE: The US Manufacturing Enhancement Act was passed by Congress in 2010. The United 
States is not in a position to speculate on whether Congress might take action in the future to 
provide new or extended temporary du ty relief through new legislation. 
(c) WTO bindings 
According to para. 24  of the Secretariat's report, some changes made to the WTO tariff schedule 
have not yet been notified. In particular, the Unit ed States has not yet notified the changes (duty 
elimination) to its schedule of concessions related to the 3rd and 4th revision of the 
pharmaceutical initiative. The 3rd revision was implemented on July 1, 2007 and the 4th revision WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 346 - 
 
  was implemented on January 1, 2011. Could the U.S. authorities explain the reasons for these 
delays in notifying and indicate when they intend  to notify these changes given that notifications 
represent an important step toward improving the transparency of trade measures? 
RESPONSE: On December 21, 2010, the President issued Proclamation 8618 to modify the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to reflect duty eliminations on certain 
pharmaceuticals and chemical intermediates negotiated under the auspices of the WTO (4th 
revision of the pharmaceutical initiative). These changes became effective on January 1, 2011. 
On December 29, 2006, the President issued Proclamation 8095 to modify the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States to reflect duty eliminations for certain pharmaceuticals and chemical intermediates negotiated under the auspices of the WTO (3rd revision of the pharmaceutical 
initiative). These changes became effective on February 3, 2007. 
The United States will be notifying the Co mmittee on Market Access of modifications to 
Schedule XX of the United States to reflect these changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon as possible. 
Also, according to para. 24 , the Chapter notes relating to the HS96 and HS02 nomenclature 
changes as well as some amendments relating to certain tobacco tariffs pursuant to art. XXVIII GATT renegotiations have not been implemen ted in the US WTO Schedule. Could the U.S. 
authorities indicate how and when does they intend to remedy to that situation? 
RESPONSE:  The United States notified the conclusion of the Article XXVIII negotiations (see 
G/SECRET/2.Add1) and provided a copy of the US HTS changes to the WTO. 
(vi) Contingency measures 
(a) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
In para. 43 , the Secretariat's report notes that the initiation of anti-dumping investigations has 
increased substantially in 2011 after only a few initiations in 2010. Could the U.S. authorities 
indicate whether the impact of anti-dumping me a s u r e s  o n  t h e  i n p u t s  u s e d  b y  U . S .  c o m p a n i e s  
involved in global supply chains is considered explicitly in the decision to introduce or not 
anti-dumping duties on certain products? Also, how do the authorities reconcile the wide use of 
anti-dumping measures with the need to facilitate structural adjustment in order to improve the 
external competitiveness of U.S. companies, in cluding those involved in global supply chains? 
RESPONSE:  The United States administers its trade remedy laws in strict accordance with WTO 
rules. Antidumping investigations are initiated in response to petitions filed by the U.S. industry. 
The decision to impose an antidumping measure is based purely on a factual determination of 
whether dumping exists and whether that dumping has caused material injury to a domestic industry. Where dumping, injury, and a causal link  have been found, the United States will impose 
an antidumping measure. No other factors are taken into consideration before imposing an 
antidumping measure. 
(ix) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
Para. 84  of the Secretariat's report: in light of the ex perience gained since the entry into force of 
the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), could the U.S. authorities indicate how the new inspection regime improved the supervision of potential sanitary risk linked to imported foods? Also, could they indicate what are the lessons le arnt? Furthermore, based on FDA's experience and 
confidence building measures with specific part ners under this new regime, how do the U.S. 
authorities assess the possibility of an amendment of FSMA, which would strengthen the role of 
system audits? 
RESPONSE: The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) provides FDA with a variety of new 
authorities to help ensure the safety of import ed foods. An array of tools can be applied to 
imported food to help ensure safety, including basic border control activities such as examination, 
sampling and analysis, facility registration, foreign inspections, and other verification activities. In 
the future, FDA will add tools to help ensure the safety of imported foods as rulemakings are finalized and implemented. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 347 - 
 
  FDA has increased the number of routine inspections of all food facilities to meet new 
requirements mandated by FSMA. FSMA required FDA to immediately increase inspections of both foreign and domestic food facilities, including manufacturers/processors, packers, repackers, and 
holders of foods under FDA jurisdiction, and mandat ed an inspection frequency, based on risk, for 
food facilities. FDA will continue to employ foreign inspection and its other import-related tools in a 
manner ensuring that resources are allocated according to risk. An amendment to FSMA is not necessary for FDA to implement risk-based import policies. 
Para. 86 of the Secretariat's report  mentions that ‚a number of different agencies are involved in 
developing, implementing, and enforcing SPS measures'. It can be assumed that this rather complex structure could cause SPS related decision s to take more time than necessarily needed 
and thus result in unjustified barriers to trad e, particularly when it comes to suspend SPS 
measures that are no longer justified. Taking appropriately into consideration changes of a BSE 
risk status of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OiE) could be affected by the complex structures in the United States just described. Could the U.S. authorities explain the U.S.-internal 
procedure to adjust the import regulation once a lower OiE BSE risk status is published? Also, 
could the U.S. authorities describe in detail the timeframe needed for this procedure? 
RESPONSE: The BSE comprehensive rule is currently being finalized for publication. It is expected 
that the final rule will be published in 2013. The United States believes that this rule, once final, 
will be consistent with OIE guidelines.  
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
(b) National Export Initiative 
With respect to  para. 112 , could the U.S. authorities indicate  what is the overall government 
budget for the implementation of President Obama's National Export Initiative? Besides Ex-Im 
Bank, who else is in charge of carrying out the National Export Initiative? 
RESPONSE: In his State of the Union address in January 2010, President Obama launched the 
National Export Initiative (NEI) and set a goal of doubling U.S. exports in five years to support 
two million additional jobs in the United States. 
To aid in achieving this goal, the President issued Executive Order 13534 on March 11, 2010, 
establishing eight policy priorities for the NEI an d creating an Export Promotion Cabinet. The Trade 
Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC) established by Executive Order 12870 of 
September 30, 1993 is tasked with helping to impl ement the NEI and serves as the secretariat for 
the Export Promotion Cabinet. As established by  Executive Order 13534 of March 11, 2010, the 
Export Promotion Cabinet consists of: 
 the Secretary of State; 
 the Secretary of the Treasury; 
 the Secretary of Agriculture; 
 the Secretary of Commerce; 
 the Secretary of Labor; 
 the Secretary of Energy; 
 the Secretary of Transportation; 
 the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
 the United States Trade Representative; 
 the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; 
 the National Security Advisor; 
 the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; 
 the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; 
 the Administrator of the Small Business Administration; 
 the President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and 
 the Director of the United States Trade and Development Agency. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 348 - 
 
  (c) Finance, insurance, and guarantees 
With respect to  para. 114 , could the U.S. authorities indicate whether Ex-Im Bank also provides 
railway export financing, e.g. via direct loans or  special financing programs? If yes, what are the 
volumes of the exports financed? If no, is there a demand for railway sector financing? 
RESPONSE: US Ex-Im Bank will provide financing for the rail sector (mainly locomotives) under 
any of our programs – direct loans, guarantees, an d export credit insurance. There are no special 
programs specifically designed for railway sector exports. Demand for Ex-Im financing in this 
sector has been modest over the past several year s averaging several millions of dollars annually. 
With respect to  para. 117 : Table III.18  suggests that despite a difficult economic environment 
Ex-Im Bank roughly doubled its financing activities between 2008 - 2011. This is a remarkable achievement. Many export credit agencies have had stagnating business and then reacted to the 
financial and economic crisis by introducing new programs and instruments. Could the U.S. 
authorities indicate, besides the support of the National Export Initiative (NEI), what new instruments Ex-Im Bank introduced to double its busi ness activities in just four years? In case no 
new instruments or discounts were introduced, what have been the main drivers/sectors of 
business activities for Ex-Im Bank during that period? 
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank provides financing when the private market is either unable or 
unwilling. The financial crisis that began in 2008 has continued to ripple throughout the global 
economy with the most recent series of challenges having emerged in Europe with the sovereign debt and banking crises. Consequently, the global export finance banking community has been adversely affected and in some cases, very significantly to the point where lenders have retreated 
entirely, or are able to extend financing in very limited situations in very limited amounts on very 
limited terms. For those banks that are still able and willing to lend, the cost of funding and the 
interest rates charged by lenders include a liquidity premium that translates into much higher 
spreads than normal. From a domestic perspective, Ex-Im has seen a dramatic surge in demand 
for its financing in all areas of lending but especially in the project and structured finance space where demand has grown five to six fold. These two areas are also where most of the largest 
ticket items with the longest tenors exist. In a ddition, Ex-Im's guarantee has been used to access 
the capital markets for large aircraft financing where demand has doubled. 
While the Bank has undertaken minor program tweaks to better fit various needs, it has not 
introduced any new core programs. The increasingly limited commercial bank capacity and very 
competitive Ex-Im programs have combined to drive activity and record levels. 
(3) Other Measures Affecting Investment and Trade 
(i) Business framework and bu siness investment incentives 
In para. 121 , the Secretariat's report affirms that tax measures were adopted to promote 
investment incentives. Para. 123  describes further measures taken by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) by granting loans, loan guar anties etc. In the WEF Global Competitive Report 
2011 the United States ranks 58 of 142 countries in what relates to the "burden of government 
regulation". Do the U.S. authorities intend to take  measures in this regard with a view to promote 
foreign direct investments (FDI) further? 
RESPONSE:  The Administration has undertaken ambitious steps toward minimizing regulatory 
burdens and avoiding unjustified regulatory co sts to the U.S. economy. For example, in 
January 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which calls on all agencies to conduct a thorough retrospective review of ex isting rules, and imposes a series of new 
requirements designed to reduce regulatory bu rdens and costs. As of May 2012, over two dozen 
executive department and federal agencies had identified hundreds of initiatives to reduce costs, simplify the regulatory system, and eliminate redundancy and inconsistency. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 349 - 
 
  IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
(1) Agriculture  
(ii) Agriculture policies (a) Trade 
Para. 13 of the Secretariat's report  mentions that the fill rates of tariff quotas vary significantly. 
The tariff quota fill rate is low for most cheese quotas. A rather complex system of different quotas for different types of cheese – each with quota shares reserved for specific countries resp. 
importers – is in place. 
Could the U.S. authorities explain what type of qu ota share (country, historic, or other) is showing 
the lowest fill rate? 
RESPONSE: The fill rates are strongly affected by market factors, not by the type of license. 
Information about the dairy import licensing program, including a monthly circular showing fill 
rates, can be found at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/i tp/imports/usdairy.asp .  
Given the low quota fill rates, what measures have the United States taken in the past to increase 
the fill rate of the cheese quotas? 
RESPONSE: The dairy import licensing regulations contains several mechanisms that provide 
incentives to fill the quotas. Any importer who does not fill at least 85 per cent of any license 
amount becomes ineligible for that same lice nse (type of cheese and country) the following 
year. Thus there is a strong incentive to use a li cense, or surrender some or all of it. License 
amounts that are surrendered, or for any reason not allocated, are available for reallocation upon request by any eligible applicant.  
As can be seen in the respective MA:2 notifications, the quota fill rates have not increased in 2010 
and 2011. What changes in the cheese quota regime are the United States considering in order to 
increase the quota fill rates? 
RESPONSE: The fill rates are strongly affected by market factors. As noted, the current regulation 
provides incentives for importers to fill all of the licensed dairy import quotas. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 350 - 
 
  THAILAND 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Pages 12-13 (paragraphs 28-29) 
Question 1: The WTO Secretariat Report provides an  overview of the foreign direct investment in 
the US. Could the US please provide informatio n on the US investment outflow including the 
amount, sectors and destination countries of such investment? 
RESPONSE: Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis produces these statistics. Information is 
located at: http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#omc  and 
http://www.bea.gov/international/di1usdbal.htm .  
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
Page 17 (paragraph 13) 
Question 2: The WTO Secretariat Report indicates that the legislation approving the US free trade 
agreements with Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and Panama was enacted by the Congress and 
signed into law by the President in October 2011. Nevertheless, the US-Panama FTA is not yet in 
force. Thailand would appreciate it if the US co uld inform us a time frame that the US-Panama FTA 
is expected to enter into force. 
RESPONSE: The U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement entered into force on October 31, 
2012. See WT/REG324/N/1; S/C/N/658, dated 30 October 2012. 
Page 19 (paragraph 18) 
Question 3: The WTO Secretariat Report indicates that the United States gives unilateral 
preferential treatment to imports from several countries. In order to receive benefits under one or 
more of the preference programmes, countries have to meet eligibility criteria, which vary by programme, but may include meeting international commitments in worker rights and investment 
practices, as well as foreign policy objectives such as having an extradition treaty or combating trade in illegal drugs, and other technical criteria such as adhering to rules of origin. Thailand 
would appreciate it if the United States could clarify more on how the US determines that 
countries, who have been granted
 unilateral  trade preferences, have met eligibility criteria 
especially international commitments in worker rights? 
RESPONSE: Each U.S. trade preference program is subj ect to specific statutory and regulatory 
guidelines regarding the review of country eligibility; the review processes vary somewhat from 
program to program. However, one common element is that country reviews under each of the 
four U.S. unilateral preference programs draw on information provided via a public comment process and involve direct engagement with the governments of countries under review. With 
respect to worker rights, the United States revi ews and analyzes information on how individual 
beneficiaries provide internationally recognized worker rights, as defined in the U.S. laws authorizing each of its trade preference programs. This information is drawn from a wide variety of 
sources and analysis, including petitions from th e public, legal studies of a beneficiary's laws, 
reports by international organizations related to worker rights and working conditions, and 
information provided by beneficiary governments,  NGOs and labor and business stakeholders. See 
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trad e-development/preference-programs  for more information. 
Page 20 (paragraph 19) 
Question 4: The WTO Secretariat report states that the US Congress may consider changes or 
reforms in the GSP and ATPA programs when it next takes up renewal of these two programs, 
probably in the first half of 2013. In this regard , Thailand would like to know whether there is the 
prospect for GSP reform next year and if the re form occurs, what is it expected to cover? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 351 - 
 
  RESPONSE: It is not yet clear whether possible reforms to the GSP program will be on the 
Congressional agenda in 2013, and the Administration is not in a position to speculate on what specific reforms Congress might consider. For its part, the Obama Administration believes it is important that any prospective reform of the GSP program take into account both the needs of the 
world's poorest countries and the fact that many emerging market countries may no longer need 
preferential access to compete in the U.S. market in some product sectors. 
Pages 27-28 (paragraphs 33-37) 
Question 5: The WTO Secretariat Report provides information about the US rules and regulations 
on investment. Thailand would like to seek greater information on the following points: (1)  What are the measures the US used for retaining investment within the US? 
RESPONSE:  It is the policy of the United States government to regulate foreign investment as 
little as possible. An open investment regime fosters economic growth, increases the 
competitiveness of companies, and promotes job creation. As international competition for capital intensifies, it becomes increasingly important for countries to offer investors a stable and 
non-discriminatory policy and regulatory environment. The United States continues to offer such 
an investment environment, and it seeks to enco urage the development of similar policy regimes 
in other economies. 
(2)  Does the US provide any incentives or preferenti al treatment, whether at the federal or state 
 level, to the US investors who invest outside the US? 
RESPONSE: The Overseas Private Insurance Corporation (OPIC), the US Government's 
development finance institution, provides financial products to help U.S. businesses expand into 
emerging markets, including loans and loan guaran ties, political risk insurance, and support for 
private equity investment funds. OPIC insurance is available to U.S. citizens; corporations, partnerships or other associations created under the laws of the United States, its states or 
territories, and beneficially owned by U.S. citizens ; foreign corporations that are more than 95 per 
cent owned by investors eligible under the above criteria; and other foreign entities that are 100 per cent U.S.-owned (additional information is available at http://www.opic.gov/ ). 
(3)  Which US agency is in charge of the US investment outflow? 
RESPONSE: The United States Government does not have an agency charged with overall 
responsibility for outbound investment flow. Differ ent aspects of investment policy that impact on 
outbound U.S. investment are the responsibility of different Government agencies. For example, 
the United States Commercial Service (a component of the Department of Commerce) provides 
counseling and market intelligence services to U.S. companies interested in doing business 
overseas; the Office of the United States Trade Representative negotiates international trade and 
investment agreements to increase market access for U.S. businesses in foreign markets; and the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation provides financial products (such as political risk insurance) to support the expansion of U.S. businesses into foreign markets. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURES 
Page 30 (paragraph 2) 
Question 6: The WTO Secretariat Report provides information about the US initiatives to facilitate 
trade, secure border and enforce laws and re gulations including C-TPAT, ACE, CSI and SFI. 
Thailand would like to seek greater information on the following points; (1) the requirement and 
benefit of joining the C-TPAT program and (2) the progress of 100% scanning under the CSI program. 
RESPONSE: Information on the C-TPAT program, who may join, and benefits may be found at the 
following link. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/ . WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 352 - 
 
  The deadline for the 100% scanning requirement will not go into effect until July 1, 2014, and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security has the authorit y to extend it again at that time under the 
conditions outlined in the statute. 
Page 35 (paragraph 9) 
Question 7: The WTO Secretariat Report indicates that the U.S. preferential rules of origin have 
not been notified to the WTO since 1997. Nevertheless, the US has established several FTAs with 
her trade partners since that time. To create tran sparency and facilitate trade, Thailand would like 
to request for some details on the US's preferenti al rules of origin and urge the US to provide 
updated information on preferential trade rules to WTO.  
RESPONSE: The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
Pages 48-49 (paragraph 48) 
Question 8: The WTO Secretariat Report points out about the US Department of Commerce's 
(DOC) February 2012 decision to modify its methodology to address so-called "zeroing" in 
administrative, new shipper, expedited and sunset reviews. However, the Report does not note 
that DOC's February 2012 methodology modification allows the use of zeroing where appropriated which includes the circumstance where "Target Dumpin g" is deployed in an investigation or review. 
Thailand would like to seek clarification on the following points: 
(1) How does the use of zeroing in cases of Target Dumping, or other cases where DOC deem 
appropriated, comply with WTO obligations pr ovided adverse DSB ruling on many precedent 
cases in the past? 
RESPONSE:  The change in the calculation of dumping margins announced in the 
February 14, 2012, notice addressed the dispute settlement findings regarding "zeroing" in administrative reviews. The change in the calculation of dumping margins announced in a 2006 
notice (71 Fed. Reg. 77722 (Dec. 27, 2006)) addressed the findings regarding "zeroing" in 
investigations. 
(2) The specific criteria on which DOC will base it s future determinations in regard to when the 
Zeroing practice is suitable. 
RESPONSE:  As explained in the February 2012 notice, in investigations and reviews, except 
where the Department of Commerce determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the Department of Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices 
with weighted-average normal values, and will grant an offset for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rate. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, 
the Department of Commerce has evaluated whether an average-to-transaction comparison 
method is appropriate, based on the facts of the particular case. 
(3) Whether the US intends to maintain its current policy of only revising completed investigations 
and reviews that used zeroing when challenged through formal WTO DSB. 
RESPONSE: The final modification provides that the re vised methodology would be applicable in 
any determinations made pursuant to section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3538). 
Pages 54, 57 (paragraphs 60 and 67) 
Question 9: The WTO Secretariat Report mentions the Lacey Act, pointing to the US efforts in 
addressing the trafficking of endangered plant or animal life. To ensure that the measure does not 
unfairly harm developing countries and comply with customs-related WTO obligations and general 
WTO non-discrimination disciplines, Thailand would like to seek greater information on the following points: WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 353 - 
 
  (1) Is there any expected future expansion of the list of prohibited goods under the Lacey Act? 
RESPONSE:  The Lacey Act prohibitions apply to all plants. The term "plant" is defined as any wild 
member of the plant kingdom, however, the statute excludes common food crops, common cultivars (except trees), scientific specimens, and nursery plants. The requirement to file a plant 
import declaration for covered plants and plant products is being enforced on a phased-in basis. 
Any changes in the schedule for the enforcement of  the import declaration will be published in 
advance in the Federal Register and made available on the website of United States Department of 
Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/p lant_health/lacey_act/ . 
(2)  Is there any available information from the US industry, importers or consumers on the 
current or likely trade effects of the US customs security and enforcement efforts relating to 
the Lacey Act?  
RESPONSE: We are not aware of any such information. 
Page 54 (paragraph 61) 
Question 10: The WTO Secretariat Report states that the US maintains quotas or quantitative 
restrictions on products outside of the agriculture TRQs. Could the U.S. please explain the reasons 
for maintaining quotas or quantitative restrictions on products outside of the agriculture TRQ?  
RESPONSE: The tariff rate quotas for both tuna fish and for broomcorn brooms were negotiated 
as part of the Uruguay Round. The United States has no current plans to unilaterally change its tariff quotas for these products. The United States would, of course, make any required changes pursuant to any future multilateral agreement. 
Pages 69-70 (paragraphs 107-109) 
Question 11: The WTO Secretariat Report provides an overview of the US Export Control Reform 
Initiative (ECR initiative) in which the U.S. attempts to improve her export control system by 
creating a single national control list with single licensing and enforcement unit. It would be 
appreciated if the US could inform us the progress of  the ECR initiative and when this initiative is 
expected to be fully implemented. 
RESPONSE: The United States has deployed a three- phase implementation plan. The United 
States has developed and applied a methodology for rebuilding the control lists, has already 
published a series of proposed rules for public comment in 2012, will publish the first final rules in early 2013, and will continue to publish the remaining proposed and final rules on a rolling 
schedule throughout 2013. Some aspects of implem entation could require legislation to implement 
a government reorganization that would consolidate the current system into a single control list, single licensing agency, single primary enforcement coordination agency, and single information 
technology system. To follow developments on the reform initiative, visit www.export.gov/ecr 
where details on all actions on the initiative are posted. 
Page 70 (paragraph 110) 
Question 12: The WTO Secretariat Report indicates that under the Agreement on Agriculture, the 
United States has the right to provide export subsidies for 14 agricultural products. Thailand would 
like to know whether U.S. government has any expe cted future reform of such mechanism or not, 
especially with regard to the U.S. sugar program. 
RESPONSE: The United States is currently engaged in discussions for the 2012 Farm Bill and is 
unable to indicate what changes will be made to past programs. The United States notes that it does not have export subsidy reduction commitments for sugar. 
Page 71 (paragraph 115) 
Question 13: The WTO Secretariat Report indicates that Ex-Im Bank operates in 186 countries 
around the world and has identified nine key mark ets (Brazil, Colombia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 354 - 
 
  South Africa, Turkey, and Viet Nam). Thailand would appreciate it if the US could clarify more on 
the following points: 
(1) What are the criteria to identify, evaluate, and select the key markets? RESPONSE: The criteria include the following: size of  export market for U.S. firms; projected 
growth; projected infrastructure needs; Ex-Im's current market penetration in the market; 
congressionally mandated markets; and markets where Ex-Im's financing could make a difference. 
(2) Whether the US Ex-Im Bank grants the benefit financing programmes to key market's buyers 
more than others or not. If yes, then wh at kind of special benefits they receive? 
RESPONSE:  US Ex-Im Bank has several key strategic initiatives (some mandated by Congress) - 
including small business, environment, Sub-Saharan Africa and medical technologies - that the Bank promotes globally. Otherwise, Ex-Im neither selects certain industries for special treatment 
nor prevents other transactions in other industries from going forward, so long as there is a 
reasonable assurance of repayment. 
Page 78 (paragraph 137) 
Question 14: The WTO Secretariat Report states that the US passed new legislation in late 2010 to 
create a federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for goods and services. When 
the law goes into effect, an amount of 2% is applied to foreign entities not party to an 
international procurement agreement. This is understood to apply to countries that are not 
members of the GPA or do not have a free trade agreement with the United States. The regulatory 
changes to implement the law have not been finalized. It would be appreciated if the US could 
provide us more information about this new legislat ion, particularly whom does the legislation will 
apply to and also the time frame that it is expected to enter into effect. 
RESPONSE: The text of the referenced legislation, Section 301 of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health 
and Compensation Act of 2010, is available on the Internet at 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . The United States 
would refer Thailand to the text of the legislation for an elaboration of its provisions. Pursuant to 
its terms, the effective date of the legislation wa s the date of its enactment, January 2, 2011. The 
US Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department are in the process of drafting 
regulations. 
Page 84 (paragraph 149) 
Question 15: The WTO Secretariat Report indicates that in 2011, the Federal Trade Commission 
amended the Hart-Scott-Rodino Pre-merger notifi cation rules and the form for reporting the 
proposed merger. The new rules, effective as of  18 August 2011, include significant changes. 
Additionally in 2010, the Department of Just ice and the FTC amended the Horizontal Merger 
Guidelines. The amendments retained the core elem ents of the previous guidelines but contain a 
number of important clarifications concerning market definition, and expand the discussion on assessing unilateral effects. Could the US please elaborate more on the major changes of the 
amendment of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Pre-merger no tification rules and the form for reporting the 
proposed merger and the Horizontal Merger Guidelines concerning market definition, and assessing unilateral effects? 
RESPONSE: Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Department of Justice made changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules, the premerger 
notification form and instructions to reduce the filing burden and streamline the form parties must file when seeking antitrust clearance of proposed  mergers and acquisitions under the HSR Act and 
the Premerger Notification Rules. 
The revisions were part of ongoing efforts by the FTC and DOJ to review their regulations, ensure 
that the rules are necessary and up-to-date, and eliminate unnecessary or potentially overly 
burdensome reporting requirements for business. The changes are intended to make the HSR form 
easier to complete, reduce the burden for most filers, and make the premerger notification review program more effective for both agencies. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 355 - 
 
  In particular, the revised HSR form deletes severa l categories of information that, over time, the 
agencies have viewed as unnecessary to their pre liminary merger review. For example, HSR filers 
are no longer required to provide copies of docume nts – whether in hard copy or via electronic link 
– filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissi on, report economic code "base year" data, or 
give a detailed breakdown of all the voting securi ties to be acquired. The new form also requires 
filers to provide the FTC and DOJ with narrowly focused additional documents that will help expedite the merger review process. 
The revised form changes certain kinds of required reporting, such as revenue information by 
industry NAICS (North American Industry Classifi cation System) code, and the identity of holders 
and holdings of the entities making a filing. In addition, new concepts are introduced that are designed to expedite the antitrust review, including reporting information about "associates" of the 
acquiring person. Changes also include minor revisions to the HSR Rules to address omissions 
from the 2005 Rule changes involving unincorporated entities. 
The Final Rules and Form are available at 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/fed reg/2011/07/110707hsrfrn.pdf .  
The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), were developed after extensive public 
consultations, including with non-US agencies, and updated the 1992 guidelines in several 
important ways. The Guidelines: 
 Clarify that merger analysis does not use a single methodology, but is a fact-specific process 
through which the agencies use a variety of tools to analyze the evidence to determine 
whether a merger may substantially lessen competition. 
 Introduce a new section on "Evidence of Advers e Competitive Effects." This section discusses 
several categories and sources of evidence that the agencies, in their experience, have found informative in predicting the li kely competitive effects of mergers. 
 Explain that market definition is not an end itself or a necessary starting point of merger 
analysis, and market concentration is a tool that is useful to the extent it illuminates the 
merger's likely competitive effects. 
 Provide an updated explanation of the hypothetic al monopolist test used to define relevant 
antitrust markets and how the agencies implement that test in practice. 
 Update the concentration thresholds that determine whether a transaction warrants further 
scrutiny by the agencies. 
 Provide an expanded discussion of how the agen cies evaluate unilateral competitive effects, 
including effects on innovation. 
 Provide an updated section on coordinated effe cts. The guidelines clarify that coordinated 
effects, like unilateral effects, include conduct not otherwise condemned by the antitrust laws. 
 Provide a simplified discussion of how the agen cies evaluate whether entry into the relevant 
market is so easy that a merger is not likely to enhance market power. 
 Add new sections on powerful buyers, mergers between competing buyers, and partial 
acquisitions. 
With regard to market definition more specifically, the U.S. recently submitted a paper to the 
OECD as part of the Competition Committee's ro undtable on market definition. This paper, 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/international/d ocs/062012Market%20d efinition_U.S.pdf , 
describes how the agencies approach market definition, including in the merger context. It 
references changes made in the Guidelines, including the introduction of the value of diverted 
sales as an indicator of upward pricing pressure, and provides a current picture of how the 
agencies employ market definition and th e approaches outlined in the guidelines. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 356 - 
 
  The Guidelines are available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/08/100819hmg.pdf . 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Pages 108-110 (paragraphs 35-40) 
Question 16: The WTO Secretariat report provides  a current status of the Farm Bill, the 2008 
provisions of which are set to expire between late-2012 and early-2013. Thailand would appreciate 
it if the US could provide us more information on: 
(1) The current status of Farm bill renewal 
(2) Whether expected provisions in any Farm Bill renewal legislation, including those related to 
sugar and aquaculture, will be WTO-consistent  
RESPONSE: At this time, the United States is unable to indicate when there will be a new Farm 
Bill or if the 2008 Farm Bill will be extended and if so, for how long. The United States expects that 
the Farm Bill will be consistent with US WTO obligations. 
Pages 114-117 (paragraphs 52-63) 
Question 17: The WTO Secretariat report provides an overview of US international fisheries policy 
on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, highlighting US participation in such 
international initiatives as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. Thailand would like to seek the greater information from t3he US on this issue: 
(1) Whether the United States seeks entrance into any further international IUU agreement. 
RESPONSE: In the ongoing TPP negotiations, the United States is seeking disciplines to curb 
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. 
(2) Whether the United States intends to modify its customs-related rules to facilitate lawful, 
non-IUU trade in fish and fish products. 
RESPONSE: We cannot speculate on future policies or potential modifications to our current 
system for importing legally-obtained fish and fish products. 
Pages 122-123 (paragraphs 72-76) 
Question 18: According to the Dodd-Frank Act, which allows the Board of Governors to apply 
enhanced supervision and prudential standards for  Systemically Important Financial Institutions 
(SIFIs), what  areas are of special concern in regulating SIFIs and how does the US evaluate the 
effectiveness of such regulation? 
RESPONSE: On January 5, 2012 the Federal Reserve Board requested comment on proposed 
rules that would implement the enhanced prudential standards required to be established under 
section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 
See 
http://www.stlouisfed.org/regrefo rmrules/Pdfs/2012-3-7_FRS_Co mment_ext_for_prudential_stan
dards_for_covered_companies.pdf . 
With respect to nonbank financial companies that were historically outside the existing regulatory 
framework for bank holding companies, the Dodd-Frank Act provided for: (i) the establishment of 
the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the Council), which has the authority to designate 
nonbank financial companies that could pose a threat to financial stability; (ii) a new framework for consolidated supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve of nonbank financial companies designated by the Council; and (iii) improved tools for the resolution of failed nonbank financial 
companies. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 357 - 
 
  PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
VI. TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT 
Pages 31-32 (paragraphs 145-149) 
Question 19: The US report provides an overvi ew of US work on environment-related trade 
matters through multilateral, regional and bilateral tr ade initiatives, specifically citing US efforts: 
(i) within the World Trade Organization (WTO) to a ddress fishery subsidies; (ii) within Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation countries to address illegal logging and associated trade and trade in 
illegally harvested species; and (iii) with its free trade agreement (FTA) partners to ensure 
compliance with the relevant FTAs' environment-rela ted provisions. In addition, the US report also 
mentions US efforts to strengthen environmental standards in countries entering into a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with the United States, and to intensify monitoring and enforcement of 
environment-related FTA commitments, e.g., under US-Peru FTA.  
Thailand would like to seek greater information with respect to: (1) steps Thailand may take to 
avoid US environment enforcement-related action against it, where applicable; (2) steps the 
United States is taking to ensure that intensif ied efforts in such environmental and trade matters 
comply with WTO obligations; (3) any expected futu re course of policy in this regard, perhaps in 
the context of bilateral or regional trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); 
and (5) the likely content of environment-related provisions in any future trade negotiation 
mandate, i.e., Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).  
RESPONSE: The United States is convinced that open trade and investment policies can and 
should be mutually supportive with our environmental protection policies, and we continue to seek 
to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment policies across multiple fronts, 
including through multilateral, regional, and bilateral initiatives. The United States is committed to implement its environmental policies in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations, and expects 
other WTO Members to act consistent with their WTO obligations as well. 
We cannot speculate on future policies or the content of legislation that the Congress may enact in 
the future. 
VII. TRADE AND LABOR 
Pages 32-33 (paragraph 150) 
Question 20: The US Report indicates that the US has continued its efforts to enhance 
US Government engagement with trade partners to  improve respect for labor rights. It would be 
appreciated if the US could provide information on principles or methods of the US in determining 
the trade partner to be improved respect for labor right and also procedures in engaging to improve respect for labor rights in such trade partner. 
RESPONSE: In U.S. trade agreements and the laws au thorizing trade preference programs, the 
United States points to international labor standards, such as those embodied in ILO's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work , as the basis for countries' respect for 
labor rights. In its engagement with its trade partners, the United States funds technical 
assistance programs and provides technical expertise in assisting countries to meet these international standards, including through the labor cooperation mechanisms of U.S. trade agreements. The United States also encourages tr ipartite dialogue among governments, business, 
and labor representatives in achieving these standards. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 358 - 
 
  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/275) 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES (3) P
REFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
Page 27, Paragraph 32 
Mention is made of the intention to pursue more  Trade and Investment Agreements (TIFAs) with 
the African and Middle East countries. 
1. What priority does the US attach to completion of the current negotiation of the TIFA with 
Caribbean countries? What is the schedule for completion of these negotiations? 
RESPONSE: The United States attaches a high priority to completing TIFA negotiations with 
Caribbean countries. We expect to conclude the negotiations in early 2013. 
Page 17, paragraph 13 
2. Can the USA provide a timeframe when the US A-Panama Free Trade Agreement will enter into 
force? 
RESPONSE: The U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement entered into force on October 31, 
2012. See WT/REG324/N/1; S/C/N/658, dated 30 October 2012. 
Page 28, paragraph 35 
The Secretariat Report states "According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report, a 
number of federal laws or regulations act as barri ers or otherwise restrict foreign investment in 
several areas, i.e. maritime, aircraft, mining, en ergy, lands, radio communications, banking, and 
investment company regulations". 
3. Please provide details of the US federal laws and regulations which act as barriers or may 
restrict foreign investment in the sectors mentioned. 
RESPONSE: The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report cited in Paragraph 35 of the 
Secretariat's Report discusses a number of federal-level measures that "have an impact on foreign 
investment in the United States," including measures that do not restrict foreign 
investment. Indeed, the report notes that "there are not across-the-board, blanket restrictions on 
foreign investment in the United States." The CRS report referenced in the Secretariat's Report 
itself provides detail on each of the federal-level measures it discusses. The report is publicly available, and its bibliographical information is provided in the "References" section of the Secretariat's Report. 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 42, paragraph 32 
Merchandise Processing Fee 
According to the Secretariat Report "Since 1985 the United States has imposed fees for the 
processing of commercial merchandise. Several revisions to the law or new laws that have 
modified the fees, changed how they are asse ssed, and created exemptions. The Merchandise 
Processing Fee (MPF) was created in 1986, and since 1990 has been applied differently depending 
on whether the import is an informal or formal entry. For informal entries, the MPFs are: US$2 for automated entries, US$6 for manual entries not prepared by CBP, and US$9 for manual entries prepared by CBP. For formal entries there is an  ad valorem fee with caps for minimum (US$25) WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 359 - 
 
  and maximum (US$485) rates. Currently, the informal entry limit for merchandise is US$2,000, 
but there is a proposed rule by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Treasury to raise the limit to US$2,500. The final rule is expected to be issued in the second half of 2012" 
4.  Can the USA provide details of the final rule which was expected to be completed in the second 
half of 2012. 
RESPONSE: The final rule raising the informal entry limit was adopted on December 6, 2012. The 
final rule will go in effect in January 2013. For more information on this change and MPF rates, 
see: https://www.federalregister.gov/ articles/2012/12/06/ 2012-29193/informal-entry-limit-and-remov
al-of-a-formal-entry-requirement .  
Page 54, paragraph 62 
According to the Secretariat Report,  "The United States last notified quantitative restrictions in 
1999, and cross-referenced three notifications in the areas of safeguards, import licensing, and 
textile. According to the authorities, a new notification is under preparation." 
5. Can USA please indicate an expected timeline  for the completion and submission of this 
notification in fulfillment of its WTO obligations? 
RESPONSE:  The United States' most recent notification on Quantitative Restrictions, submitted on 
October 3, 2012, was issued under G/MA/QR/N/USA/1. 
Page 54 Table III.14 
Products Subject to US Import Licensing Procedures 2011 
The amount of time in advance of importation within which a permit must be applied for is not 
specified in the regulations. A permit cannot be gr anted immediately upon request. Prior review of 
the application is required. There are no limitations as to the period of the year during which 
permit applications may be made. Permit applications are processed and effected by one office 
6. Please indicate an estimated processing time fo r this permit given that they are not granted 
immediately. Please indicate a time frame for the prior review. 
RESPONSE: The amount of processing time and timeframe for prior review can only be 
determined on a product-by-product, case-by-case basis. As noted by the Secretariat, the permit 
system is not used to restrict the quantity or value of imports, but only to protect domestic agriculture from the introduction or entry of an imal diseases or disease vectors. Permits for 
products apply to all countries depending on disease status and type of product (see US "Replies 
to Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedur es," G/LIC/N/3/USA/9, September 25, 2012). The 
United States implements its import licensing re gime in accordance with Article 1.2 of the WTO 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
Page 62, Box III.1 
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) provides for technical cooperation. 
7. Can the United States advise whether the Programme of cooperation been rolled out? If so, 
what are the mechanisms to allow small developing countries to benefit from this support programme. 
RESPONSE: Section 305 of FSMA requires FDA to develop a comprehensive plan to expand 
technical, scientific and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments and their 
respective food industries in countries from which foods are exported to the United States. The statutory deadline for developing the plan is two years from date of enactment of the Act, which is 
January 4, 2013. Further, FDA is required to develop the capacity-building plan in consultation 
with certain stakeholders, including representati ves of the food industry, officials from other WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 360 - 
 
  federal agencies, foreign governme nt officials, non-governmental organizations that represent the 
interests of consumers, and other stakeholders. FDA has not yet published the capacity building plan. The capacity-building plan shall include, as appropriate: 
1. Recommendations for bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, including 
providing for responsibilities of export ing countries to ensure food safety; 
2. Provisions for secure electronic data sharing; 
3. Provisions for mutual recognition of inspection reports; 
4. Training of foreign governments and food prod ucers on U.S. requirements for safe food; 
5. Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex 
Alimentarius; and 
6. Provisions for multilateral acceptance of laboratory methods and testing and detection 
techniques. 
FDA hosted a one-day public meeting entitled "International Capacity Building with Respect to 
Food Safety" on June 19, 2012 in Washington, DC. The purpose of this public meeting was to 
provide interested persons a forum to learn about FDA's current thinking on the international 
capacity building plan and offer an opportunity for the public to provide comments. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 361 - 
 
  TURKEY 
REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES 
II. The United States Economic and Trade Environment pg. 10, para. 29-30 
In the Government Report it is stated that  "Weak housing market and high levels of household 
debt, are the legacies of the bubble that preceded the recent financial crisis. Conditions are improving in the housing sector, and households have made significant strides with regard to 
balance sheet repair, but in neither case has the United States returned to pre-bubble norms." 
"U.S. economy is vulnerable to global economic co nditions, particularly the situation in Europe." 
How will the US economy overcome these challenges? RESPONSE: The Administration has embarked on a series of multifaceted and fiscally responsible 
actions in partnership with private market participants and housing regulators to proactively repair 
the housing market and ease the transition to a new and stable equilibrium. The new policy initiatives seek to enable refinancing, to unlock access to credit for responsible underwater 
homeowners, to reallocate foreclosed properties to the rental market, to prevent unnecessary 
foreclosures for borrowers struggling with temporary loss of income, to implement sustainable modifications of delinquent loans, and to repair th e frayed infrastructure of mortgage servicing and 
mortgage finance. 
The U.S. economy continues to grow despite the situation in Europe. However, like every country 
in the international community, it has a strong interest in the successful resolution of the crisis. The Administration is engaging with European go vernments both bilaterally and in multilateral 
forums. The United States has also been involved in the response to the crisis through its role in 
the IMF. The Administration continues to urge movement along several dimensions in Europe: 
robust implementation of countries' agreed fiscal an d structural reform programs, in the context of 
steps that euro-area leaders have outlined to reform fiscal governance in the euro area; a more 
substantial financial firewall to ensure that governments can borrow at sustainable interest rates while executing policies to strengthen the foundations for growth and to reduce their debts; and 
measures to ensure that European banks have sufficient liquidity and are adequately capitalized to 
maintain the full confidence of depositors and cred itors. Global and U.S. economic performance will 
depend, in part, on the swift resolution of problems in the euro area. In such times of global economic and financial disequilibrium, U.S. coordination with international partners remains 
essential. 
IV. Trade Policy Developments Since 2010 pg. 20, para. 84 
In the Government Report it is indicated that comprehensive trade agreement between US and EU 
is on the agenda. 
Within this framework, could the Delegation kind ly provide further information about the recent 
developments regarding the possible US-EU Free Trade Agreement? 
RESPONSE: The U.S.-EU High Level Working Group, established by the U.S.-EU Summit in 
November 2011, has been exploring the possibility  of comprehensive trade negotiations between 
the United States and the EU. The Working Group n eeds to do additional work on several issues 
before it will be ready to issue final recommend ations. The date on which the Working Group will 
issue its final report is still under consideration.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 362 - 
 
  REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) I NVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES  
PAGE 28, PARA .35 
It is stated by the Secretariat that "According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report, a 
number of federal laws or regulations act as barri ers or otherwise restrict foreign investment in 
several areas, i.e. maritime, aircraft, mining, en ergy, lands, radio communications, banking, and 
investment company regulations". 
Some of these restrictions may serve as obstacles to liberal investment regime that a free market 
economy is expected to have. In this regard, does the US Government plan to take steps for further liberalization of investment regime? If they have such plans, could they share their 
agenda? 
RESPONSE:  There are not at present any proposals within the US Government for significant 
revision to measures impacting foreign investment. As noted in the CRS report cited in Paragraph 
35 of the Secretariat's Report, foreign investment in the United States is subject to restrictions in 
only a very small number sectors. 
(4)
 INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES , PG. 28, PARA . 35 
The Secretariat Report cites that "Where The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
States (CFIUS) identifies national security concerns with a transaction that are not adequately and appropriately addressed by other law, CFIUS is authorized to negotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the risks cannot be mitigated, recommend to the President that he suspend or 
prohibit the transaction." 
Could the Delegation enlighten the membership about the details of mitigation measures that 
CFIUS may impose on the investment transactions? In addition, could the Delegation share with 
the membership the criteria used for deciding whether a transaction affects the national security or 
not? 
RESPONSE: Information describing mitigation measures required by CFIUS is available in the 
CFIUS Annual Report, available on the CF IUS website at www.treasury.gov/CFIUS. 
CFIUS has published guidance on types of transactions that have posed national security 
considerations. (See guidance that Treasury published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal 
Register,  available on the CFIUS webpage at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/internati onal/foreign-investmen t/Documents/CFIUSGuid
ance.pdf ).  
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) Measures Directly Affect ing Imports, pg. 30, para. 2 
The Secretariat notes that  "Beyond the basic importing topics of classification, valuation, and 
origin and marking, CBP is responsible for a number of initiatives to facilitate trade, better secure 
U.S. borders, and enforce U.S. laws and regulations. These include: 
Container Security Initiative (CSI) , launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 
order to address the threat to border security po sed by the use of maritime container shipments. 
As more than 11 million cargo containers arrive at U.S. ports every year, CBP has developed a 
pre-screening process to assess risk and, if necessary, containers are inspected abroad before 
being shipped to the United States. CSI is now in operation in 58 ports world-wide and pre-screens over 80% of maritime container cargo destined for the United States." 
Could the US Government elaborate on their future plans for the CSI? Does the US Governemnt 
have any plan to change the coverage of the CSI or to end the implementation of the CSI? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 363 - 
 
  RESPONSE: CSI is now operational at ports in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle 
East, and Latin and Central America. CBP's 58 operational CSI ports now prescreen over 80 per cent of all maritime containerized cargo imported into the United States. At this time there are no plans to expand to other ports or places beyond the current ports that are currently active. 
(1) Measures Directly Affect ing Imports, pg. 30, para. 2 
The Secretariat notes that "Beyond the basic importing topics of classification, valuation, and 
origin and marking, CBP is responsible for a number of initiatives to facilitate trade, better secure 
U.S. borders, and enforce U.S. laws and regulations. These include: 
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) , initiated in response to the Security and Accountability for 
Every (SAFE) Port Act to evaluate the feasibility of requiring 100% scanning of maritime cargo containers. The SAFE Port Act, as amended, requ ires 100% scanning of all maritime containers 
shipped to the United States by 1 July 2012. On 2 May 2012, in accordance with the statute, DHS 
Secretary submitted to Congress her intent to ex tend the deadline by two years. New proposed 
legislation to extend or eliminate the statut ory deadline has not been passed into law…" 
Could the US delegation kindly provide us up-t o-date information about the extension of the 
statutory deadline? 
RESPONSE: In May 2012, DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a report and letter to Congress 
extending to July 2014 the deadline to implement 100% scanning. 
(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports Page 48-49, para. 48 
The Secretariat Report cites that "The United States abandoned the use of zeroing when 
calculating margins in original investigations based on weighted average to weighted average 
comparisons in 2006. However, in February 201 2, after publishing a proposed modification, 
receiving public comments, and consulting wi th Congress, the US Department of Commerce 
modified its methodology to address the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, 
expedited, and sunset reviews. In administrative reviews, "except where the Department determines that application of a different comparison method is more appropriate, the Department 
will compare monthly weighted average export prices with monthly weighted average normal 
values, and will grant an offset" where the export  price exceeds the normal value. Further, in 
sunset reviews "it will not rely on weighted average dumping margins that were calculated using the methodology determined by the Appellate Body  to be WTO-inconsistent." The new rules apply 
to all reviews pending before the Department fo r which preliminary results were issued after 
16 April 2012." 
Concerning the dumping calculation methodology in administrative reviews; 
i) What are the rules and procedures used to de termine the "appropriateness" of a case to apply 
monthly normal value- monthly export price comparison subject to offset if necessary? 
ii) What is the context of an "offset" to be grante d in the event of an export price exceeds normal 
value? 
RESPONSE: As explained in the February 2012 notice, in investigations and reviews, except 
where the Department of Commerce determines that  application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate, the Department of Commerce will compare weighted-average export prices 
with weighted-average normal values, and will grant an offset for all such comparisons that show 
export price exceeds normal value in the calculation of the weighted-average margin of dumping and the antidumping duty assessment rate. In certain investigations and administrative reviews, 
the Department of Commerce has evaluated whether an average-to-transaction comparison 
method is appropriate, based on the facts of the particular case. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 364 - 
 
  (2) Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
Page 70, para. 112 
It is stated by the Secretariat that: "Under Ex ecutive Order 13534 of 11 March 2010, the President 
set out the National Export Initiative (NEI) with the goal of doubling exports over five years by 
"helping firms – especially small businesses – overcome the hurdles to entering new export 
markets, by assisting with financing, and in ge neral by pursuing a Government-wide approach to 
export advocacy abroad, among other steps". Th e NEI addresses several issues intended to 
increase exports, including: developing programmes that improve information and other technical 
assistance to first-time exporters, and assist current exporters in identifying new export opportunities in international markets; promoting existing federal resources for export assistance; increasing the availability of export credits to  SMEs; promoting exports of goods and services 
through trade missions and commercial advocacy; improving market access by actively opening 
new markets; reducing significant barriers to trade, and enforcing trade agreements; and promoting balanced growth in the global economy." 
Could the US delegation kindly inform us about the specifics of steps they plan to take in the near 
future, under the NEI framework? Could the delega tion let us know that in which geographical 
markets they do particularly put emphasis with respect to trade promotion? 
RESPONSE: The annual National Export Strategy tracks and measures the Federal Government's 
progress in implementing the NEI recommendations , and also describes activities in particular 
areas and regions of the world, such as deepenin g engagement with major emerging markets. For 
full details see the 2011 National Export Strategy at: 
http://www.trade.gov/publicat ions/pdfs/nes2011FINAL.pdf .  
The 2012 National Export Strategy is expected to be publically released at the end of the year. 
(3) Other Measures Affecting Investment and Trade 
Page73, para. 121 
The Secretariat notes that "More recently, the President proposed a new framework for business 
tax reform in February 2012. The proposed reforms include provisions to: (a) eliminate dozens of 
tax loopholes and subsides, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in 
America; (b) strengthen American manufacturing and innovation; (c) strengthen the international 
tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic 
investment; (d) simplify and cut taxes for America's small businesses; and (e) restore fiscal 
responsibility and "not add a dime to the deficit" 
Could the US delegation provide us with some details pertaining to the President's proposal, 
particularly on the provisions included in the reform to "strengthen the international tax system, 
including establishing a new minimum tax on  foreign earnings, to encourage domestic 
investment"? 
RESPONSE: The proposal would strengthen the international tax system by requiring companies 
to pay a minimum tax on overseas profits, remove  tax deductions for moving production overseas 
and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. It also includes other reforms to reduce incentives to shift income and assets overseas, such as, for example, taxing currently the excess profits associated with shifting intangible assets to low tax jurisdictions. 
Additional details can be found at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-polic y/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Bu
siness-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf . 
(3) Other Measures Affecting Investment and Trade 
Page 78, para. 137 
The Secretariat Report states that"The United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create 
a federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for goods and services. When the law WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 365 - 
 
  g o e s  i n t o  e f f e c t ,  a n  a m o u n t  o f  2 %  i s  a p p l i e d  t o  foreign entities not party to an international 
procurement agreement. This is understood to apply to countries that are not members of the GPA or do not have a free-trade agreement with th e United States. The regulatory changes to 
implement the law have not been finalized; the changes will follow the FAR rulemaking procedures 
before entering into effect." 
Could the US Delegation share their rationale for this legislation and the schedule for the entry 
intro force of the same legislation? 
RESPONSE: The text of the referenced legislation, Section 301 of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health 
and Compensation Act of 2010, is available on the Internet at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- 111publ347/pdf/PLAW- 111publ347.pdf . The text of this 
legislation speaks for itself, and the United States does not have additional information to provide 
concerning the rationale of the legislation. Th e US Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury 
Department are in the process of drafting regulations. The statute is effective for payments received pursuant to contracts entered into on and after January 2, 2011. 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) Agriculture 
Page 107, para. 30 and pg. 111, Table IV.5 
It is stated by the Secretariat that: "Sugar processors qualify for marketing loans (without 
provisions for marketing loan gains or loan deficiency payments), and production is supported by other schemes. The sugar programme 'uses price supports, domestic marketing allotments, and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) to influence the amount of sugar available to the U.S. market. The 
program supports U.S. sugar prices above comparable levels in the world market'"  
Could the US Delegation elaborate on the evolution of the OECD indicator cited in Table IV.5 ("SCT 
as % gross farm receipts" for refined sugar), from 2006 to 2011? Particularly, in comparison with 
the evolution of the OECD average and in the light of the most recent OECD statistics showing that 
2011 rates are 27% and 11% for the US and OECD average, respectively. 
RESPONSE: The OECD, not the United States, developed the SCT indicator and the OECD uses its 
own specific definitions and methodologies for its calculation, therefore we cannot elaborate on the 
evolution of said indicator. It is important to note that OECD's classification and calculation methods for measuring single commodity transfer s are not comparable to WTO's measures for 
product-specific support. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 366 - 
 
  UKRAINE 
REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Paragraph 21 notes that approximately 7% of tariff lines are considered to have peaks, some as 
high as 350% (tobacco) (Chart III.2) The vast majority of peaks (around 50%) are in the textile 
and apparel sector, followed by agricultural products (35%), and footwear (7%). Commodities that are subject to TRQs generally have peak tariffs in  the out-of-quota tariff line and many tariffs that 
are non-ad valorem are also peak tariffs. 
Question: How does the US plan to reduce tariff peaks for these tariff lines? RESPONSE: The U.S. duty structure is a result of several successive rounds of multilateral trade 
negotiations. As shown in the Table III.4 of the Secretariat's Report, incidence of international 
tariff peaks (defined as any tariff rate at or ab ove 15 per cent) in the U.S. schedule has declined 
from 6.6 per cent in 2002 to 5.0 per cent in 2012. As is the case with other Members, the incidence of tariff peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule would be further reduced through balanced, 
ambitious multilateral trade liberalization. 
Paragraph 24 notes that the legal change to amend certain tobacco tariffs, pursuant to Article 
XXVIII renegotiations, has not been implemented at the WTO, while it appears the United States 
proceeded domestically with these changes long ago (G/SECRET/2, 8 March 1995 has not been 
approved or certified Tobacco changes impl emented by Presidential Proclamation 6821).  
Question: When does the US plan to fulfil the procedure under Article XXVIII since it appears the 
United States proceeded domestically with these changes long ago? 
RESPONSE: The United States notified the conclusion of the Article XXVIII negotiations (see 
G/SECRET/2.Add1) and provided a copy of the US HTS changes to the WTO. 
Paragraph  30 states that sugar processors qualify for marketing loans (without provisions for 
marketing loan gains or loan deficiency payments), and production is supported by other schemes. 
The sugar programme "uses price supports, domestic marketing allotments, and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) to influence the amount of sugar available to the U.S. market. The program supports U.S. 
sugar prices above comparable levels in the world market." Under the marketing loan programme, 
sugar processors rather than producers may take out loans and they agree to pay the producers at 
a rate proportional to the lo an. To prevent sugar being tran sferred to the CCC to settle a 
marketing assistance loan, an overall allotment quan tity is applied, to limit marketing, along with 
other provisions designed to manage domest ic supply commensurate with domestic demand. 
Question: We would ask United States to provide additional clarification concerning sugar price 
support policy – what measures of sugar price support are used to influence the amount of sugar 
available to the U.S. market and what are the measures for supporting sugar prices above 
comparable levels in the world market? 
RESPONSE:  The amount of sugar available in the U.S. market depends on the marketing 
allotment quantities granted to domestic produc ers and the quantity of sugar other countries 
choose to export to the United States under the tariffs and tariff-rate quotas established under the WTO and our other trade agreements. Price support is also provided through the marketing loan 
program, under which processors may take loans based on their sugar production and forfeit the 
sugar under loan in lieu of repayment if market prices fall below the statutory loan rate.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 367 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICIES BY MEASURE 
1. Measures directly affecting import (vi) Contingency measures, Anti-dumping an d countervailing measures, paragraphs 47, 
48 pp. 48, 49: 
The Secretariat Report notes that pursuant to commitments undertaken in the Uruguay Round, the 
United States began reviewing outstanding AD orders in force starting in July 1998. 
In February 2012, after publishing a proposed modification, receiving public comments, and 
consulting with Congress, the US Department of Commerce modified its methodology to address 
the issue of zeroing in administrative, new shipper, expedited, and sunset reviews . 
Question: Could the USA, please, clarify the procedure of recalculating of dumping margin for a 
country that in original anti-dumping investigation was defined as a country with non-market 
economy but later obtained the market economy status? How could an exporter from such country 
initiate the review, if it has not supplied its produc tion to the US market during the period after the 
application of anti-dumping measures because of hi gh level of anti-dumping duty (dumping margin 
was based on "surrogate" price)? 
RESPONSE: The process for reviewing an antidumping duty margin is the same for all countries, 
whether designated as a market economy or as a non-market economy. The United States has a 
retrospective assessment system, under which final liability for antidumping duties is determined 
after merchandise is imported. The most frequently used procedure for determining such liability is an administrative review under 19 U.S.C. 1675(a) and 19 CFR 351.213. 
Paragraph 57 notes that on 26 January 2012, the USITC published notice of an interim rule as 
part of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to  amend its rules relating to the conduct of 
investigations under legislation implementing safeguard provisions in free trade agreements. In essence, these rules expand upon the current rule s for bilateral safeguard investigations under the 
NAFTA and make them applicable to other FTAs with similar procedures. On 25 June 2012, the 
interim rule was adopted as a final rule. 
Question: Please, provide more information and what are the details of the procedure of bilateral 
safeguard investigations under the FTAs? 
RESPONSE: The rule, which the USITC has since adopted as a final rule (see next paragraph), 
addresses matters that are common to the FTA safeguard investigations that the USITC is authorized to conduct, such as the types of entities that may file a petition, the information that 
must be included in a petition, the time for US ITC determinations and reporting, and procedures 
for the limited disclosure of confidential business information under administrative protective order in those instances in which the USITC is authorized to make such disclosure. The rule also 
identifies the U.S. statutory provisions that implement the FTA safeguard provisions and authorize 
the USITC to conduct investigations and make determinations. 
The interim rule was adopted as a final rule (subject to correction of three typographical errors) 
effective June 25, 2012, the date on which the USIT C's notice of final rulemaking was published in 
the Federal Register  (77 Fed.Reg. 37804); a copy of the notice can be viewed on (and downloaded 
from) the USITC's website at http://usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/2012-15346.pdf .   
The full text of the final rule can be found on the USITC's website at 
http://usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/itcrules0212.pdf . 
(iv) Tariffs 
According to the WTO communication G/MA/279 of January 9, 2012 your country reserved rights 
under Article XXVIII:5 of the GATT 1994 to modify tariff schedule during 2012 - 2014. 
Question: We kindly ask you to provide informatio n concerning goods intended for modification of 
the bound levels. 
RESPONSE : The United States, like many other Members, reserves its rights under XXVIII:5 as a 
formality. Currently, we have no intention of raising our bound tariffs. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 368 - 
 
  Paragraph  71 notes that Ex-Im Bank provides export financing through various programmes, 
inter alia:  working capital guarantees for lenders (normally commercial banks) on secured, 
short-term working capital loans to finance the prod uction of goods for export by U.S. companies, 
particularly small businesses;  short and medium-term export credit insurance to exporters and 
lenders against the risk of default on debt obligations used to finance export contracts; and special 
financing programmes such as aircraft finance, project finance, and supply chain finance. 
Question: Could USA please clarify how these programmes correspond with the provisions of 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures, in particular with Article 3 and Annex 1? 
RESPONSE:  All of US Ex-Im Bank programs operate on a fully self-sustaining basis and operate 
within the guidelines of the OECD  Arrangement on Export Credits, where applicable, and are fully 
compliant with the WTO requirements. 
Paragraph 82 notes that The Volcker rule, as embodied in Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act 
(Prohibitions on proprietary trading and certain relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds), generally contains two prohibitions. It pr ohibits "banking entities" (insured depository 
institutions, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries or affiliates) from engaging in 
short-term proprietary trading of any security, de rivative, and certain other financial instruments 
for a banking entity's own account, subject to certain exemptions. In addition, it prohibits "banking 
entities" from acquiring or retaining any equity, part nership, or other ownership interest in or from 
sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund, subject to certain exemptions. The term "banking 
entities" includes foreign banks that maintain branches or agencies in the United States or that own U.S. banks or commercial lending companies in the United States. These banks, as well as 
their parent holding companies, are referred to  in U.S. regulations as "foreign banking 
organizations". 
Question: Could the U.S. provide clarifications on  the objectives and rationale for the "Volcker 
rule" implementation and application? 
Taking into account further liberalization of trade in services are there any plans to abolish 
prohibitions contained in the "Volcker rule"? 
RESPONSE: The OCC, Board, FDIC, and SEC (the Agencies) proposed a rule to implement the 
Dodd Frank Act Section 619 prohibitions and restri ctions on the ability of banking entities and 
nonbank financial companies to engage in proprietary trading and have certain interests in, or relationships with, a hedge fund or private equi ty fund. The Agencies requested comment on the 
potential impacts that the proposal may have on banking entities and the businesses in which they 
engage. 
Please see: http://www.stlouisfed.org/regreform rules/Pdfs/2011-11- 7_OCC-FRS-FDIC-
SEC_Prohibitions_restrictions_on_proprietary_trading.pdf .  
(i) Government procurement 
Question:  Could the U.S. provide number of contracts awarded by national or foreign providers 
during 2010-2011? 
RESPONSE: The United States has reported its statistics to the WTO Committee on Government 
Procurement through 2008. Beginning with 2009 procurement, the United States has changed its reporting methodology to more precisely reflect options exercised in contracts. It will submit the 
statistics for 2009-2011 to the WTO Committee as soon as that information is available. 
Question: How does the US ensure that any existi ng Buy American provisions are applied in line 
with its GPA obligations? 
RESPONSE: The Federal Acquisition Regulation provides for the implementation of Buy American 
provisions, which includes Part 25, which specifies that such provisions are not applied to goods purchased from countries with which the United States has a trade agreement that provides for 
reciprocal access.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 369 - 
 
  Question: The Secretariat report states that "In August 2010, the US notified the final Regulation 
implementing the Buy American provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(ARRA) pursuant to art.XXIV:5(b)". Could the U.S. provide the main features of the final Regulation, what is it expected to achieve? 
RESPONSE: That Regulation provided that the Buy American provision in the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act would not be applied to good s from countries with which the United States 
has a trade agreement that provides for reciprocal access. 
Question: The Secretariat report states that "Nearly all federal agencies are required to comply 
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), but certain agencies are exempt. Could the U.S. indicate what agencies are exempt and what are those criteria for exemption? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have a list of all agencies that are not required to comply 
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), nor does it have criteria for their exemption.  The 
FAR System is established for the codification an d publication of uniform policies and procedures 
for acquisition by all executive agencies (http ://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml# 
Executive_Departments). Executive agencies are required to comply with the FAR. Some 
Independent Agencies and Government Corporation, such as the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration elect to follow the FAR. 
Trade-related intellectual property rights 
Question: With regard to the US Trademark Law are Geographical indications subject to certain 
provisions for recognition and protection of rights? 
RESPONSE: The United States protects geographical indications through its trademark system as 
certification marks, collective marks and tradem arks. The U.S. trademark system provides the 
requisite protection set forth in the geographical  indications sections of the TRIPS Agreement; 
recognizes prior-in-time trademark rights and allows generic terms to remain in the public domain 
for producers' and manufacturers' use to refer to their products. Geographic signs used on 
non-originating goods/services that would mislead or deceive consumers are not eligible for registration as a trademark, or as part of a trademark. Complementary protection for and 
recognition of names of viticultural significance used on wine and spirits labels of both domestic 
and foreign origin is available under the US Federal Alcohol Labeling Act, administered by the Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM UKRAINE 
Chapter II, Trade Policy and Investment Regimes 
Section 3, Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements (ii) Unilateral preferences 
Paragraph 19 of the Report by the Secretariat notes that, during the past two years, the 
Congress of the United States has held significant policy discussions on prospective reform of some of the programmes establishing unilateral preference s. It clarifies that the legal authority for the 
Generalised System of Preference (GSP) and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) programmes 
lapsed on 31 December 2010 and 12 February 2011, respectively. In October 2011, legislation was enacted re-authorising the two programmes until 31 July 2013. According to the report, the Congress of the United States may consider changes or reforms in the GSP and the ATPA 
programmes when it next takes up renewal of thes e two programmes, probably in the first half of 
2013. According to the President's Trade Policy Ag enda, "the growing competitiveness of many 
emerging-market GSP beneficiaries may prompt review and reform of the GSP programme". 
Question: Could the United States provide more details on how it intends to reform its GSP 
programme and what the applicable definition of the category of "emerging-market GSP beneficiaries" is? 
RESPONSE:  It is not yet clear whether possible reforms to the GSP program will be on the 
Congressional agenda in 2013, and the Administration is not in a position to speculate on what specific reforms Congress might consider. For its part, the Obama Administration believes it is WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 370 - 
 
  important that any prospective reform of the GSP program take into account both the needs of the 
world's poorest countries and the fact that many emerging market countries may no longer need preferential access to compete in the U.S. market in some product sectors. 
While there is no set definition of "emerging markets," these are generally considered to be those 
lower- to upper-middle-income developing count ry economies that are experiencing strong 
economic growth and that are playing a growing role in global markets. 
Chapter III, Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
Section 1, Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(i) Customs procedures 
Paragraph 1  of the Report by the Secretariat notes that the United States Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for a number 
of initiatives to facilitate trade, better secure U. S. borders, and enforce the laws and regulations of 
the United States. These include, inter alia, the Container Security Initiative (CSI), and the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). The first was launched in  the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 
order to address the threat to border security po sed by the use of maritime container shipments. 
According to the Report, under this initiative, the CBP has developed a pre-screening process to assess risk and, if necessary, containers are insp ected abroad before being shipped to the United 
States. The SFI was initiated to evaluate the feasib ility of a requirement that 100% of all maritime 
containers shipped to the United States be scann ed by 1 July 2012, established by the Security 
and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act. According to the report, on 2 May 2012, in accordance with the statute, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary submitted to 
Congress her intent to extend the deadline by two years. New proposed legislation to extend or 
eliminate the statutory deadline has not been  passed into law. Complimentary rules and 
procedures for ensuring security of air cargo on passenger aircraft were enacted (Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act)  and the law is under the purview of the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), another agency of the Department of Homeland 
Security. The law required 100% cargo scanning on in ternational U.S. inbound flights, originally by 
31 December 2011. However, the TSA postponed this deadline and instituted a new deadline of 
3 December 2012 for implementation. 
Questions: Could the United States confirm that th e proposed legislation to extend or eliminate the 
statutory deadline has not yet been passed into law?  I f  t h i s  i s  t h e  c a s e ,  w h a t  d o e s  t h e  U n i t e d  
States intend to do? 
Could the United States clarify whether the deadline postponed by the TSA to 3 December 2012 
has, in fact, expired and the complementary rules and procedures to ensure the security of air 
cargo to freight and passenger are now in force, requiring 100% cargo scanning on international 
U.S.-inbound flights? 
Has the United States factored-in the trade impact of these measures on operators, in terms of 
increasing costs and pre-shipment inspection procedures? 
Could the United States describe how both the CSI and SFI procedures are trade-facilitating in 
nature? 
RESPONSE:  The deadline for implementation of the 100% scanning requirement has been 
extended and will not go into effect until July 1,  2014. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the 
authority to extend it again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute. The requirement still applies, but the deadlin e for implementation has been changed. 
As for air cargo screening, beginning December 3, 2012, all cargo shipments loaded on passenger 
aircraft must undergo screening for explosives , fulfilling a requirement of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act. 
In an effort to respond to numerous considerations, such as the impact on international trade 
flows and costs, TSA worked closely with other governments, international organizations, and industry partners to increase the security of air cargo without restricting the movement of goods and commerce. The original deadline of August 2010, was extended to allow for full participation WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 371 - 
 
  including costs and concerns of all parties af fected by the new requirement. The process 
announced takes into account costs, business practices, and the impact on our international partners, both governments and their traders. 
(iii) Rules of origin 
(b) Preferential rules of origin 
Paragraph 9  of the Report by the Secretariat notes that  the preferential rules of origin of the 
United States have not been notified to the WTO Committee on Rules of Origin since 1997. 
Question: In light of the obligation under Paragraph 4 of Annex II of the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin, could the United States clarify when it intends to notify these measures to the WTO? 
RESPONSE:  The United States submitted its notification on the U.S. preferential rules of origin to 
the WTO Secretariat on Friday, December 13, 2012. 
(vii) Quantitative trade measures, re strictions, controls and licensing 
(b) Import licensing 
Paragraph 63  of the Report by the Secretariat notes that the United States requires import 
licenses for 15 categories of products, including steel. The description provided in Table III.14 of 
the report clarifies that the final rules extend ing the system until 21 March 2013 was published on 
18 March 2009 and that it is possible to renew and extend the programme pending administrative 
review and approval. It also states that the licen sing requirement is not intended to restrict the 
quantity or value of imports, but to provide "f ast and reliable statistical information on steel 
imports to both the government and the public". 
Questions: Could the United States clarify whether it considers this import licensing requirement 
automatic or non-automatic? 
RESPONSE: The import licensing requirement is automatic.  
Could the United States clarify whether it intends to extend the program beyond 21 March 2013? 
RESPONSE: Please see the United States notification of its import licensing procedures in 
accordance with Article 7.3 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures in particular, 
page 14 of G/LIC/N/3/USA/9, dated September 25, 2012. The notification states that "The 
Commerce Department will follow similar notice, public comment and publication procedures as it 
considers whether to extend the SIMA program beyond March 2013." The United States is, therefore, in the process of considering whethe r to extend the program beyond March 21, 2013 
and has requested comments from the public (see also Federal Register volume 77, number 219, 
Tuesday, November 13, 2012, Proposed Rules, pages 67593-67595). 
The United States maintains a system of import licensing for specialty sugar. Table III.14 of the 
Report by the Secretariat clarifies that such syst em is aimed at providing exporters access to the 
U.S. domestic market at the low tier tariff (i.e., to allow entry of certain refined sugars not widely 
available in the United States to fulfill the de mand in niche markets). The US also regulates 
licenses for importation of sugar exempt from quot a. According to the Report by the Secretariat, 
these licenses are intended to increase the utilizat ion of excess domestic refining capacity and 
improve employment in refining and related industries. 
Questions: Could the United States clarify the func tioning of the import licensing system as applied 
to increase the utilization of excess domestic refining capacity? 
In particular, what are the timeframes involved  in the issuance of licenses and what are the 
mechanisms to subject the importation of sugar exempt from quota to licensing in a way that de facto restricts trade in the periods when there is no need to "increase the utilization of excess 
domestic refining capacity and improve employment in refining and related industries"? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 372 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The regulation involving the sugar exempt from quota can be found at 7 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1530. The licenses are permanent, and all decisions about importing and exporting sugar under a license are made by the licensee. 
(ix) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
Paragraph 81  of the Report by the Secretariat notes th at the Food and Drug Administration Food 
Safety Modernization Act became law in January 2011. The main contents of the Act are described in Box III.1. 
Questions: In relation to the registration of food facilities, could the United States clarify the 
requirements for registration of foreign food facilities? 
RESPONSE:  All food facilities that are required to register with FDA under section 415 of the FD&C 
Act, including foreign facilities (as defined in 21 CFR 1.227(b)(2)), must renew their registrations 
with FDA, as required by section 102 of FSMA. Registrants are required to submit registrations to 
FDA containing the information described in section 415(a)(2) of the FD&C Act, including the new information added by section 102 of FSMA.  
Could the United States clarify the application of th e criterion of "reasonable probability" of serious 
adverse effects on human or animal health (as re ported in Box III.1), which allows the Food and 
Drug Administration to suspend the registration of a food facility? 
RESPONSE:  Under Section 415(b) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that food manufactured, 
processed, packed, received, or held by a registered facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to  humans or animals, FDA may by order suspend 
the registration of a facility that: 
 Created, caused or was otherwise responsible for such reasonable probability; or 
 Knew of or had reason to know of such reasonable probability and packed, received or held 
such food. 
FDA will determine whether food, manufactured, processed, packed, received, or held by a 
registered facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals FDA on a case-by-case basis as such a determination depends on an 
assessment of the unique facts for each situatio n. FDA has issued an order suspending the 
registration of a food facility action under section 415 of the FD&C Act recently. For more information on that event and to access a copy of  the Agency's suspension order, please visit 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafe ty/CORENetwork/ucm320413.htm .  
In relation to the safety of imported food, coul d the United States clarify the functioning of the 
Foreign Supplier Verification Program and the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program? 
RESPONSE:  The Foreign Supplier Verification Program requires importers to conduct risk-based 
foreign supplier verification activities to verify that imported food is not, among other things, 
adulterated and that it was produced in complian ce with FDA's preventive controls requirements 
and produce safety standards, where applicable. 
Section 302 of the statute requires FDA to establish a voluntary, user-fee funded voluntary 
qualified importer program (VQIP) to expedite entr y into the United States of imported food from 
eligible, qualified importers. To be eligible to participate in VQIP, an importer must offer food for importation from a facility that has a certification by an accredited third party. The new law directs 
FDA to issue guidance on participation in and compliance with VQIP. 
When does the United States intend to notify the implementing regulations for the Foreign Supplier 
Verification Program? 
RESPONSE:  FDA is working diligently to issue the rules required by FSMA. We will notify the 
implementing regulations to the WTO once  they are issued and published in the Federal Register.  WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 373 - 
 
  In relation to laboratory and third-party accreditation requirements, could the United States clarify 
whether the US Food and Drugs Administration has issued the rules for the accreditation of laboratories and for the recognition of accreditation bodies under Sections 422 and 307, respectively? 
RESPONSE:  FDA has not yet issued proposed rules for laboratory accreditation and accreditation 
of third-party auditors. 
Section 2, Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures 
(c) Finance, insurance, and guarantees 
According to Paragraph 116  of the Report by the Secretariat, certain ocean borne cargoes 
financed by Ex-Im Bank direct loans and long term guarantees exceeding US$20 million or with a 
repayment period of more than seven years must be transported on U.S. flagged vessels, unless a 
waiver is obtained from the US Maritime Administration. According to the US Maritime Administration, 10 waivers were granted in 2010 and 16 in 2011. 
Questions Could the United States provide further information on the functioning of the restriction 
applied to ocean borne cargoes financed by Ex-Im Bank direct loans and long term guarantees and, similarly to the waiver that may be accorded to non-U.S. flagged vessels? In particular, could 
the US clarify how said restriction to the flag of the transport operator, as opposed to the cargo 
being transported, is non-discriminatory in nature? 
RESPONSE: As a matter of policy, cargo benefitting from Ex-Im Bank programs should be 
transported on U.S.-flag vessels, unless a suitable U.S.-flag vessel is not availble at a reasonable 
rate. We further note that the United States has not undertaken services commitments in regard 
to maritime services.  
Paragraph 117  of the Report by the Secretariat states that, since 2008, the Ex-Im Bank has 
greatly increased its export financing through loans, guarantees, and export credit insurance. 
Under the National Export Initiative, the Bank has increased its efforts to provide export financing for small businesses, through the Small Business (Global Access) initiative, launched in 2011, and 
the development of new products, such as express insurance and an online application process. 
Questions Could the United States provide more details on the National Export Initiative and its 
contribution in the area of export assistance and export financing? 
Could the United States provide more information on the Ex-Im Bank's export financing efforts 
under the National Export Initiative? 
RESPONSE:  Global Access for Small Business is an initiative dedicated to dramatically increasing 
the number of small businesses exporting goods and services to maintain and support U.S. jobs. 
Global Access is being supported by a wide variety of businesses, financial and government 
partners and is part of the National Export Initiative. In addition to its standard export credit programs, export credit insurance, pre-and post  shipment guarantees, and direct loans, Ex-Im 
introduced several new complementary products ai med at SME exporter needs. Finally, Ex-Im has 
redesigned its website with a special portal dedicated to small Business. More details on these efforts can be found at www.exim.gov. 
Section 3, Other Measures A ffecting Investment and Trade 
(iii) Government procurement 
According to Paragraph 131  of the Report by the Secretariat, U.S. procurement legislation 
includes specific rules on what qualifies as an "American good" for procurement purposes (i.e., 
specific origin rules that differ from rules of origin and marking for importation purposes). In 
particular, non-manufactures are considered U.S. products if mined or produced in the United 
States; manufactures are considered U.S. products  if manufactured in the United States and the 
c o s t  o f  U . S .  c o m p o n e n t s  i s  m o r e  t h a n  5 0 %  o f  the overall cost of all components. In addition, 
special rules apply for construction contracts, whereby origin is not based on the nationality of the WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 374 - 
 
  contractor or similar, but on the origin of th e articles, materials, and supplies used by the 
contractor in constructing or repairing the building or work. 
Question: Could the United States clarify whether these origin requirements apply to procurement 
covered by the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement? 
RESPONSE:  The United States can confirm that the origin requirements referenced in the 
question do not apply to government procurement covered by the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. 
Chapter IV, Trade Policies by Sector 
Section 1, Agriculture (ii) Agriculture policies 
According to Paragraph 11  of the of the Report by the Secretariat, there have been no major 
changes to agriculture policies in the United States since the last Trade Policy Review and the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 remains the basis for most agricultural programmes and will remain so until it expires. The report st ates that some of the provisions of the 2008 Act 
expire on 30 September 2012, others on 31 Decemb er 2012, and others in 2013 at the end of the 
2012 crop year. Should the 2008 Act expire without enactment of successor legislation or a temporary extension, farm programmes will revert to the permanent legislation, most of which is 
in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agriculture Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Charter Act of 1948. 
Question: Could the United States clarify the cu rrent legal framework applicable to its various 
agricultural programmes? 
RESPONSE:  As noted in the report, some provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill have expired; others 
will expire on December 31, 2012; others will ex pire at the end of the 2012 crop year; and yet 
others are governed by permanent legislation that  does not expire. Therefore, the legal framework 
is complex and varies by provision. The United States is unable to speculate as to when new 
legislation will be adopted. 
(a) Trade 
Imports 
According to Paragraph 14  of the Report by the Secretariat, the United States has reserved the 
right to use the Special Agricultural Safeguard (SSG) on 189 tariff lines, mostly dairy products, sugar products, products containing sugar and/or dairy ingredients, and cotton. While the volume 
based SSG was last used in 2003, the price based safeguard has been applied more frequently 
(e.g., on 48 tariff lines in 2010, and 59 lines in 2009). According to the report, whenever an importer declares a price for out-of-quota imports that is below the level where the SSG is 
applicable, the additional duty is automatically applied. Therefore, in many cases the SSG is 
applied to small quantities such as 4 kg of fresh cheddar cheese or 3 kg of chocolate bars. 
Questions: Can the United States provide detailed statistics with respect to its use of SSGs per 
product, per country of origin of the goods and in relation to the volume and/or price triggers that 
have prompted the United States' administration to activate such instruments during the years following its last Trade Policy Review? 
RESPONSE: The United States annually notifies SSG use and provides quantity data on the use of 
the SSG by tariff line as a Committee on Agricu lture best practice. The United States does not 
break down SSG use to the country of origin level.  
With respect to the statement in the report that "whenever an importer declares a price for 
out-of-quota imports that is below the level where the SSG is applicable, the additional duty is 
automatically applied", can the United States indicate how this mechanism, which in its practical application appears to be tantamount to a variable levy and to lack the necessary predictability 
which is essential to international trade, complies with the relevant part of Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (in particular, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 thereof)? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 375 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States automatically applies price-based special safeguards (SSGs) on all 
products that were subject to tariffication in the Uruguay Round. The safeguard rates and trigger 
prices are published in the tariff schedule of the Unit ed States, so that there is transparency as to 
when the safeguard duty will be applied. The safeguard is applied in this manner for ease of 
administration and is fully consistent with the provisions of Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(iii) Levels of support 
(a) WTO notifications 
Paragraph 37  of the of the Report by the Secretariat states that support for sugar has remained 
constant at about US$1.2 billion while support for da iry declined to about US$3 billion and that the 
high level of support for these two commodities reflects the market-price support programmes in 
place and the methodology used to calculate the value of support compared with that used for 
other commodities. 
Question: Could the United States provide additional information and statistics on market-price 
support programmes in place and the methodology that it uses to calculate the value of support 
for sugar as compared to the ones used vis-à-vi s other commodities (i.e., dairy, cereals, etc.)? 
RESPONSE: The United States refers Ukraine to its domestic support notifications for data and 
information on the U.S. sugar and other support programs. For market price support commodities 
(dairy products and sugar), the United States follows the provisions in Annex 3 of the Agreement of Agriculture. For other commodities, the value of support is reported as budgetary outlays. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 376 - 
 
  VIET NAM 
1.  Regarding the recently approved act by th e United States to apply the countervailing duty 
provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to non-market economy countries retroactively to November 2006, please clarify a specific calculation methodology so that there is no 
double-counting in anti-dumping and countervailing investigations. 
RESPONSE: Commerce has had limited occasion to apply the new statutory provision which 
provides for an adjustment to antidumping duties in certain proceedings involving imports from 
nonmarket economy countries and is still in the process of developing and refining its 
methodologies to address what is a very case-specific and fact-intensive inquiry. 
2. Will the United States put an end to the ap plication of country-wide rate in anti-dumping 
investigations against imports from non-market economies? 
RESPONSE: As a clarification, Commerce does not apply a "country-wide" rate in antidumping 
duty investigations involving non-market economy countries. Rather, Commerce determines rates for exporters. In a non-market economy country, because of the presumption of government 
influence over export activities, one of the expo rters for which Commerce may determine a rate is 
the non-market economy entity, which includes all exporters who have not demonstrated that their export activities are sufficiently independent from government influence. Commerce has not 
made changes to this practice. 
3. Please explain the operational mechanism of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as 
mentioned in paragraphs 142 and 145 of the Secretariat's report (doc WT/TPR/S/275)? Is 
credit grant based on credit criteria or credit risk assessment? Does TAA give any preferential 
treatment to domestic enterprises and producers (e.g. interest rate, credit period, repayment 
period)? 
RESPONSE:  The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Fi rms (TAAF) program, Administered by the 
Economic Development Administration (EDA), is au thorized by chapters 3 and 5 of title II of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq.). The TAAF program is one of four distinct programs authorized under the Trade Act. The other TAA programs are TAA for Workers 
and TAA for Community Colleges, which are both ad ministered by the US Department of Labor, 
and TAA for Farmers, which is administer ed by US Department of Agriculture. 
The goal of the TAAF program is to help economically distressed U.S. businesses develop 
strategies to compete in the global economy. Generally, technical assistance is available to any 
business adversely impacted by imports. Through a partnership with a national network of 11 
EDA- funded Trade Adjustment Assistance Cent ers (TAACs), the program provides cost-sharing 
technical assistance to help eligible businesses create and implement targeted business recovery 
plans (referred to as "Adjustment Proposals" or "APs") aimed at boosting global competitiveness, 
increasing sales and retaining and creating jobs. Funds are not provided directly to firms; instead EDA provides grants to the TAACs (which are either independent or university-affiliated entities) 
that provide support to import-impacted U.S. firm s in a public-private collaborative framework. 
The TAACs use EDA funds to pay a cost-shared proportion of the cost to secure specialized business consultants; while participating firms contribute a matching share to create and implement their recovery plans. Firms work with the TAACs to apply for certification of eligibility 
for TAAF assistance, and prepare and implement strategies to guide their economic 
recovery. Importantly, it must be noted that the TAAF program no longer provides loans, guarantees, and tax benefits to firms as stated in the Secretariat report. Specifically: 
 Under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Public Law No. 87-794), firms eligible for assistance 
received one of the following forms of assistance: tax assistance, technical assistance, or financial assistance in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Enacted October 11, 1962. 
 Tax assistance was removed in the Trade Act of 1974 (Public Law No. 93-618), which was 
enacted January 3, 1975. WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 377 - 
 
   The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (Public Law No. 99-272), which 
reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for firms, mandated that no loans or loan guarantees could be made after April 7, 1986. This statute was enacted April 7, 1986. 
We will be respectfully requesting that the Secretariat correct its report in this regard. Due to the 
factual error in the report, the question is moot. 
4. Could the United States provide information about the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act 
(FATCA) in the context that the deadline for its implementation is July 2013? Recently, 
concerning the obstacles in following FATCA, ASEAN Banking Association has submitted a 
co-signed letter to the US to request the US to have flexible considerations in implementing 
the Law in developing countries. However, there has not been any response from the US on 
this issue. Could the United States give more information about the basis and policy 
implications of FATCA in developing countries, and give responses to ASEAN's 
recommendations in the co-signed letter in implementing FATCA? 
RESPONSE: The United States Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) delayed 
the effective date for compliance with certain aspects of FATCA until 2014 with the issuance of an 
announcement in October 2012. Withholding under FATCA now begins on January 1, 2014. The announcement's new timelines conform various due diligence and reporting procedures to the 
dates specified in the Model intergovernmental agreements (available on the Treasury FATCA 
webpage: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/t ax-policy/treaties /Pages/FATCA.aspx ) and 
thereby eliminate earlier timelines provided in the Proposed FATCA Regulations. The 
US Government is committed to continued cooperation with other governments in addressing 
offshore tax evasion, and the Treasury Department is engaged in a dialogue with interested 
foreign governments regarding the implementation of FATCA. Treasury and the IRS will continue 
to work closely with businesses and foreign governments to implement FATCA in a manner that 
reasonably balances the administrative burdens with the compliance goals. The Treasury 
Department's Office of Tax Policy has not rece ived the ASEAN Banking Association's letter and 
respectfully requests that all future correspondence  pertaining to FATCA be directed to Treasury's 
International Tax Counsel (Danielle.Rolfes@treasury.gov). 
5. How does the United States implement provis ions of the TRIPS Agreement on geographical 
indication (GI) protection? Particularly, how does  the US's protection of GI under its trademark 
system comply with TRIPS requirements and how could the GI be recognized or identified, for 
a GI registered as a trademark, since the Register and Certificate of protection do not contain 
such kinds of information? 
RESPONSE : Federal protection of trademarks, and to some extent protection of geographical 
indications, is provided by the Trademark Act of 1946, Title 15, United States Code ("Lanham 
Act"), as amended. In addition, the United Stat es implements the TRIPS Agreement provisions on 
geographical indications for wine and spirits through the labeling regulations. 
6. Currently, the United States is maintaining the Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) of Carbendazim 
in honey of less than 10 ppb. What is the scientific justification for this MRL in honey? Could the US share evidence of harmful effects of Carbendazim on humans? Is this MRL applied to all trading partners or only to specific country or region? 
RESPONSE: To date, neither the United States nor Codex have set a tolerance (MRL) for 
Carbendazim or any of its metabolites in honey. The US Environmental Protection Agency, which is the agency responsible for setting tolerances, has not received any petitions and associated data 
in order to establish a tolerance for carbendazim in honey. Accordingly, no risk assessment has 
been performed nor has a safety determination been made. 
7. The Secretariat's report states that the Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible 
for establishing Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) of pesticides on food. In cases where the US 
and Codex MRLs are not available, which default value will the EPA refer to? 
RESPONSE: While EPA is responsible to setting tolerances in the United States, the US Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for enforcing EPA's pesticide tolerances. In cases where WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 378 - 
 
  no MRL has been set, commodities containing any of residue of the pesticide will be considered 
violative under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as enforced by the FDA. 
8. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued a permit for the 
importation of fresh dragon fruit and rambutan from Viet Nam. Could the U.S. update the 
progress of pest risk analysis of other fruits that Viet Nam has requested for market access 
from the U.S. including longan, lychee, mango and rose apple? 
RESPONSE: The pest risk analysis for longan and lych ee is being finalized, and USDA expects to 
publish a final rule in 2013. APHIS has initiated pest risk assessments for mango and rose apple in 
response to these more recent Vietnamese access requests, and APHIS will share these pest risk assessments with Vietnam for its review when they become available. 
9.  In June 2011, Viet Nam sent comments on th e draft regulations proposed by the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service (FSIS) on the inspection of catfish in which Viet Nam has requested the 
United States not to extend the definition of catfish to include Pangasius. Please provide information of the decision of the United States on this issue. 
RESPONSE: USDA published a proposed rule on February 24, 2011, notified to the WTO SPS 
Committee, and secured comments until the June 24, 2011 closing date. USDA is currently reviewing the comments. When the catfish inspec tion program rules are issued in final form, 
implementation dates for key provisions will be specified and notified to the WTO SPS Committee 
as an addendum to the original notification. USDA  and FDA will work to minimize disruptions once 
USDA begins its catfish inspection program. 
10. According to the Lacey Act, importers of timber products must declare the names of timber 
used in the products and its origin. In which case the timber used is considered illegal? Could 
the US update changes to the implementation plan for declaration requirements. 
RESPONSE: Under the Lacey Act, imports are unlawful where the wood contained in an imported 
product is "taken, possessed, transported, or sold" in violation of any law or regulation of the 
United States or of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates a variety of listed plant-related offenses. In a Lacey Act enforcement action, the prosecutor for the U.S. 
government has the burden of proving, for exam ple, that the imported wood was harvested in 
violation of the laws of the country of harvest. Th e Lacey Act also requires importers of plants and 
plant products to file a declaration upon importation that identifies the genus and species of the plant contained in the importation, the value of the importation and quantify of plant material 
being imported, and the name of the country from which the plant was taken. Detailed information 
related to the Lacey Act, including information on  implementation of the declaration requirement, 
is available on the website of the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS): http://www.aphis.usda.gov/p lant_health/lacey_act/ . APHIS is also 
considering issuing implementing regulations. AP HIS published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in the Federal Register seeking public comment on a range of implementation issues. 
See 76 Fed. Reg. 38330 (June 30, 2011). 
11. How would the US address the case when wood imported from a third country is accompanied 
by a legitimate certificate of origin issued by a competent authority, but later it is found that 
wood has been taken from an area involvin g controversies of some non-governmental 
organizations due to environmental concerns? 
RESPONSE: Under the Lacey Act, imports are unlawful where the wood contained in an imported 
product is "taken, possessed, transported, or sold" in violation of any law or regulation of the 
United States or of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates a variety of 
listed plant-related offenses. Prosecutions for violations of the Lacey Act are undertaken on a case by case basis. In a Lacey Act enforcement action, the prosecutor for the U.S. government has the 
burden of proving, for example, that the imported  wood was harvested in violation of the laws of 
the country of harvest. 
12. Could the U.S. advise whether wood packaging materials are subject to declaration under the 
Lacey Act and whether wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) would be 
exempt from the declaration or not? WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1 
 
- 379 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Wood packaging materials are exempt from  the Lacey Act's declaration requirement 
unless the packaging material itself is the item being imported or it is used for some purpose other than supporting, protecting, or carrying another item. Wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is not exempt from the declaration requirement. Nevertheless, FSC certification may 
provide information that is useful to manufacturers and importers in their efforts to exercise due 
diligence regarding sources and species of timber. 
__________