WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
8 March 2017 
(17-1367) Page: 1/415 
Trade Policy Review Body  
19 and 21 December 2016  Original: English/French/Spani sh 
anglais/français/espagnol  
inglés/francés/español  
 
  TRADE POLICY REVIEW  
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
MINUTES  OF THE MEETING  
Addendum  
Chairperson: Permanent Representative  Ms. Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)  
This document contains the advance written questions  and additional questions by WTO 
Members , and replies provided by  the United States of America . 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales  
19 et 21 décembre 2016  
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUE S COMMERCIALES  
ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA R ÉUNION  
Addendum  
Présidente : Représentante Permanente Mme. Irène  Young (Hong Kong, Chine)  
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les 
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses  fournies par  les États -Unis 
d'Amérique . 
 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciale s 
19 y 21 de diciembre de 2016  
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTI CAS COMERCIALES  
ESTADOS UNIDOS  DE AMÉRICA  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN  
Addendum  
Presidenta : Representante Permanente  Sra. Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)  
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas ant icipadamente por escrito  y 
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC,  así como las respues tas facilitadas por  los 
Estados Unidos  de América . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Contents  
ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  11 
BENIN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  22 
BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  38 
CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  55 
CHILE  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  81 
CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  88 
COLOMBIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  148  
COSTA RICA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  154  
CUBA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  156  
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  ................................ ................................ ................................  161  
ECUADOR  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  164  
EL SALVADOR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  169  
EUROPEAN  UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 171  
GUATEMALA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  196  
HONG KONG, CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 198  
INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  201  
INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  235  
JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  249  
KAZAKHSTAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  265  
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 267  
LAO, PEOPLE'S DEMOCR ATIC REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ . 271  
MALAYSIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  272  
MEXICO  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  274  
MOLDOVA, REPUBL IC OF  ................................ ................................ ..............................  308  
MOROCCO  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  309  
NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  313  
NORWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  315  
OMAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  318  
PARAGUAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  319  
PERU  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  320  
PHILIPPINES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  323  
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 326  
SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDO M OF  ................................ ................................ ......................  351  
SINGAPORE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  356  
SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  364  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TER RITORY OF TAIWAN, PE NGHU, KINMEN AND MAT SU ............  375  
THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  387  
UKRAINE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  393  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  ................................ ................................ ..............................  398  
TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  401  
VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  412  
 WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  ARGENTINA  
RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIONES  
1. En el párrafo 2.6 el informe indica que, una de las prioridades del "Programa de Política 
Comercial 2016 " del gobierno de los EEUU, es la conclusión exitosa del Acuerdo Internacional 
sobre el Comercio de Servicios (TISA).  
- Pregunta : ¿Cuál es la razón por la cuál no se realizó la notificación de las negociaciones del 
TISA a la OMC en virtud del Mecanismo de Transparencia par a los ACR establecidos en el 
documento WT/L/671?  
RESPONSE: The RTA Transparency Mechanism makes clear in paragraph 3 that the required 
notification of an RTA "will occur no later than directly following the parties' ratification of the RTA 
or any party's d ecision on application of the relevant parts of an agreement, and before the 
application of preferential treatment between the parties." The early announcement of an 
agreement, as noted under paragraph 1(a) of the Transparency Mechanism is not required. Wh ile 
we believe that early announcement is highly beneficial in cases where RTAs are being negotiated 
without the knowledge of the wider Membership, it has been well known amongst the Membership 
that parties to the TISA were negotiating their agreement.  
2. En el recuadro 2.1.iii,  en los objetivos de negociación comercial establecidos por la Autoridad 
de Promoción del Comercio (TPA), se hace referencia a la necesidad de "consolidar el sistema de 
disciplinas y procedimientos en materia de comercio e inversión int ernacional, en particular la 
solución de diferencias ".  
- Pregunta : Es de interés de la Argentina conocer más detalles sobre este objetivo de política 
de EEUU.  
RESPONSE: The reference in Box 2.1.iii is to one of the overall trade negotiating objectives 
conta ined in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA)  
(Public Law 114 -26). We would note that the objective is to "strengthen the system of 
international trade and investment disciplines and procedures, including disput e settlement ". See 
section 102(a)(3) of TPA. There are more specific negotiating objectives – principal negotiating 
objectives – related to this overall objective. We refer Argentina to section 102(b)(4) on foreign 
investment and section 102(b)(16) on disp ute settlement and enforcement. We believe those 
provisions are self -explanatory as to the objectives sought. In general with respect to dispute 
settlement, the United States seeks provisions that provide for resolution of disputes in an 
effective, timely,  transparent, and reasoned manner, with the goal of increasing compliance.  
Public Law 114 -26 can be found at https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ26/PLAW -
114publ26.pdf . 
3. En el pá rrafo 2.48 se menciona que "SelectUSA " es el principal programa del Gobierno de los 
EEUU destinado a promover la entrada de inversiones en el país.  
- Pregunta : ¿Qué requisitos que deben cumplir las empresas para acceder al programa y qué 
beneficios otorga el  mismo?  
RESPONSE: Information on the services that Select USA provides to companies considering 
investing in the United States, and how companies can access those services, can be found at 
https://www.selectusa.gov/services -for-companies . 
MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN A LAS IMPORTACIONES  
4. El párrafo 3.3 indica que, en febrero de 2016, se promulgó la "Ley de Facilitación del 
Comercio y Aplicación de las Normas Comerciales de 2015 ", en la que se encomienda  al Tesoro y 
al Departamento de Seguridad Interior de los EEUU el establecimiento de un Comité Consultivo de 
Operaciones Aduaneras Comerciales (COAC), encargado de asesorar sobre cuestiones relacionadas WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  con las actividades comerciales de la Oficina de Adua nas y Protección en Frontera (CBP), incluida 
la formulación de recomendaciones de mejora.  
- Pregunta : Se solicita brindar más información sobre las competencias del COAC y en qué 
medida este nuevo organismo modifica el funcionamiento vigente en la gestión de  las 
importaciones.  
RESPONSE: COAC is an advisory committee, not an agency. For additional information concerning 
the COAC please see the following link: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeh older-engagement/coac .  
5. En el párrafo 3.7, el informe menciona que, para finales de 2016, con el Sistema de Datos 
sobre Comercio Internacional (ITDS) ya plenamente operativo, las empresas deberían poder 
utilizar la Plataforma Comercial Autorizada (ACE) pa ra introducir electrónicamente toda la 
información que exigen el CBP y los 47 organismos gubernamentales asociados para determinar la 
admisibilidad de la carga importada y exportada.  
- Pregunta : Se solicita brindar detalles sobre el funcionamiento del ACE, en particular si 
existen manuales de usuario y/o herramientas de ayuda para las empresas.  
RESPONSE: CBP maintains a dedicated web page with information explaining ACE and 
ACE-related educational materials. Please see https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated . 
6. En el párrafo 3.10, se indica que dentro del "Plan de Acción más allá de la Frontera ", EEUU y 
Canadá realizaron una comparación de los datos exigidos para tramitar la entrada y el levante y la 
información solicitada por los organismos gubernamentales asociados, y se han puesto de acuerdo 
en exigir que se presente anticipadamente un conjunto de elementos de datos comunes para sus 
respectivos sistemas de ventanilla única.  
- Pregunta : ¿Cuáles son específicament e estos elementos?  
RESPONSE: The Beyond the Borders Initiative requires the United States and Canada to agree on 
a unified advanced cargo manifest data set, from which both countries can target cargo shipments.  
Harmonized S ecurity Screening Data Elements:  
•Conveyance Reference Number  
• Mode Indicator  
• Equipment Type  
• Equipment Identifier  
• Equipment License Plate  
• Conveyance Identifier  
• First Port of Arrival from Foreign  
• Shipment Control Number  
• Air AMS Participant Code (CBP only)  
• Foreign Port or Place of Loading  
• Place of Receipt by Carrier  
• Itinerary Routing (air/marine only)  
• Consolidation Identifier  
• Estimated Date/Time of Loading (CBSA -
marine only)  
• Consignee  
• Shipper  
• Delivery Address  
• Notify Party  
• Empty Indicator (Hwy, Rail, Marin e only)  
• Seal Number  
• Cargo Description  
• Cargo Weight  
• Cargo Quantity  
• Boarded Quantity (air only)  
• Split Shipment Indicator (CBSA - air only)  • Dangerous Goods Code  
• HS Code  
• Estimated/Scheduled Date/Time of Arrival  
• Actual Date/Time of Departure  
• Actual Arrival Date and Time  
• Special Instructions  
• Transaction Set Purpose  
• Amendment Explanation  
• Reason Code  
• Exception Code (CBSA only)  
• Voyage/Flight Number  
• Movement Type  
• Secondary Notify Party ID  
• Ocean Bill of Lading (Hwy, Rail, Marine  
only) 
• Part Arrival Reference (air only)  
• FDA Prior Notice Indicator (CBP only)  
• Consolidator (CBSA only)  
• Place of Consolidation (CBSA only)  
• Marks and Numbers  
• Trusted Trader Identifier  
• Service Type Code (Marine only)  
• Bill of Lading Type Code (CBP only)  
• Shipment Control Number *  
• Consignee (CBSA only)*  
• Identification Number (CBP only)  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  • Delivery Address (CBP only)*  
• HS Code*  
• Transaction Set Purpose•  
• Amendment Explanation •  
• Reason Code*  
• Secondary Notify Party ID*  
• Consolidator (CB P only)*  
• Place of Consolidation (CBP only)*  • Manufacturer  
• Vendor(Seller)  
• Exporter (CBSA only)  
• Importer of Record Number  
• Country of Origin  
• Country of Export  
• Buyer (Owner)  
 
* Identifies data elements also applicable to conveyance/cargo data .  
7. En el párrafo 3.11, se menciona que el CBP introdujo un proyecto piloto para la entrada de 
importaciones que llegan por vía aérea, el cual permite la tramitación simplificada de la entrada de 
la carga transportada por vía aérea, ferrocarril, barco y camió n en determinados puertos de 
entrada.  
- Pregunta : ¿Cuáles son los requisitos que deben cumplir los importadores para obtener los 
beneficios bajo este proyecto?  
RESPONSE: The simplified entry pilot has been incorporated into the Automated Commercial 
Environm ent (ACE) Cargo Release. For more information please see the following link:  
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documen ts/ACE%20Cargo%20Release%20Business%20fo
r%20Trade%202%200%20final.pdf . 
8. En el párrafo 3.19 el informe señala que existe en marcha un programa piloto denominado 
"Programa de Comerciantes de Confianza ", el cual busca integrar los programas "Asociación 
Aduane ra y Comercial contra el Terrorismo " (C-TPAT) y el Programa de Autoevaluación para los 
Importadores (ISA) actualmente en vigor, con el objetivo de combinar la seguridad en la cadena 
de suministro y el cumplimiento de la normas.  
- Pregunta : ¿Qué requisitos de be cumplir una empresa extranjera para acceder a este 
programa?  
RESPONSE: A foreign importer who wishes to participate in the Trusted Trader program must 
have: (1) a business office staffed in the United States or Canada; (2) written policies and 
procedur es pertaining to its import process; (3) a valid importer of record number or a 
CBP-assigned number; and, (4) a valid continuous bond and at least two years of import history 
prior to the date of application.  
9. El párrafo 3.3 indica que la Iniciativa sobre l a Seguridad en los Contenedores (CSI) se aplica 
en 60 puertos de todo el mundo y permite que aproximadamente el 80% de toda la carga 
marítima con destino a los EEUU sea sometida a un examen previo. Toda la carga transportada en 
contenedores clasificada com o de alto riesgo en el puerto participante en la CSI se somete a un 
escaneado para detectar material radiológico ilícito mediante.  
- Pregunta : ¿En qué casos específicamente la mercadería debe ser escaneada o inspeccionada 
antes de la expedición?  
RESPONSE: All cargo classified as high risk is subject to a scan before it is laden on a vessel 
destined for the United States.  
10. En el párrafo 3.40. el informe indica que la legislación en la que se preveía la suspensión 
temporal de los aranceles sobre varios productos  de importancia para las empresas 
manufactureras de EEUU expiró a finales de 2012, y que la nueva Ley de Competitividad del 
Sector Manufacturero de 2016 (PL 114 -159) establece un nuevo procedimiento para el examen de 
estas suspensiones. En este sentido, la s empresas que deseen obtener una desgravación 
arancelaria deben solicitarlo a la Comisión de Comercio Internacional (USITC), que examinará esas 
solicitudes, recibirá observaciones y rendirá un informe al Congreso.  
- Pregunta : Se solicita ampliar la informa ción sobre el nuevo procedimiento para el examen 
de las suspensiones de aranceles, así como también los plazos en los que se efectivizan tales 
suspensiones.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  RESPONSE : In the past, members of Congress would introduce bills seeking to temporarily 
suspend or reduce tariffs on certain imports. Generally, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
and several other Federal agencies then reviewed and produced reports for Congress on each bill, 
and Congress would prepare and consider a bill providing for temporary re ductions or suspensions. 
The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 (the Act) establishes a new procedure 
for the filing of requests for duty suspensions or reductions. Under the new procedure, likely 
beneficiaries must file a petition directly  with the Commission. The Commission must publish the 
petitions that meet the requirements set out in the Act and the Commission 's rules, provide 
opportunity for the public to file comments on the published petitions, and then submit preliminary 
and final reports to the Committees. Additional information is available at https://mtbps.usitc.gov .  
11. En el párrafo 3.45 el informe indica que EEUU aplica un gravamen por tramitación de 
mercancías (MPF) a las importaciones del  0,35% del valor en aduana del producto, pero que el 
mismo deberá reestructurarse en virtud de que el TPP prohíbe los impuestos ad -valorem para los 
trámites aduaneros.  
- Pregunta : ¿Qué alternativas está evaluando el gobierno para readecuar el MPF?  
RESPONSE: Implementation of the proposed new structure would require action by Congress. We 
look forward to keeping the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
12. El párrafo 3.47 indica que EEUU aplica diversas tasas por servicios aduaneros, por  ejemplo, 
expedición de licencias de agentes de aduana, cargas por vía aérea, marítima o ferrocarril y 
procesamiento de envíos postales, que dichas tasas varían en función del modo de llegada y se 
pueden imponer para cada ingreso o para todo el año.  
- Pregu nta: ¿Podrían brindar detalles sobre todas las tasas existentes por servicios aduaneros, 
los montos y los criterios de aplicación de las mismas?  
RESPONSE: More details on all existing customs user fees is provided at 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/userfee0407.pdf . 
MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN LAS EXPORTACIONES  
13. El párrafo 3.150 indica que, en 2014, EEUU lanzó un programa estratégico a largo plazo 
denominado NEI/NEXT ( Iniciativa Nacional de Exportación) cuyo objetivo es duplicar las 
exportaciones para el año 2018, a través del acceso al financiamiento, la reducción de obstáculos 
al comercio y la aplicación de las normas comerciales, particularmente en favor de las PyMEs . 
- Pregunta : ¿Podrían brindar más información sobre el programa, en particular sobre los 
mecanismos de financiamiento y las herramientas de ayuda disponibles para las PyMEs?  
RESPONSE: The National Export Strategy (NES) Report will be  available this month 
(December  2016). It will be available at: http://www.trade.gov/publications/ . This Report covers 
the National Export Initiative (NEI) and its successor NEI/NEXT, including assistance tools for 
SMEs.  
MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN ALA PRODUCCIÓN Y EL COMERCIO  
14. El párrafo 3.170 señala que la Administración de la Pequeña Empresa (SBA) apoya 
activamente a las PyMEs en prácticamente todos los sectores de la economía, ofreciendo 
préstamos a través de instituciones financieras asociadas.  
- Pregunta : ¿Cuáles son los requisitos que deben cumplir las PyMEs para acceder a estos 
préstamos y en qué condiciones se otorgan?  
RESPONSE: To be eligible for assistance under SBA's loan  programs, businesses must: 
(1) operate for profit; (2) be s mall, as defined by SBA; (3) be engaged in, or propose to do 
business in, the United States or its possessions; (4) have a reasonable amount of equity 
invested; (5) use alternative financial resources, including personal assets, before seeking financial 
assistance; (6) be able to demonstrate a need for the loan proceeds; (7) use the funds for a sound WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  business purpose; (8) demonstrate reasonable assurance of being able to repay the loan; and 
(9) not be delinquent on any existing debt obligations to the U.S. government. Generally, SBA 
guarantees business loans made by financial institutions to SMEs, providi ng guarantees between 
50 and 90  percent, depending on the loan program, so lenders always maintain some risk when 
issuing SBA -guaranteed loans. The SBA char ges a substantial fee for the guarantees provided; the 
interest rate on the guaranteed loan is negotiated between the lender and borrower.  
15. En el cuadro 3.15 el informe indica un listado de programas de subvenciones federales no 
agropecuarias, para los años  2013-2014.  
- Pregunta : ¿Podrían proveer información sobre estos programas, tales como montos y 
criterios de asignación, o indicar el lugar en donde se publica tal información?  
RESPONSE: These programs are described in the United States ' subsidy notification  (see, 
G/SCM/N/284/USA.)  
16. En el párrafo 3.176 el informe indica que en EEUU existen unos 620 programas de 
subvenciones a nivel estatal, y que en el caso específico de los programas a nivel subfederal no 
existe información sobre los montos concedidos así com o tampoco de los ingresos dejados de 
percibir.  
- Pregunta : ¿Podrían explicar las razones de esta falta de información?  
RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat Report, the United States ' subsidy notification includes 
information on over 600 state programs. For  certain programs – not all - exact expenditure 
amounts were not available. This is often due to the nature of the program. For example, records 
of sales tax exemptions may not be maintained as funds are not distributed under the program; 
rather, sales tax es otherwise due, simply are not paid. Often states do not maintain records of the 
amount of sales tax exempted from payment. Through the years, the United States has provided 
progressively more detailed sub -federal subsidy information through enhanced coo rdination with 
sub-federal government entities. We will continue this work in the process of compiling our next 
subsidy notification.   
POLÍTICA DE COMPETENCIA  
17. De acuerdo al párrafo 3.188, en los EEUU existen "empresas del gobierno federal " así como 
también  "empresas patrocinadas por el estado ". 
- Pregunta : ¿Qué diferencia existe, de acuerdo a la legislación norteamericana, entre una 
empresa del estado y una patrocinada por el estado? ¿Podrían brindar un listado de las mismas o 
indicar el lugar en donde se pub lica esta información?  
RESPONSE: Government corporations (e.g., Overseas Private Investment Corporation) are 
revenue generating enterprises that are legally distinct but operated by the federal government. In 
comparison, government sponsored enterprises (e .g., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation – 
Freddie Mac) are privately held corporations with public purposes created by the U.S. Congress.   
A list of these entities is contained in Table 3.18 and 3.19 of the Secretariat 's Report. A description 
of the op erations of these entities can be found on their respective websites.  
CONTRATACIÓN PÚBLICA  
18. En el párrafo 3.209 el informe menciona que, respecto al acceso al mercado de contratación 
pública, existe excepciones para la aplicación de la "Ley de Promoción de la Compra de Productos 
Estadounidenses " si se determina que la preferencia nacional es incompatible con el interés 
público, si no se dispone en los EEUU de un suministro o un material, o si el costo no es razonable.  
- Pregunta : ¿Cuáles son los criterios y pr ocedimientos en virtud de los cuáles se determina 
que una preferencia nacional es "incompatible con el interés público "? ¿Bajo qué criterios se 
determina que un costo no es "razonable "? WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The head of the procuring entity has the discretion to deter mine that application of 
the domestic preference under the Buy American Act would be inconsistent with the public 
interest. Federal Acquisition Regulation Section 25.103(a). The public interest exception also 
applies for Department of Defense agreements wi th foreign governments that provide for the 
purchase of foreign end products or construction materials.  
The reasonable cost waiver is implemented through a price preference. For federal civilian agency 
procurements, the price preference is 6 percent if th e lowest domestic offer is from a large 
business and 12 percent if the lowest domestic offer is from a small business. For Department of 
Defense procurements, the price preference is 50 percent.  
Additionally, the Buy American Act is waived to allow for th e purchase of certain foreign end 
products or construction materials from countries that have signed a trade agreement with the 
United States that provides reciprocal market access in government procurement, including the 
members of the WTO GPA (see Federa l Acquisition Regulations Part 25.402(a)(1)).  
19. En el párrafo 3.218 el informe indica que EEUU adoptó un nuevo enfoque de reciprocidad en 
la contratación sub -federal en el marco de los ALC firmados con Colombia, Panamá y Perú.  
- Pregunta : ¿Qué características  que presenta este nuevo enfoque?  
RESPONSE: The reciprocity language ensures that if a U.S. state agreed to allow 
nondiscriminatory access to its procurement to suppliers from Colombia, Panama or Peru, then 
businesses and workers from that state would enjo y the same access to sub -central procurement 
in those countries, opening up new export opportunities . 
PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL  
20. En el párrafo 3.248 el informe indica que, en el plan estratégico para 2014 -2018 de la 
Oficina de Patentes y Marcas (USPTO) se estab lecen tres objetivos: 1) optimizar la calidad de las 
patentes y duración de los trámites; 2) optimizar la calidad de las marcas de fábrica o de comercio 
y duración de los trámites; y 3) ejercer una función de liderazgo, tanto a nivel interno como 
mundial, para mejorar las políticas, la protección y la observancia de los DPI.  
- Pregunta : ¿Cuáles son las medidas específicas que los EEUU están implementando para 
lograr los objetivos mencionados?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO 's 2014 –2018 Strategic Plan outlines three goal s: Goal I - Optimize Patent 
Quality and Timeliness, Goal II - Optimize Trademark Quality  and Timeliness, and Goal III -
 Provide Domestic and Global Leadership to Improve Intellectual Property Policy, Protection, and 
Enforcement Worldwide.  
Goal I objective s include: refine optimal patent pendency, increase efficiencies and patent 
examination capacity to align with the optimal patent pendency, increase international cooperation 
and work sharing, continue to enhance patent quality, ensure optimal information technology (IT) 
service delivery to all users, continue and enhance stakeholder and public outreach, and maintain 
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's (PTAB's) ability to provide timely and high -quality decisions. 
Goal II objectives include: maintain tradem ark first action pend ency on average between 
2.5-3.5 months with 12 months pendency, maintain high trademark quality, ensure optimal IT 
service delivery to all users, continue and enhance stakeholder and public outreach, and enhance 
operations of the Trade mark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Goal III objectives include: provide 
leadership and education on IP policy and awareness, and provide leadership and education on 
international agreements and policies for improving the protection and enforcement of IP r ights.  
SERVICIOS  
21. En el párrafo 4.156 el informe indica que EEUU ha suscrito acuerdos bilaterales con Brasil, 
China, Corea, Rusia, Filipinas, Japón y Vietnam en materia de transporte marítimo.  
- Pregunta : ¿Qué características presentan tales acuerdos?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  RESPONS E: Our bilateral agreements generally affirm that each party may transport cargo and 
passengers between port of the two parties and between its own ports and ports of third countries, 
but specifically exclude the right to transport cargo and passengers bet ween ports of the other 
party (i.e., cabotage).  The agreements generally provide the right to call at ports of the other 
party, subject to advance notice requirements, and provide for favorable treatment of the other 
party 's vessels while in port.  In addit ion, each party generally agrees to recognize the vessel and 
crew member documents of the other party. Finally, the agreements generally provide that each 
party will provide all possible assistance to vessels of the other party that are in distress within 
their territorial sea   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  AUSTRALIA  
Report prepared by WTO Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Summary (10)  
1. The report states that some 7.8% of all US tariff lines are subject to duty rates of 2% or 
less. Has the US considered eliminating these "nuisance t ariffs", which can be more costly to 
administer than they collect in revenue, and in practice provide little in terms of effective 
protection?  
RESPONSE:  The United States is not considering eliminating these duties at this time. The 
United  States remains c ommitted to multilateral trade liberalization and to considering the 
treatment of these duties in any such negotiations.  
Question 2  
Section 2.1 General Framework (2.5)  
2. The Secretariat report notes that States may also adopt technical regulations and sanit ary 
and phytosanitary measures. Could the US provide information about any current and future 
efforts to streamline the domestic standards and technical regulation framework, such as replacing 
sub-national technical regulations with national standards?  
RESPONSE: The United States recently published revised guidance for federal engagement in 
standards -related activities. On 27 January 2016, the United States published a revised version of 
Circular A -119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of V oluntary Consensus 
Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities. " The policies of Circular A -119 are intended to 
encourage Federal agencies to benefit from the expertise of the private sector, promote Federal 
agency participation in standards bodies t o support the creation of standards that are useable by 
Federal agencies, and minimize reliance on government -unique standards where an existing 
standard would meet the Federal government 's objective.  
Questions 3 -5 
Section 2.3.2. Preferential Agreements ( 2.28)  
3. The Secretariat report states that the GSP currently covers 4,986 tariff lines at the 8 -digit 
level, of which 1,490 are reserved only for least developed beneficiary developing countries. Of the 
4,986 tariff lines covered in the GSP, how many are dut y-free for least developed beneficiary 
developing countries?  
RESPONSE: All of the 4,986 tariff lines at the 8 -digit level covered under GSP are duty -free for 
least developed beneficiary developing countries. Additional information about U.S. tariff lines can 
be found at : https://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/tariff_databases.htm .  
4. How many tariff lines at the 8 -digit level are not covered in the US GSP for least developed 
beneficiary developing countries?  
RESPONSE : US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) lines limited to GSP for Least Developed 
Countries (LDCs) are identified in the HTS with an A+. Information about US tariff lines can be 
found in the US Tariff Database at : https://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/tariff_databases.htm .  
5. Of tariff lines not covered in the GSP or duty -free at MFN, what is the average tariff applied 
to least developed beneficiary countries by sector?  
RESPONSE : US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) lines limited to GSP for Least Developed 
Countries (LDCs) are identified in the HTS with an A+. This inf ormation can be found in the US 
Tariff Database at : https://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/tariff_databases.htm . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Question 6  
Section 3.1.4. Tariffs (3.44)  
6. The report notes that sugar is subject to a Tariff -Rate Quota. Australia notes that under its 
Uruguay round obligations the U S must offer 1.117 million metric tonnes of raw cane sugar per 
year. The US currently allocates this to a range of supplying countries, based on a historical trade 
calculation that was undertaken initially under Presidential Proclamation 4941, made by form er 
President Ronald Reagan on May 5 1982. Australia notes that there are a number of countries 
which still receive allocations for the US raw cane sugar quota each year that have not exported 
raw cane sugar to the US for many years. Is the US considering r eallocating any portion of its WTO 
quota for raw cane sugar to supplying countries to better reflect current trading conditions for 
sugar?  
RESPONSE : The United States has no plans to modify the allocations of its WTO raw sugar 
tariff-rate quota.  
Questions 7-8 
Section 3.1.5. Other charges affecting imports – customs user fees (3.45 – 3.49)  
7. The US levies numerous discriminatory fees on imports, including the Merchandise 
processing fee (MPF), COBRA fees and the Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT). Does the US 
acknow ledge that, while each of these charges may be relatively limited individually, together they 
represent a significant additional impost on imports, including an increased administrative burden 
and, in the case of the HMT, a charge on imports only that is a pplied for domestic purposes?  
RESPONSE : The United States does not agree with these characterizations of the identified fees.  
8. With this in mind, does the US have any plans to eliminate or reduce these charges? (Other 
than changes to the MPF already foresha dowed that will be required under the TPP).  
RESPONSE : At this time the United States has no plans to eliminate or reduce charges.  
Questions 9 -10 
Section 3.1.8. Standards and other technical requirements (3.103)  
9. The Secretariat report states that at present , the basic legal framework for the preparation 
and adoption of standards and technical regulations in the United States includes the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979, the Administrative Procedure Act of 1947 (APA), the National Technology 
Transfer and Advance ment Act of 1995 (PL 104 -113) (NTTAA), U.S. Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A -119, and Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation), and 13610 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens). What is the process by 
which a voluntary standard becomes a mandatory standard or technical regulation?  
RESPONSE : A voluntary standard becomes mandatory when it is incorporated into a tec hnical 
regulation. In the United States, the development of regulations is governed by the Administrative 
Procedures Act. The text of this law can be found here:  https:/ /www.archives.gov/federal -
register/laws/administrative -procedure .  
Under the APA and court jurisprudence, the text of a proposed regulation, including one that 
proposes to incorporate a standard by reference, is normally published in the Federal Register (and 
online) for public comment. The relevant agency is required by law to take into account all 
relevant comments (from anywhere in the world) in issuing a final regulation, including potentially 
changing the text of the proposed regulation.  
10. At what stag e are businesses and trading partners able to participate in the development of 
a standard that is referenced in legislation?  
RESPONSE : Under the National Technology Transfer and Advan cement Act (NTTAA) and 
Circular  A-119, federal agencies are directed to give preference in their regulatory activities to 
standards developed by Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS) bodies, which are generally private WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  sector organizations, over unique government -developed standards. These VCS bodies utilize a 
process incorporat ing the following elements: openness, balance, due process, consensus, and an 
appeals process. These bodies establish their own rules for participation, however, the procedures 
or processes used for the development of voluntary consensus standards must be open to 
interested parties, including businesses and trading partners, which must be provided meaningful 
opportunities to participate on a non -discriminatory basis.  
By giving preference to VCS in regulatory activities, including referencing such standards  in 
regulation, the United States encourages the meaningful participation of interested parties, 
including business and trading partners, on a non -discriminatory basis in standards development.  
Question 11  
Section 3.2.5.1 The Export -Import Bank of the Unit ed States (EXIM) (3.156)  
11. The report states that EXIM Bank plays a critical role as a source of export financing for 
small US businesses; and the main sectors relying on export finance through EXIM Bank have 
been aircraft manufacturing, general manufacturin g, oil and gas, and power projects. Could the US 
indicate to what extent businesses in the US food and agriculture sectors utilise EXIM Bank as a 
source of export financing?  
RESPONSE : In fiscal year 2014, EXIM authorized $501 million to finance the US food  and 
agriculture sectors, which supported $1.2 billion in agriculture exports. In fiscal year 2015, EXIM 
authorized $271 million that supported $900 million in agriculture exports.  
Question 12  
Section 3.3.1 Incentives (3.170)  
12. The report notes that the "Small Business Administration (SBA) has been actively supporting 
small businesses and entrepreneurs for more than sixty years. SBA programmes assist small 
businesses in nearly every sector of the economy. The SBA does not provide grants for business 
start-ups, although this form of support may be available from state or local authorities. The SBA 
provides loans through partner financial institutions, loan guarantees, counselling, and other forms 
of assistance. " Are any of the programs provided by the Small Bus iness Administration to support 
SMEs directed at increasing access to equity for SMEs based on their IP holdings?  
RESPONSE : No, there are no SBA programs directed at increasing access to equity for SMEs 
based on their IP holdings.  
Question 13  
Section 3.3.6 .2. Intellectual Property Rights – General Regulatory Framework (3.243)  
13. The report notes the introduction of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016, which amended 
the Economic Espionage Act.  Are there any early statistics or trends emerging in relation to 
enforcement of and actions taken under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, including with respect to 
industry sectors or key issues raised by claimants?  
RESPONSE : The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation each issue an 
annual report to Cong ress pursuant to the PRO -IP Act, describing their IP enforcement efforts, 
including statistical information of various types and summaries of recent, significant IP 
prosecutions. The PRO -IP Act reports covering the past year should be completed and release d in 
the near future. However, we are not aware of any government agency that is collecting early 
statistics or assessing trends specifically with respect to enforcement or action taken under the 
Defend Trade Secrets Act.  
Questions 14 -15 
Section 3.3.6.7. C opyright (3.267)  
14. The report notes that copyright owners who have registered their copyright with the 
Copyright Office may also choose to record their registration with US Customs and Border 
Protection for protection against the importation of infringing co pies. What proportion of such 
copyright owners record their registrations with US Customs and Border Protection?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  RESPONSE : Recordation with CBP is available online at https://iprr.cbp.gov/ . Currently, there are 
4,599 a ctive copyrights which right holders have registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and also 
recorded with CBP. This figure represents less than 1% of all registered copyrights.  
15. How does such registration with US Customs and Border Protection assist in pro tecting 
against the importation of infringing copies and what, if any, disadvantage is there to copyright 
owners who have not made such a registration?  
RESPONSE : CBP maintains the ex officio authority to enforce all copyrights at U.S. borders 
regardless of  whether the copyright is recorded; the efficacy of CBP 's border enforcement regime, 
and particularly its ability to target for goods that infringe U.S. copyrights, is enhanced by 
recordation. Specifically, CBP 's internal recordation database provides CBP officers access to 
updated, pertinent information which assists officers in making infringement determinations. Thus, 
recordation ensures robust border enforcement of those copyrights which are recorded with CBP.  
Questions 16 -18 
Section 3.3.6.7. Copyright (3.267)  
16. The report notes that in April 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives ' Committee on the 
Judiciary completed its series of hearings to review the current state of U.S. copyright laws. Has 
the U.S. House of Representatives ' Committee on the Judiciar y review of U.S. copyright law now 
concluded and, if so, what is the outcome of that review?  In particular, has the Committee 
recommended any legislative action or policy measures to address any issues?  
RESPONSE : The United States continuously seeks to imp rove its system for copyright protection 
and enforcement. The U.S. delegation is not aware of any developments beyond the public 
information provided by the Committee Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, available on the Committee 's website, dated December 8, 2016. The Committee has 
not proposed legislation related to the copyright review.  
17. It is understood that the goal of the Committee 's review has been to determine whether the 
copyright laws are still working in the digital age to  reward creativity and innovation.  Has there 
been any noticeable trend (decline or increase) in the level of online copyright infringement in the 
U.S. in the past 12 to 18 months and, if so, what factors may have influenced this?  
RESPONSE : The United State s Government has not collected information on such a trend that 
would enable the requested analysis.  
18. It is understood that (in the wake of the Committee 's review) the U.S. Copyright Office is 
currently conducting a study to evaluate the operation of the IS P safe harbor provisions of 
section  512 of title 17, United States Code.  What is the estimated timeframe for the conclusion of 
this evaluation?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Copyright Office has commenced a study to evaluate the impact and 
effectiveness of the safe h arbor provisions contained in section 512 of title 17, United States Code 
(for details, see https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/). This public study was initiated by 
a request for public comments issued on December 31, 2015. Publ ic roundtables were  held in 
May 2016 in San Francisco, California and New York City, New York. A second round of comments 
has been requested so that interested parties can reply or expand upon issues raised in written 
comments submitted in the first round of comments and dur ing the roundtables; parties are also 
invited to submit empirical research studies assessing issues related to the operation of the safe 
harbor provisions on a quantitative or qualitative basis. These comments are due on February 6 
and March 8, 2017, respe ctively. The Office will continue its work into 2017; an estimated date to 
deliver its final work product to Congress is not available at this time.  
Question 19  
Section 3.3.6.8. IP Enforcement (3.279)  
19. The report refers to the increased number of products s eized containing IPR infringement 
between FY2014 and FY2015.  Is the United States able to identify underlying factors in the 
increase in products seized – for example, greater trade in IPR -infringing products, or increased 
focus and resources on enforcemen t? WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  RESPONSE : In recent years, producers and shippers of infringing imports have become 
increasingly sophisticated with regard to the quality of products they make and their techniques 
for avoiding detection. In addition, the worldwide increase in access to  internet and mobile 
technologies has fueled explosive growth in the number of small packages of counterfeit and 
pirated goods shipped through international express carrier s and international mail. In FY 2015, 
both the total estimated value and the number o f shipments of IPR -infringing goods that were 
seized in the express and mail environments increased significantly.  
To counter these trends, CBP: (1) developed more advanced targeting methods, (2) increased the 
number and scope of IPR enforcement operation s, (3) provided sophisticated authentication tools 
for identifying genuine and infringing products to front -line officers, (4) expanded and enhanced 
IPR training for enforcement personnel, (5) worked closely with rights holders to improve the 
knowledge of IPR enforcement issues of both rights holders and CBP personnel, and (6) conducted 
outreach to increase the number of registered copyrights and trademarks that are recorded in our 
internal IPR enforcement system. CBP also successfully engaged with foreign counterparts both 
bilaterally and multilaterally. Such efforts included conducting joint IPR enforcement operations, 
sharing effective practices, and exchanging information on IPR violations for use in targeting and 
identifying new areas of risk and new te chniques used by violators.  
A number of factors contribute to changes in the numbers of open investigations, arrests, 
convictions, sentences, and other enforcement figures. Available data suggest that IP crimes of 
various types continued to increase durin g the period in question. However, the substantial 
increases in the enforcement figures cited are certainly attributable at least in part, to policy 
decisions, such as changes in enforcement priorities or resources devoted to particular types of IP 
crime, as well to improved efficiencies and better cooperation among law enforcement agencies 
working on IP, and increased awareness and reporting of IP crimes.  
Questions 20 -21 
Section 4.1.2.1. Agriculture – The 2014 Farm Act – Overview (4.5)  
20. While the main progr ammes under the 2014 Farm Act have  been presented, can the 
United  States provide details of domestic support measures provided by US state or local 
governments which are additional to Federal support measures that are available through the 
2014 Farm Act?  
RESPONSE : The U.S. reports state and local expenditures on domestic support for agriculture 
using data provided by the Census of Governments produced by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 
Programs identified as agriculture in the Census include development, imp rovement, promotion, 
and conservation of natural resources for agricultural purposes, and the regulation and inspection 
of agricultural products and establishments.  
Examples include support and promotion of agricultural associations, fairs, livestock and poultry 
shows, and the like; agricultural boards and advisory commissions; provision of agricultural 
extension services; agricultural experiment stations and other research activities; promotion of 
improved methods to store, pack, label, and market farm pr oducts; regulation of the quality, 
safety, and handling of agricultural products, such as inspection, licensing, and standardization; 
protection of crops and stocks from predatory animals and other natural hazards.  
21. Can the US explain why it has not made on e WTO notification on domestic support for the 
current Farm Bill, despite the fact that this Farm Bill is soon to expire? Given the US well known 
stance on the importance WTO obligations on notifications and transparency, could the US please 
provide advice  on the expected timing of US WTO notifications concerning domestic support under 
the current farm bill?  
RESPONSE : The 2014 U.S Farm Bill implementation was not fully in place until 2015 and will not 
expire until completion of the 2018 crop year. The U.S. has regularly notified on a lag to allow for 
reporting of as much final data as possible.  
Questions 22 -24 
Section 4.1.2.1 Agriculture – The 2014 Farm Act - Overview (4.6)  
22. The report states that US federal crop insurance programmes have been expanded under  
the 2014 Farm Act to include new subsidised insurance programmes. Given that the US federal WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  crop insurance programme is notified as Amber box support, and is now considered the largest 
agricultural insurance programme in the world (page 111 -112, para 4.17 ), can the United  States 
please provide information on the level of trade and market distortion of  its crop insurance 
programme?  
RESPONSE : Producers participating in the U.S. crop insurance program pay a share of their 
actuarially fair premium and do not r eceive payment on their policies unless they sustain a loss in 
excess of a significant deductable. Insurance policies guarantee a share of expected yield or 
revenue based on expected market prices for the year or actual prices prevailing at harvest. There 
is no minimum price guarantee independent of current market prices. By using market prices to 
determine coverage, the U.S. crop insurance program minimizes its impact on the production 
decisions of growers.  
23. How does the programme influence decisions made b y farmers and farm productivity?  
RESPONSE : The U.S. crop insurance program is designed to minimize its effect on decisions made 
by farmers, and therefore their productivity. All crop insurance policies require that farmers follow 
good farming practices, or  risk not having their losses covered. Farmers must also bear an initial 
portion of their crop loss in the form of a deductible, so that they have an incentive to care for 
their crops in a manner that minimizes the potential for losses. Insurance coverage is based on 
expected market prices, to avoid interference with market signals to growers.  
Long term productivity trends have persisted at the same time as participation in crop insurance 
has increased. Also, farmers have appeared to be willing to invest in  costly new technologies that 
reduce risk, such as biotech seeds and precision agricultural technology.  
24. How do these influences impact the sustainability of the farm sector in the US?  
RESPONSE : The 2014 Farm Act required that producers adhere to conservati on compliance 
requirements in order to benefit from premium subsidies under the Federal crop insurance 
program. Growers must have a certified conservation plan in order to be eligible for a crop 
insurance premium subsidy.  
Questions 25 -27 
Section 4.1.2.6 Co tton / 4.1.2.8 Dairy Sector (4.19 and 4.27)  
25. The report describes the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) insurance programme for 
cotton farmers and the margin protection programme (MPP -Dairy) for milk producers introduced in 
the 2014 Farm Act. The report  notes that despite setting the premium subsidy rate at 80 per cent, 
cotton farmers have been reluctant to sign up to STAX. In regards to the MPP -Dairy programme, 
premiums and fees collected for the 2015 calendar year unde r MPP -Dairy amounted to 
US$70.8  million, while payments made to milk farmers were less than US$700,000. Noting that 
successful implementation of agricultural insurance programmes is a common challenge across 
different member countries, could the US share any particular challenges that have  been 
encountered in implementing the STAX and MPP -Dairy programmes?  
RESPONSE: The STAX programme has had relatively low participation despite a premium subsidy 
rate of 80 percent. The participation rate in STAX was around 30 percent of insured acres in 2 015 
(the first year it was available) and has fallen to around 25 percent for 2016.  
There are several potential reasons for the low participation. First, STAX is an index -based 
insurance program, with the index generally derived from the county average yie ld. Index -based 
insurance does not directly cover the individual loss of the farmer. There is the potential that the 
farmer could experience loss and not receive a payment from a STAX policy – otherwise known as 
"basis risk 2. 
Second, any payments from an i ndex-based insurance policy can be significantly delayed due to an 
unavoidable reporting lag in yield data. For example, any losses for the 2016 STAX policy will not 
be paid until July 2017 when the cotton ginning process is mostly concluded. Basis risk an d 
delayed payments may explain lower enrolment rates for index -based insurance such as STAX.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  There are other index -based products offered by the U.S. crop insurance program, and they have 
had low levels of participation as well. In general, farmers appear to prefer individual -based 
coverage such as what is provided by the Revenue Protection and Yield Protection insurance 
policies.  
U.S. dairy producers do not have a long history of using insurance programs to manage risk. The 
MPP-Dairy program is a significa nt departure from the previous market price support program, and 
U.S. dairy farmers are still determining how best to utilize this new program.  
26. What percentage of US cotton and dairy farmers have opted in to these programmes?  
RESPONSE: The participation r ate in STAX was around 30 percent of insured acres in 2015 (the 
first year it was available) and has fallen to around 25 percent for 2016.  
Fifty-nine percent of dairy operations and 86 percent of milk production history is enrolled in the 
MPP program for 2 016. 
27. Has the US identified any improvements, modifications or alternative approaches to 
addressing these challenges and encouraging greater industry participation?  
RESPONSE: Regarding STAX, index -based programs are inherently more difficult for farmers an d 
insurance agents to understand and to trust. To address this, significant efforts were made to 
provide training on STAX to insurance companies and their agents. RMA also developed web -based 
tools and phone -based applications for farmers. The success of t hese efforts is hard to measure. 
On the one hand, participation in STAX was lower than was targeted. On the other hand, the 
participation was higher than for any other index -based product offered in the U.S. crop insurance 
program.  
There have been a few op erative changes to the MPP -Dairy program. First, catastrophic coverage 
was extended to any eligible milk production history not covered at higher buy -up rates after the 
first year of the program. Second, premium payment due dates were moved from mid covera ge 
year to end of the coverage year. Third, a provision was added to allow production history 
increases if additional family members become active in the milk production operation. Any 
changes to premium rates or maximum coverage levels would have to be ma de by Congress.  
Question 28  
Section 4.1.2.8 Dairy Sector (4.24)  
28. The Secretariat 's report notes the 2014 Farm Act eliminated, amongst other programmes, 
dairy export subsidies (Dairy Export Incentive Program). Australia notes that the scheme 
Cooperatives Wo rking Together (CWT) is still in place, and has been extended through to end of 
calendar year 2018 ( http://www.cwt.coop/wp -content/uploads/2015/07/2nd -Qtr-2015.pdf ). Can 
the US  please advise if this date will be revised and if the program still exists?  
RESPONSE : The CWT export assistance program is not  a program operated by the 
U.S. Government but rather constitutes private sector activity.  Therefore, the U.S. is unable to 
provide information on this program.  
Questions 29 -32 
Section 4.1.2.9 The 2014 Farm Act – Other Programmes (4.30)  
29. Can the US please provide further information on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP) and the food buyback programmes?  
RESPONSE : SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low -income individuals and 
families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the 
domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencie s, nutrition 
educators, and neighborhood and faith -based organizations to ensure that those eligible for 
nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access 
benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the ret ail community to improve program 
administration and ensure program integrity.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  30. Does SNAP only provide monetary benefits to recipients, or is it also made up of food?  
RESPONSE : SNAP provides only monetary benefits to recipients.  
31. Several cheese buyback announ cements have been made this year, with purchases 
'assisting food banks and other food assistance recipients '. Does this fall under the SNAP 
programme? If not which programme does it fall under?  
RESPONSE : The recently announced USDA cheese purchases have be en made by the Agricultural 
Marketing Service through the USDA Foods program using authorities under Section 32 of the 
under authority of Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (Pub. L. 74 -320), as amended.  
32. In these buyback programmes, are food purchase  decisions based on the nutritional 
requirements of recipients or other factors (please detail)?  
RESPONSE : Purchase decisions are based on a combination of factors, including nutritional value 
of products for recipients and availability of commodities at a dvantageous market prices.  USDA 's 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issues a competitive invitation for bids, inviting approved 
vendors to submit offers to fill the demand. Offers received by the bid closing deadline are 
evaluated based on offer prices and other factors (including past performance), and one or more 
contracts may be awarded to achieve the best value to the government.  
Questions 33 -35 
Section 4.1.3.1 Agriculture – Imports (4.35)  
33. Australia notes that according to the most recent notificatio n (submitted for 2013), Tariff 
Rate Quota (TRQ) fill rates vary, with most commodities being under -filled.  
RESPONSE: Fill rates vary by commodity and by year based on market conditions.  
34. Can the United States please explain the reason for the under -fills? What impediments exist 
to filling the TRQs and what steps, if any, will the United States take to improve the fill -rates?  
RESPONSE : As stated, the fill rates vary by commodity based on market conditions such as 
demand.  
35. What steps has US taken to implement the TRQ modifications announced in July 2015?  
RESPONSE: The United States promulgated certain administrative revisions to the dairy import 
licensing program in the referenced Final Rule, published in July 2015, which are now fully 
implemented. These were a dministrative changes only and did not modify any TRQs.  
Question 36  
Section 4.1.3.2. Agriculture – Exports (4.37)  
36. Could the US please explain the significant increase in registered guarantees provided by the 
USDA administered Export Credit Guarantee Progr am (GSM -102) between 2015 ($1.8 billion) and 
2016 ($2.2 billion)?  
RESPONSE : GSM-102 program use by region and commodity for 2015 and 2016 is available on 
the USDA website at : https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit -guarantee -program -gsm-
102/yearly -activity -reports . 
Questions 37 -38 
Section 4.1.3.3. Agriculture – Food Aid (4.40)  
37. Could the US please explain the reason why non -governmental r ecipients of US food aid are 
required to subject at least 15 per cent of US non -emergency food donations to monetisation? Will 
the US revise this figure?  
RESPONSE: The 15 percent floor on monetization only applies to Food for Peace Title II 
non-emergency p rograms.  The Food f or Peace Act, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  requires that 15 percent of the metric tonnage used in Title II non -emergency must be monetized.  
Based on current programming levels, this floor is met through one Title II non -emergency 
program.  This provision does not apply to the USDA food aid programs.  A change in this rule 
would require legislative action on  the part of the U.S. Congress.  
38. The Secretariat report notes that in recent years, the US Administration and members of 
Congress have tabled proposals to enhance the efficiency and reduce the costs of US food aid, 
including providing cash versus in -kind, and monetisation. Could the US please provide further 
information about these proposals, including whether these proposals  imply a high risk of 
commercial displacement in local markets?  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as appropriate but cannot comment on proposals.  
Questions 39 -40 
Section 4.1. 4. Agriculture – Levels of Support (4.44)  
39. According to the report early data suggest the total payments under the new Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programmes are not markedly different from 
past expenditures under disconti nued programmes.  Australia commends the US on its elimination 
of direct payments towards crop production in the 2014 Farm Act, however notes that several 
large commodity -specific support programmes were maintained. Does the US intend to further 
reduce the level of market distorting government support to further continue its work in 
liberalising the agricultural market?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPR 's are retrospective. Current farm programs are 
authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 2018 cr op year.  
40. Noting that the most recent notifications on support to agriculture do not capture the most 
recent policy changes implemented through the 2014 Farm Act, can the US indicate whether the 
PLC and ARC programmes are likely to be notified to the WTO as  green or amber box?  
RESPONSE: Reporting classifications of programs under the 2014 Farm Act will be made as part 
of the U.S. domestic support notifications.  
Question 41  
Section 4.1.4. Agriculture – Levels of Support (4.45)  
41. The report states that domestic food aid programmes account for US$109.6 billion of the 
total green box outlays of US$132.5 billion in the 2013 marketing year. Can the US please provide 
an explanation as to how the domestic food aid programmes confo rm with the provisions in 
Annex  2, para graph 1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, that support shall not have the 
effect of providing price support to producers?  
RESPONSE: SNAP provides participants with nutrition assistance benefits via electronic debit 
cards, which they can use to purch ase food, both domestic and imported, at any authorized 
retailer at prevailing market prices. Eligibility requirements for participants are based on 
low-income and other nutritional needs and administration of the program is transparent.  
Questions 42 -43 
Section 4.2.1.2. Financial Services – Legislative and Regulatory Framework (4.53)  
42. The Secretariat Report states that the Dodd -Frank Act mandated 390 rulemaking 
requirements by 20 regulatory agencies and as of July 2016, 80 of these statutorily mandated 
rules had yet to be proposed by financial services regulators. Can the US provide an update the 
timeline for proposing and finalising these rules?  
RESPONSE: There have been no new developments since July 2016. We remind Members that 
TPRs are retrospective revi ews. We look forward to keeping the Membership informed with respect 
to any changes to rules.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
  43. Does the US envisage these rules would have a substantive impact on the financial services 
sector?  
RESPONSE: We cannot estimate the impact of these rules, which h ave yet to be written.  
Question 44  
Section 4.2.1.2. Financial Services – Legislative and Regulatory Framework (4.60)  
44. The Secretariat Report states the minimum liquidity requirements for systemically 
important, non -bank financial companies designated by the  FSOC will be established at a later 
date. Can the US provide an update on the time frames for establishing the minimum liquidity 
requirements for these non -bank financial companies?  
RESPONSE: Please see the Financial Stability Oversight Council webpage on  systemically 
important, non -bank financial companies at : 
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/designations/Pages/default.aspx#nonbank .  
Question 45  
Section 4.2.2. Telecommunications (4.118)  
45. In regards to common carrier wireless licences, the Secretariat Report states that in 2013 
the FCC revisited its prior de facto  policy against streamlined treatment of applications involving 
more than 25% foreign ownership, and indicated that it may grant approval for foreign ownership 
greater than 25% in a streamlined manner, depending on the circumstances. Can the US provide 
further details about the change in approach in approving foreign ownership, in particula r the 
'circumstances ' when approval may occur in a streamlined manner?  
RESPONSE : In April 2013, the FCC adopted streamlined rules for approval of foreign ownership 
greater than the 25 percent statutory benchmark set out in 47 U.S.C. §310(b)(4). This 
stream lined approach: (1) no longer requires petitioners for a foreign ownership ruling to identify 
foreign equity and/or voting interests of five percent or less or, in certain situations, of ten percent 
or less; (2) allows petitioners to request specific appro val for any named foreign investor to 
increase, at some future time, its equity and/or voting interest to up to (and including) a 
non-controlling 49.99 percent; (3) permits petitioners to request specific approval for a named 
foreign investor that proposes  to acquire a controlling interest of less than 100 percent to increase, 
at some future time, its interest to 100 percent; (4) adopts a 100 percent aggregate allowance for 
unnamed and future foreign investors,  provided that the licensee obtains approval be fore any 
foreign investor acquires an interest that exceeds five percent (or, in certain situations, ten 
percent) of the common carrier licensee 's equity and/or voting interests; (5) allows the licensee 's 
subsidiaries and affiliates to rely on the licensee 's foreign ownership ruling (rather than having to 
file a new petition for a declaratory ruling), provided that the ownership of the licensee and the 
subsidiary or affiliate remains in compliance with the terms of the licensee 's ruling and the 
requirements  of the rules; (6) allows licensees to introduce new foreign -organized entities into the 
approved vertical ownership chain without prior approval, provided that the new foreign -organized 
entity is under 100 percent common ownership and control with a previ ously-approved foreign 
investor; and, (7) eliminates the practice of issuing service - and geographic specific rulings, and 
instead permits a licensee with a foreign ownership ruling to add new services and new geographic 
service areas without filing a new petition for declaratory ruling. A copy of the FCC Order is 
available at:  https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -13-50A1.pdf .  
Question 46  
Section 4.2.3.1 Air Transpor t (4.136 and 4.138)  
46. The Secretariat Report states that there are no legal or regulatory barriers to prevent 
airports from being privately owned, by general legal complexities and restrictions on use of 
revenues mean there is little incentive for private se ctor ownership. Furthermore, the Airport 
Privatization Pilot Program (APPP) has had very limited success in increasing the number of 
privately -run airports. Has the US got plans to review and reform existing restrictions that 
discourage private sector inve stment in airports?  
RESPONSE : In 1996, Congress enacted the Airport Privatization Pilot Program to explore the use 
of private investment to improve the management of public use airports and customer service, and WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  lower the cost of operating public use airpo rts. In 2012, Congress expanded the Pilot Program 
from 5 slots to 10 providing an opportunity for more airports to submit an application. The 
program is voluntary and the decision to submit an application remains with the airport owner. The 
U.S. Federal Go vernment as a general policy leaves the selection of an airport 's governance 
structure to local control. While the FAA does periodically review the program requirements the 
decision to participate in the program rests with the airport owner. As TPRs are re trospective in 
nature, we refrain from speculating on future U.S. government policy regarding private investment 
in airports. We do, however, look forward to keeping the Membership informed as the new 
Administration comes into place.   
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 47  
Section 9. Small and Medium -Sized Business Trade ( 9.3) 
47. The report notes that several aspects of US trade policy have potential to help boost SME 
exports, including strengthening and enforcing intellectual property rights.  Are there any specific 
programs or measures with respect to the strengthening and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights in trading partners that the United States has found to be particularly effective in 
contributing towards boosting SME exports?  
RESPONSE : Intellectual property protection is critical to fostering innovation. Without protection 
of ideas, businesses and individuals would not reap the full benefits of their inventions and would 
focus less on research and development. Similarly, artists would not be fully compensated for their 
creations and cultural vitality would suffer as a result. USTR uses a wide range of bilateral and 
multilateral trade tools to promote strong intellectual property laws and effective enforcement 
worldwide, reflecting  the importance of intellectual property and innovation to the future growth of 
the U.S. economy, and consults with a wide array of stakeholders including small businesses on 
these initiatives.  Further information on these initiatives may be found at : https://ustr.gov/issue -
areas/intellectual -property# .  
In particular, U.S. small and medium -sized enterprises may lack the knowledge, expertise or 
resources necessary to develop and protect thei r IP. In fact, research conducted by the U.S. Patent 
and Trademark Office (USPTO) found that only 15 percent of small businesses that conduct 
business overseas know that they need to file for IP protection abroad.  
Therefore, the U.S. Government has develop ed a number of free tools and resources for small 
businesses to help them more effectively tackle IP protection and enforcement at home and 
abroad. Free online web module training helps small businesses understand different types of IPR, 
including copyrigh t, patent, and trademark, as well as the legal protections available for each of 
them; understand the process and benefits of acquiring and protecting IPR; and discover resources 
to help small companies enforce their IPR.  Country and industry IPR toolkits are also available 
online, as well as contact information for federal agencies responsible for protecting and enforcing 
intellectual property rights.  These resources may be found at https://www.stopfakes.gov .  
Additionally, trade experts and attorneys from the Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration (ITA) and the USPTO travel across the country to host one -day seminars on how 
companies and individuals can protect and enforce intellectual property to get the most out of 
exporting abroad. The STOPfakes.gov Road Show answers companies ' questions about 
commercializing their creations and innovations, includes strategies for protecting and enforcing a 
company 's intellectual property when exporting to fo reign markets, and advice for avoiding 
common pitfalls. Participants have the chance to ask export questions related to patents, trade 
secrets, trademarks, copyrights and domain names. At the conclusion of each Road Show, 
participants take advantage of one -on-one consultations with intellectual property experts to get 
targeted advice.  Small and medium -sized businesses in particular benefit from this unique 
opportunity.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  BENIN  
Communication du Benin au nom du Groupe d es PMA  
QUESTIONS PORTANT SUR LE RAPPORT D U SECRETARIAT ET LE RAPPORT DU GOUVERNEMENT1 
2. REGIME COMMERCIAL ET D 'INVESTISSEMENT  
Système généralisé de préférences  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 36 (Paragraphes 2.28 -2.31)  
Le Groupe des PMA apprécie la prorogation du régime SGP jusqu 'au 31 décembre 2 017. Les 
États-Unis demeurent partenaire majeur de plusieurs PMA, en dépit du déclin important des 
exportations des PMA observé au cours de la dernière décennie, en grande partie due à la baisse 
des exportations de carburants. Au -delà des combustibles, les  exportations des PMA vers les 
États-Unis sont toutefois constituées par un très petit nombre de produits. Comme pour d 'autres 
programmes d'accès aux marchés en Franchise de Droits et Sans Contingent, les exemptions, tout 
comme les incertitudes liées à la durée des préférences peuvent avoir des effets importants sur les 
décisions en matière d 'investissement, et au final, sur l 'efficacité du programme. Au -delà des 
textiles et des vêtements, l 'exclusion de plusieurs produits agricoles soumis aux contingents 
tarifaires, avec des droits de douane prohibitifs hors contingent, ont empêché l 'exportation de 
produits, tels que le sucre, les cacahuètes et le tabac. Les restrictions sur le sucre et les produits 
laitiers n 'ont pas permis l 'agro-transformation (à l 'exemp le du cacao).  
Questions : 
1. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils préciser le pourcentage des importations en provenance des PMA 
qui entrent dans le pays, en Franchi se de Droits et Sans Contingent ?  
RESPONSE : In 2015, total U.S. imports from LDCs were valued at $17 bil lion. Of this amount, 
$7.1 billion, or 41.5 percent, entered duty -free. An additional 25.1 percent, or $4.3 billion, 
consisted of U.S. imports of petroleum under three tariff lines that are at negligible duty rates of 
5.25 or 10.5 cents per barrel. In July  2016, the United States extended duty free access for 
exports of certain travel goods from Least Developed Beneficiary Developing Countries (LDBDCs) 
and AGOA beneficiaries.  
The United States will continue to work directly with beneficiary countries and i n the relevant WTO 
committees to increase the utilization of its trade preference programs. For example, the United 
States is working with AGOA beneficiary countries to develop utilization strategies that can help 
identify the most viable sectors and produ cts for trade under AGOA.  
2. Quelle est la part des lignes tarifaires couvertes par le SGP par rapport au nombre total de 
lignes tarifaires des  États-Unis? 
RESPONSE : Including those lines for which the United States is bound at MFN zero, 83 percent of 
non-AGOA GSP recipients' tariffs are duty free into the US. AGOA and Haiti HOPE provide 
additional preferential access for those GSP beneficiaries eligible for both programs.  
3. Dans le cadre du SGP, quelle est la part des lignes tarifaires qui concerne exclusivemen t les 
PMA, par rapport au total de lignes tarifaires des États-Unis? 
RESPONSE : 14% of the total number of tariff lines are reserved for GSP LDCs only.   
4. Comment s 'explique le faible taux de 0,8% d 'importations en provenance des PMA, au titre 
du SGP, par rap port au total des importa tions des USA ? 
                                                
1 WT/TPR/S/350 (Rapport du Secrétariat); WT/TPR/G/350 (Rapport du Gouvernement).  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  RESPONSE : There have been numerous studies of difficulties LDCs have encountered in 
exporting. It does not seem appropriate to speculate as to which reasons might be most important 
as part of this review.  
5. De quelle f açon les États-Unis entendent -ils étendre leur programme de franchise de droits 
afin d'atteindre le taux de couverture de 97 pourcent (97%) prévu par les Décisions de Bali et de 
Hong Kong?  
RESPONSE : The Bali Decision calls on developed country Members to "seek to improve their 
existing duty -free and quota -free coverage " for products originating from LDCs. Since 2013, the 
United States has taken steps to expand imports from LDCs, including by expanding the coverage 
of products originating from LDCs. The Tra de Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) extended 
AGOA preferences for 10 years, to 30 September 2025. The TPEA also reauthorized the GSP 
program and extended the Haiti HOPE and HELP preferences five years, to 2025. In 2015, the 
United States eliminated  duties on certain tariff lines covering out -of-quota exports of upland 
cotton from LDCs. In July 2016, the United States provided duty -free treatment for a range of 
travel goods (including luggage, backpacks, handbags, and wallets) for Least Developed 
Beneficiary Developing Countries (LDBDCs), as well as AGOA beneficiaries.  
6. Les États-Unis pourraient -ils envisager, comme contribution à la stimulation de la 
diversification des exportations des PMA, d'annuler les crêtes tarifaires et les contingents tarifaire s 
sur les produits d'exportation essentiels aux PMA, notamment dans le secteur agricole?  
RESPONSE : As noted in the Secretariat's report, the U.S.  Congress is responsible for authorizing 
and amending U.S. unilateral preference programs.  
7. Les États-Unis pourraient -ils expliquer pourquoi le schéma SGP a disparu pendant deux (02) 
années avant son renouvellement, et comment cette situation pourrait être évitée dans le futur  ?  
RESPONSE : As noted in the Secretariat's report, the U.S.  Congress is responsible for i nitiating 
and passing legislation to authorize and amend U.S. unilateral preference programs. Extension 
included retroactive eligibility for duty -free treatment exports which were GSP eligible during the 
time of the lapse.   
8. Une extension plus conséquente d u schéma SGP pourrait -elle être envisagée par les 
États-Unis?  Les États-Unis pourraient -ils, par exemple, considérer des durées d'autorisation à 
l'image de celles envisagées dans le cadre de la Loi sur la Croissance et les Opportunités de 
Développement en Afrique (c. -à-d. jusq u'en 2015) ?  
RESPONSE : As noted in the Secretariat's report, the U.S.  Congress is responsible for initiating 
and passing legislation to authorize and amend U.S. unilateral preference programs.  
9. Les Etats -Unis peuvent -ils confirmer que t ous les produits de coton apparaissant sur la liste 
établie par la Décision Ministérielle de Nairobi pour un traitement en Franchise de Droits et Sans 
Contingent sont également repris dans le schéma SGP actuel?  
RESPONSE : The United States offers duty -free and quota -free treatment to GSP beneficiaries for 
all cotton products in the Annex of the Ministerial Decision on Cotton (WT/MIN(15)/46 — WT/L/981) 
with the exception of cotton, not carded or combed, having a staple length of 34.925 mm or more.  
10. Le paragra phe 2.30 souligne le fait que le Sous -comité SGP examine et amende la liste des 
produits éligibles au régime SGP de façon annuelle. Un produit d'exportation PMA a -t-il fait l'objet 
de tels amendements au cours de la période d'examen?  
RESPONSE : Information  on the process for revising the list of eligible products is available here: 
https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/trade -development /preference -programs/generalized -system -
preference -gsp/gsp -program -inf. 
11. De quelle façon les États-Unis peuvent -ils aider les bénéficiaires PMA qui ont perdu leur 
éligibilité dans le cadre du programme SGP à la recouvrer dans le futur?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  RESPONSE : Informati on criteria for GSP country eligibility for GSP is available on pages 19 -20 of 
the GSP Guidebook: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP -Guidebook -September -16-2016.p df. 
12. Comment les États-Unis peuvent -ils appuyer les PMA pour saisir les opportunités de 
commerce et d'investissement offertes par le SGP?  
RESPONSE : U.S. trade capacity building efforts build on our longstanding commitment to help 
partner countries benefit  from the opportunities provided by the global trading system, both 
through bilateral assistance and multilateral institutions. U.S. bilateral assistance includes 
programs such as targeted assistance for developing countries participating in U.S. preferenc e 
programs; coordination of assistance through Trade and Investment Framework Agreements 
(TIFAs); trade capacity building (TCB) working groups that are an integral part of preparing 
developing country partners for potential negotiations on Free Trade Agree ments (FTAs); and 
Committees on TCB created to aid in the negotiation and/or implementation of a number of FTAs. 
The United States also provides bilateral assistance to developing countries to enable them to work 
with the private sector and nongovernmental  organizations to transition to a more open economy, 
to prepare for WTO negotiations, and to abide by their trade obligations. Additional information on 
U.S. trade capacity building efforts can be found here: http://tcb .usaid.gov/ . 
13. Les Etats -Unis sont -ils prêts à fournir des mesures d'accompagnement pour permettre à ses 
SGP de contribuer à la transformation structurelle et à l'intégration des PMA aux chaînes de valeur 
de production?  
RESPONSE : The United States is the la rgest single country provider of trade capacity building 
assistance ($593 million in Fiscal Year 2014) to support LDCs' use of preference programs such as 
GSP and AGOA to integrate into global value chains. Details are available at : http://tcb.usaid.gov/ . 
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 54 (paragraphe 3.44)  
14. Existe -t-il des contingents tarifaires appliqués aux exportations des PMA vers les États-Unis?  
RESPONSE : U.S. FTAs provide for a limited number of TRQs on certain prod ucts that differ by 
agreement. A list of TRQs by FTA is available at:  https://www.cbp.gov/trade/quota/guide -import -
goods/commodities . 
Loi sur la Croissance et les Opportunités d e Développement en Afrique (AGOA)  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 38 (Paragraphe 2.34)  
15. Le Groupe des PMA salue la prorogation de la Loi sur la Croissance et les Opportunités de 
Développement en Afrique pour une durée de 10 années supplémentaires. Ce programme , et plus 
particulièrement sa portée étendue aux textiles et vêtements et les Règles d'Origine plus flexibles, 
ont contribué de façon importante à la création d'emplois et au développement des exportations 
dans plusieurs PMA. Toutefois, dans le cadre du sc héma SGP, plusieurs produits cruciaux pour les 
PMA, notamment le sucre, les cacahuètes et le tabac, restent exclus, et les élargissements récents 
du programme n'ont pas impacté ces limitations de façon conséquente.  
Questions : 
16. Les Etats -Unis peuvent -ils préciser la part des lignes tarifaires PMA couvertes par la Loi?  
RESPONSE : The African Growth and Opportunity Act covers 97.5% of tariff lines for imports from 
eligible African LDCs.  
17. Quel est le taux d'utilisation de l'AGOA par les PMA?  
RESPONSE : For AGOA ut ilization rates see pages 55 -56 in the U.S . International Trade 
Commission report, "AGOA: Trade and Investment Performance Overview ", found at: 
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4461 .pdf. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  18. Quelle évolution est envisagée par les États-Unis en ce qui concerne la Loi, notamment en 
matière d'options pour promouvoir la diversification des exportations des PMA et l'élargissement 
de sa portée, en termes de produit s et de couverture géographi que?  
RESPONSE : The 2015 AGOA extension enhanced the program in a number of other ways, 
including encouraging the development by AGOA beneficiaries of utilization strategies to improve 
their usage of the program. Also, the U.S. Agency for International Dev elopment runs regional 
Trade and Investment Hubs in Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa which engage in a range of 
activities that support AGOA utilization, diversification of exports, and greater participation in value 
chains across their respective regions.  
19. Les États-Unis pourraient -ils envisager le développement d'un programme similaire à l'AGOA 
au bénéfice des PMA asiatiques?  
RESPONSE : As noted in the Secretariat's report, the U.S.  Congress is responsible for initiating 
and passing legislation to authorize and amend U.S. unilateral preference programs.  
20. De quelle façon les États-Unis peuvent -ils aider les bénéficiaires PMA qui ont perdu leur 
éligibilité dans le cadre de la Loi sur la Croissance et les Opportunités de Développement en 
Afrique à la recouvrer da ns le futur ? 
RESPONSE : The United States works with governments who have lost eligibility to make clear 
what is required to regain eligibility.  
21. Sachant que les activités sont menées par le secteur privé, les États-Unis envisageraient -ils 
d'exclure les crit ères politiques du cadre de l'AGOA, afin d'éviter une perturbation dans 
l'intégration régionale des PMA, et leur intégration aux chaînes de valeur de production mondiales?  
RESPONSE : The AGOA legislation passed by the U.S. Congress defines the eligibility c riteria for 
the program. Also, the United States Government encourages both regional integration and 
integration of African suppliers into global supply chains.  
22. Sachant que l'Agriculture est l'un des principaux secteurs d'exportation des PMA, les 
États-Unis peuvent -ils envisager de supprimer les quotas sur les produits agricoles importés des 
PMA?  
RESPONSE : The AGOA program provides duty free access for a broad range of agricultural 
products imported from beneficiary countries. A limited number of agricultur al products are subject 
to tariff rate quotas, but AGOA beneficiaries receive duty free treatment for their exports under the 
TRQs. The U.S. Congress defines the scope of preferences available to beneficiary countries under 
the program.  
3. POLITIQUE ET PRA TIQUES COMMERCIALES – ANALYSE PAR MESURE  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 35 (Paragraphe 2.21)  
L'Accord de Partenariat Transpacifique est un Accord du 21ème siècle qui vise une libéralisation 
ambitieuse des échanges, incluant des mesures non tarifaires et étab lissant des normes 
commerciales élevées. Le rapport du Secrétariat indique que, dès son entrée en vigueur, les 
États-Unis devront offrir un traitement en franchise de droits à tous ses partenaires sur environ 
75% des lignes tarifaires, tandis que la quasi -totalité des droits de douane seront supprimés dans 
l'intervalle après 10 ans pour tous les partenaires de l 'Accord de Partenariat Transpacifique. Il 
existe toutefois quelques craintes que la disposition relative à l 'Accès aux Marchés en Franchise de 
Droits et Sans Contingent pendant 10 années pour les Membres signataires de l 'Accord puisse 
avoir un impact conséquent sur les préférences durables accordées aux PMA. L 'Accord de 
Partenariat Transpacifique est également susceptible de fixer des normes élevées e n termes 
d'échanges commerciaux, et les PMA qui ne disposent pas des capacités commerciales répondant à 
ces normes élevées pourraient être affectés.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Questions : 
23. Les États-Unis ont-ils examiné l 'impact potentiel de l 'Accord de Partenariat Transpacifique 
sur les exportations des PMA?  
RESPONSE : Throughout the TPP negotiations, the United States sought to craft outcomes, 
particularly on textiles and apparel, that took into account the interests of stakeholders in the 
United States, our trading partners, and be neficiaries of our trade benefit preference programs.  
24. Si tel est le cas, quelles mesures d 'atténuation et d 'ajustement sont envisagées par les 
États-Unis pour répondre à ces enjeux?  
RESPONSE : During the time period of this review, as part of initiatives to deepen the U.S. trade 
relationship with AGOA partners and other LDCs, the United States took several significant actions 
of interest to LDCs. The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) extended AGOA 
preferences for 10 years, to 30 September 2025 . The TPEA also reauthorized the GSP program and 
extended the Haiti HOPE and HELP preferences five years, to 2025. In 2015, the United States 
eliminated duties on certain tariff lines covering out -of-quota exports of upland cotton from LDCs. 
In July 2016, the United States provided duty -free treatment for a range of travel goods (including 
luggage, backpacks, handbags, and wallets) for Least Developed Beneficiary Developing Countries 
(LDBDCs), as well as AGOA beneficiaries.  
Facilitation des échanges  
Rapport  du Secrétariat, page 44 (Paragraphes 3.5 - 3.9) 
Le Rapport du Secrétariat décrit le système de Guichet Unique des États-Unis mis en œuvre grâce 
au Système commercial automatisé (ASC) qui utilise un modèle national d'échange de 
l'information (NIEM), en par tie calqué sur le modèle de données de l 'Organisation mondiale des 
douanes (OMD) d 'après le Secrétariat. Le rapport précise que le système subit à l 'heure actuelle 
une harmonisation plus complète avec le modèle de données de l 'OMD dont le résultat est atte ndu 
après 2016. De plus, le rapport mentionne au paragraphe 3.9 que le Bureau de protection des 
Douanes du Département de la Sécurité intérieure des États-Unis travaille actuellement en 
collaboration avec l 'OMD à la mise à jour de leur modèle de données.  
Questions : 
25. Les États-Unis confirment -ils les développements rapportés par le Secrétariat de l 'OMC?  
RESPONSE : The United States expects to implement the single window by the end of 2016.  The 
United States also intends to continue working with the World Cus toms Organization (WCO) and 
other initiatives that promote standardization.  
26. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils préciser la manière dont le Système commercial automatisé est 
harmonisé avec le modèle de données de l 'OMD, et la méthode utilisée pour mettre à jour le 
modèle de données de l 'OMD ?  
RESPONSE : To clarify, the U.S. Single Window system is the Automated Commercial Environment 
(ACE), not the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACS is U.S. CBP 's legacy system and has 
been replaced by ACE. For more information c oncerning ACE, please see the following link: 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/features . The United States has a delegation actively participating 
in WCO Data Model Project Team (DMPT) meetings.  As this t eam conducts its comparative analysis 
of existing U.S. CBP electronic data exchange messages with the WCO Data Model, it identifies 
gaps between the two and submits Data Maintenance Request (DMRs) to the WCO DMPT so that 
requirements are included in the mo del. 
27. Devons -nous comprendre que les États-Unis acceptent d 'intégrer certains aspects du modèle 
de données de l 'OMD tout en introduisant des éléments du Système commercial automatisé 
américain dans le modèle de données de l 'OMD sous la forme de "mises à jou r"?  
RESPONSE : There is no such agreement between the United States and the WCO.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  28. Les États-Unis offrent -ils un service d 'assistance technique et de renforcement des capacités 
afin de développer leur système de Guichet Unique?  
RESPONSE : The United States is committed to maintaining an open dialogue with private sector 
users of ACE, and achieves this in a number of ways, including by providing trainings and webinars 
and maintaining an informational website. Support can be found here : 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/ace -support . 
As for technical assistance and capacity support for trading partners, the United States is primarily 
delivering technical assistance and capacity building for the im plementation of the WTO TFA 
through the new public -private partnership, the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation. More 
information about the Alliance can be found here : http://www.tradefacilitation.org/ .  
29. Compte tenu de l 'AFE et du travail réalisé par l 'OMD pour harmoniser de plus en plus les 
approches, quelle est l 'approche adoptée par les États-Unis dans ses programmes d 'assistance 
technique  ? Le modèle de données de l 'OMD ou le modèle du Système commerc ial automatisé 
a-t-il été harmonisé avec le modèle de données de l 'OMD ? 
RESPONSE : Please see the responses to Questions 25 and 27.  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 46 (Paragraphe 3.13)  
La Facilité américaine relative aux décisions anticipées est connue dans l e monde entier, comme 
étant unique. Le Rapport du Secrétariat décrit les procédures automatisées américaines relatives 
aux décisions anticipées.  
Question :  
30. Combien d 'opérateurs provenant des PMA ont eu recours à la Facilité américaine relative aux 
décision s anticipées?  
RESPONSE : Any person or business that plans to import a par ticular product into the 
United  States may request a binding ruling from CBP. 19 CFR §177.1(c) provides that any person 
"as an importer or exporter of merchandise, or otherwise, has a direct and demonstrable interest 
in the question or questions presented in the ruling request " can make a ruling request. Please 
see: https://www.gp o.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR -2012-title19 -vol2/pdf/CFR -2012-title19 -vol2-sec177 -
1.pdf. More information about the U.S. customs rulings program is available at:  
https://www.cbp. gov/sites/default/files/documents/cbp_rulings_prog_3.pdf . 
31. Quelle est la part des importations annuelles des États-Unis en provenance des PMA, ayant 
bénéficié de décisions anticipées depuis l 'entrée en vigueur  ? 
RESPONSE:  All advance rulings issued by U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are posted in 
Customs Rulings Online Search System at : https://rulings.cbp.gov/ . The United States does not 
keep statistics with respect to the annual importations into the Unite d States from LDCs that 
benefit from its advance rulings program.  
Règles d 'Origine  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 37 (Paragraphe 2.32)  
Le Rapport du Secrétariat indique que les Règles d 'Origine, dans le cadre du système généralisé de 
préférences américain, s ont restées inchangées depuis le dernier examen des politiques 
commerciales. Pour satisfaire aux critères des préférences, les produits doivent afficher un 
minimum de 35% de valeur ajoutée créée dans les pays d 'origine et les intrants des produits 
éligible s doivent subir une double transformation substantielle. Les PMA pourraient toutefois être 
confrontés à de véritables difficultés pour atteindre le seuil des 35%, considérant leur faible 
capacité de production et leurs marchés restreints. Les PMA, pour pou voir participer efficacement 
aux chaînes de valeur régionale et globale, doivent pourvoir importer des intrants et des produits 
intermédiaires de toute origine, pourvu qu 'ils puissent les obtenir efficacement et à bas coût, 
indépendamment des Règles d 'Origine restrictives. Le fait que le Système Généralisé de WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Préférences américain ne reconnaisse pour l 'heure que six (06) associations régionales, 
nommément le Groupe Andin, l 'ASEAN des 25, la Communauté des Caraïbes (CARICOM), 
l'Association Sud -Asiatique pour  la Coopération Régionale (ASARC), la Communauté de 
Développement d 'Afrique Australe (SADC) et l 'UEMOA, constitue également un enjeu, alors que 
des associations régionales à l 'instar du Marché commun de l 'Afrique Orientale et Australe 
(COMESA), de la Commu nauté d 'Afrique de l 'Est ou du Pacifique en sont exclues.  
Questions :  
32. Le paragraphe ci -dessus indique que les Règles d 'Origine n 'ont pas été modifiées depuis le 
dernier examen des politiques commerciales. Quelles sont les mesures prises par les Etats -Unis 
pour améliorer leur méthode d 'évaluation des Règles d 'Origine, au regard de la Décision de la 
CM10 portant sur les Règles d 'Origine préférentielles, d 'ici au 31 décembre de cette année?  
RESPONSE : The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) expanded  cumulation 
opportunities by allowing AGOA beneficiaries to apply the direct costs of processing performed in 
other AGOA beneficiary countries or former beneficiary countries to the minimum originating 
content requirement. The TPEA also extended AGOA prefe rence s for 10 years, to 
30 September  2025, reauthorized the GSP program, and extended the Haiti HOPE and HELP 
preferences for five years, to 2025.  
33. La mise en œuvre par les États-Unis peut-elle prendre en compte les développements 
intervenus au niveau des c haînes de valeur régionale et mondiale?  
RESPONSE : U.S. rules of origin provide beneficiaries with the flexibility to procure inputs from a 
range of sources and supply chains involving beneficiary countries.  
34. Quand est -ce que les États -Unis envisagent -ils d'adopter une méthode fondée sur la valeur 
des matières non originaires afin d 'évaluer la transformation substantielle des produits provenant 
des PMA  et entrant aux États -Unis?  
RESPONSE : The United States does not currently have any plans to modify the meth od of 
calculating regional value content in its preference programs.  
35. Les PMA peuvent -ils bénéficier de la disposition relative au cumul américain?  
RESPONSE : The general rules of origin of the Caribbean Basin Ini tiative (CBI) and AGOA allow 
15 percent of t he 35 percent of the minimum originating content to come from the United States, 
making it easier for beneficiary countries to meet the value thresholds under these programs.  
36. Quels sont les critères et les étapes nécessaires pour qu 'une Organisation région ale puisse 
bénéficier de la disposition relative au cumul?  
RESPONSE : The necessary steps to make a claim of preference under the AGOA, GSP, and CBI 
programs can be found at the  following links, respectively: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -
issues/trade -agreements/special -trade -legislation/african -growth -and-opportunity -act; 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/trade -agreements/special -trade-legislation/generalized -
system -preferences ; and https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/trade -agreements/special -
trade -legislation/caribbean -basin -initiative . 
If an importer is using inputs from a Regional Organization to m eet the rules of origin, they must 
maintain records to support a claim and be ready to provide that evidence if U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection requests it. However, the importer making a preference claim need not present 
such evidence at the time of en try. 
Recours commerciaux  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 11 (Paragraphe 12)  
Le Rapport du Secrétariat indique que les États-Unis continuent à utiliser activement les droits 
antidumping et que 85 enquêtes ont été effectuées sur le sujet entre 2014 et fin juin 2016. Aussi, WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  le rapport souligne -t-il que 269 interventions antidumping ont été  ordonnées à la date du 
30 juin 2016, et la durée moyenne d 'une mesure antidumping était de sept (07) années, fin 2015. 
Par ailleurs, 60 enquêtes portant sur des droits compensa teurs ont été ouvertes entre le 
1er janvier  2014 et le 30 juin 2016, alors que 69 droits compensateurs ont été imposés avant la fin 
juin 2016.  
Question : 
37. Existent -ils des produits en provenance des PMA ayant fait l 'objet de droits antidumping et 
de mesures  compensatoires aux États-Unis?  
RESPONSE : Yes, the United States in the past has imposed antidumping duty measures against 
LDCs (e.g., cotton shop towels from Bangladesh). At this time, there are no antidumping measures 
being imposed against a LDC.  
Prohib itions et restrictions à l'importation et licences d'importation  
Prohibitions et restrictions  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 60 (Paragraphe 3.57)  
Le Rapport du Secrétariat révèle que les États-Unis ont pris un certain nombre de mesures 
législatives, telles  que la Loi Magnuson -Stevens sur la conservation et la gestion des ressources 
halieutiques de 2006 et la Loi portant sur la pêche Illicite, Non réglementée et Non déclarée de 
2015 pour combattre la pêche illicite, non réglementée et non déclarée.  
Question :  
38. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils fournir une liste des vaisseaux ayant enfreint la Loi portant sur la 
pêche Illicite, Non réglementée et Non déclarée, et les mesures ayant été appliquées à leur 
encontre depuis que la Loi portant sur la pêche Illicite, Non régl ementée et Non déclarée de 2015 
a été mise en œuvre?  
RESPONSE : The High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection 
Act), as amended by the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA),  requires the Secretary of Commerce to identify countries 
whose fishing vessels were engaged in IUU fishing or certain other activities, and to consult with 
those countries on improving their fisheries management and enforcement practices. Two years 
after an identification, the Secretary is to certify whether corrective actions by the identified 
countries have adequately addressed the offending activities. If a nation has not taken sufficient 
steps to warrant receipt of a positive certification, the United States may take certain measures, 
including prohibiting imports of certain fish or fish products from the nation and denying fishing 
vessels of that nation port privileges and entry into navigable waters of the United States. The 
United States submits a bi ennial report to Congress detailing the identification and certification 
determinations. These reports can be found at the following link: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/msra_page/msra.htm l. 
Normes  
Page 76 (Paragraphe 3.114)  
D'après le Rapport du Secrétariat, les États-Unis ont présenté 112 notifications régulières SPS en 
2014 et 86 notifications en 2015, en vertu de l 'Accord SPS de l 'OMC. La capacité des PMA à se 
conformer aux standards établis est déterminante, notamment en ce qui concerne les exportations 
de produits agro -alimentaires à forte valeur. Le respect des normes SPS et d 'autres conditions 
applicables sur les marchés importateurs pose un défi permanent aux PMA, au regard des 
capacités financières, humaines et techniques limitées des PMA exportateurs.  
Question : 
39. Les États-Unis disposent -ils d'un dispositif d 'appui à l 'intention des PMA exportateurs, afin 
que ceux -ci puissent satisfaire aux conditions SPS d 'application aux États-Unis?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 30 - 
 
  RESPONSE : While the United States does not have a specific scheme to help LDCs meet SPS 
standards, we do fund a number of programs in which LDCs participate. This list can be found in our 
Gen 181 report.  
Page 74 (Paragraphe 3.109)  
Les États-Unis ont présenté 180 notifications OTC à l 'OMC en 2014, 283 notifications en 2015, et 
39 mesures ont été notifiées pour la première moitié de 2016, en vertu de l 'Accord sur les 
Obstacles Techniques au Commerce (OTC) de l 'OMC.  
Questions : 
40. Dans quelle mesure les exp ortations des PMA vers les États-Unis sont-elles touchées par les 
notifications portant sur les mesures OTC?  
RESPONSE : For clarity, the United States notified 129 measures proposed or maintained at the 
Federal level as of 30 November 2016.  
Respectfully, t he United States is not in a position to fully address whether and how exports from 
other Members are impacted by measures subject to the TBT Agreement. Indeed, a fundamental 
purpose of the notification system is to alert other Members to measures that may  have a 
significant impact on trade -- and allow them to determine if and how they might be impacted. 
Through the notification process, Members can bring to the attention of the Member developing 
the measure any potential impacts on trade and potential act ions that might minimize or eliminate 
such impacts. With respect to the notification process, the United States maintains a robust 
system that notifies federal and sub -central measures subject to the notification obligations of the 
TBT Agreement, as is evi dent from the cited paragraph.  
For further information regarding measures notified by the United States, LDCs are invited to 
contact the Inquiry Point, operated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the 
Department of Commerce. The Inquir y Point has been established to answer all reasonable 
questions from other Members and interested parties and provide documents relating to technical 
regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures adopted or proposed within the 
United States.  Inquiries may be directed to: usatbtip@nist.gov .  
41. Les États-Unis disposent -ils d'un programme d 'appui aux PMA exportateurs leur permettant 
de se conformer aux mesures OTC?  
RESPONSE : The United States provides bila teral technical assistance and capacity building to 
developing countries on TBT -related activities through the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID), the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the U.S. Department of 
Commerce 's Commercial Law Develo pment Program (CLDP) and Market Development Cooperator 
Program, and NIST 's Standards in Trade Program. USDA 's FAS also provides technical assistance 
on standards -related food trade. These agencies have broader missions and generally provide 
standards -related capacity building assistance as a component of a specific project or mission.  
In addition, the USAID -ANSI Standards Alliance assistance facility, launched in 2012, provides 
resources and expertise to enable developing countries to effectively implement the TBT 
Agreement. The focus of these efforts in developing countries includes efforts: to improve 
practices related to notification of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures to 
the WTO; to strengthen domestic practices related to adopt ing relevant international standards; 
and to clarify and streamline regulatory processes for products. Under the Standards Alliance 
(http://standardsalliance.ansi.org ), ANSI is working with ten partner coun tries/regions according 
to work plans tailored to individual country needs, some of which include activities focused on 
standards development. In September 2016, ANSI and USAID finalized an expansion of the 
Standards Alliance to support TBT -related assista nce in five additional countries in Africa.  
Droits de propriété intellectuelle  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 111 (Paragraphes 3.237 – 3.240)  
Au cours de l 'Examen des Politiques Commerciales des Membres, les PMA souhaiteraient obtenir 
des informations sur la  mesure dans laquelle les PMA participent à l 'économie des Membres, afin WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 31 - 
 
  de mieux appréhender l 'intégration des PMA dans le système commercial multilatéral, et leur 
capacité à avoir recours, mais également à utiliser, les outils commerciaux mis à leur disp osition 
lors de leur adhésion à l 'OMC. Le Rapport du Secrétariat décrit la mise en œuvre rigoureuse des 
droits de Propriété Intellectuelle aux États-Unis, et établit l 'importance des grosses entreprises 
fondées sur la Propriété Intellectuelle dans le PIB a méricain à 38,2 pourcents en 2014. Le rapport 
fixe également les recettes nettes à 124,7 milliards de US$ e n 2015, et les paiements à 
39,5 milliards de US$. De plus, le Rapport établit que la promotion de l 'innovation et des droits de 
Propriété Intellectue lle a induit l 'équivalent de 40 millions de US$ en termes d 'emplois, résultant 
directement ou indirectement des entreprises du secteur de la propriété intellectuelle.  
Questions : 
42. Les États-Unis sont-ils à même de soutenir la recherche et l 'innovation des P MA, et d 'offrir 
un appui similaire pour l 'obtention de brevets aux États-Unis, à l'instar de la proposition décrite au 
paragraphe 3.240?  
RESPONSE : The United States continues to believe that the effective functioning of Article 66.2 of 
the TRIPS Agreement  requires a robust dialogue between developed country and LDC Members, in 
order to target incentives in a way that is most responsive to the self -identified technology transfer 
interests and needs of LDC Members. The United States encourages the efforts of  the TRIPS 
Council Secretariat and Member states to organize discussions among the Member states 
regarding Article 66.2 implementation.  
The United States annual reports pursuant to Article 66.2 and Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement 
to the WTO TRIPS Council  provide detailed descriptions of U.S. technology transfer and technical 
cooperation activities globally. The United States submitted reports most recently to the TRIPS 
Council on October 18, 2016 regarding technical cooperation activities (IP/C/W/617/Add. 5) and 
implementation of article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/W/616/Add.5). These reports are 
available to all WTO members.  
43. Le Groupe des PMA souhaite savoir si les États-Unis ont reçu des sollicitations 
d'enregistrement de brevets, de marques déposée s ou d 'indications géographies émanant des 
PMA?  
RESPONSE : The USPTO publishes patent and trademark information in the annual USPTO 
Performance and Accountability Report. Information includes the number of U.S. patent 
applications filed by residents of for eign countries and the number of U.S. trademark applications 
filed by residents of foreign countries. For the annual USPTO Performance and Accountability 
Reports visit : https://www.uspto.gov/about -us/performance -and-planning/uspto -annual -reports . 
44. Si tel est le cas, certaines ont -elles été homologuées ou octroyées, et de quels pays s 'agit-il?  
RESPONSE : The USPTO publishes patent and trademark information in the annu al USPTO 
Performance and Accountability Report. Information includes the number of patents issued by the 
United States to residents of foreign countries and the number of trademarks registered to 
residents of foreign countries, including registrations that  protect geographical indications. For the 
annual USPTO Performance and Accountability Reports visit : https://www.uspto.gov/about -
us/performance -and-planning/uspto -annual -reports . 
45. Tout enregistrement de brevet ou de marque déposée effectué par un PMA et approuvé par 
les États-Unis implique le versement de frais qui constituent le revenu du Département des 
brevets et des marques déposées des États-Unis. Le système am éricain consent -il à faire 
bénéficier aux PMA des frais spéciaux ou réduits, lorsqu 'une demande de dépôt est émise, et/ou 
pour maintenir les marques déposées et les brevets enregistrés aux États-Unis?  
RESPONSE : The USPTO provides for discounted fees for c ertain patent services, depending on the 
size of the entity to which the service applies, as defined by applicable rules. More information can 
be found in the USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), sections 509.02, 509.03 
and 509.04. For the MP EP, visit : https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/ . As detailed in an 
October 3, 2016 Federal Register Notice entitled "Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal 
Year 2017 " (Docket No. P TO-P-2015-0056), the USPTO is also seeking stakeholder feedback on 
the possibility of expanding the small entity and micro entity discount to additional patent services.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 32 - 
 
  The initial trademark application fee for all applicants is set at a low level to prov ide an incentive 
for nationals of all countries to protect their marks through registration. Currently, the cost of 
obtaining a trademark registration in one class of goods or services is $225.00. Electronic filing, 
and tutorials about filing, make it easy  for applicants who cannot afford attorneys to file for 
registration in the USPTO. The online application process includes prompts to assist in ensuring 
that the required information is entered.  
46. Les États-Unis ont-ils des programmes permettant d 'aider les PMA à identifier et 
systématiser les technologies endogènes en vue de leur enregistrement  dans le cadre des Dro its 
de Propriété Intellectuelle ? 
RESPONSE : The United States continues to believe that the effective functioning of Article 66.2 of 
the TRIPS Agr eement requires a robust dialogue between developed country and LDC Members, in 
order to target incentives in a way that is most responsive to the self -identified technology transfer 
interests and needs of LDC Members. The United States encourages the effo rts of the TRIPS 
Council Secretariat and Member states to organize discussions among the Member states 
regarding Article 66.2 implementation.  
The United States annual reports pursuant to Article 66.2 and Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement 
to the WTO TRIPS C ouncil provide detailed descriptions of U.S. technology transfer and technical 
cooperation activities globally. The United States submitted reports most recently to the TRIPS 
Council on October 18, 2016 regarding technical cooperation activities (IP/C/W/61 7/Add.5) and 
implementation of article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/W/616/Add.5). These reports are 
available to all WTO Members.  
4. POLITIQUE COMMERCIALE – ANALYSE PAR SECTEUR  
Agriculture  
Loi agricole de 2014  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 13 (Paragrap he 21) et pages 128 -138 (Paragraphes 4.5 – 4.33)  
La Loi Agricole de 2014 supprime les paiements directs, considérés comme des subventions de 
catégorie verte en vertu des règles de l 'OMC. Elle met également un terme aux versements 
anticycliques ainsi qu 'au programme ACRE (Programme d 'Assurance du Revenu des Cultures), 
considérés tous deux comme des subventions de catégorie orange. Ces mécanismes ont été 
remplacés par de nouveaux programmes, essentiellement sous forme de régimes d 'assurance – y 
compris pour l e coton. Les PMA prennent note du retrait de programmes ayant pour effet une 
distorsion des échanges, tels que les versements anticycliques ou le programme d 'assurance du 
revenu des cultures ACRE. Ils s 'inquiètent cependant du remplacement des paiements de  catégorie 
verte par des programmes générant une distorsion de la production, dépendants du prix et des 
revenus. En remplaçant les paiements directs, le Bureau Budgétaire du Congrès s 'attendait à une 
diminution globale des dépenses budgétaires. Le Rapport du Secrétariat suggère toutefois que les 
premières données relatives aux paiements totaux effectués dans le cadre des Programmes 
d'Assurance Contre la Variabilité des Prix (PLC) et de Garantie du Risque Agricole (ARC) ne 
démontrent pas une différence nette  en comparaison avec les dépenses antérieures effectuées 
dans le cadre des précédents programmes interrompus.  
Questions : 
47. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils déterminer si les dépenses budgétaires encourues pour des 
paiements ayant pour effets de distorsion sur les  échanges, ont augmenté depuis l 'entrée en 
vigueur de la Loi Agricole de 2014 ?  
RESPONSE : Given that the 2014 Farm Bill was largely implemented in 2015, it is too early to 
determine the effect of the legislation on budgetary outlays.  
48. De quelle façon les États-Unis envisagent -ils de notifier les nouveaux programmes issus de 
la Loi Agricole de 2014 auprès de l 'OMC?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 33 - 
 
  RESPONSE : The WTO Secretariat 's Trade Policy Review report provides information on new 
programs that resulted from the 2014 Farm Bill. The United  States provided information and 
background materials to the WTO Secretariat to assist in the preparation of this report. The United 
States will also submit its 2014 domestic support notification to the WTO when it is complete.  
49. Compte tenu de la tendance a ctuelle des prix des marchandises, les États-Unis anticipent -ils 
une augmentation des dépenses budgétaires liées aux nouveaux programmes d 'assurance contre 
la variabilité des prix (PLC) et de ga rantie du risque agricole (ARC) ? 
RESPONSE : See response to que stion 46.  
50. Quand est -ce que les États-Unis pourront -ils mettre à la disposition des Membres les 
résultats qui seront issus de l 'examen à mi-parcou rs de la Loi Agricole Farm Bill ? 
RESPONSE : The United States will submit its 2014 domestic support notification  to the WTO when 
it is complete. We will keep the membership apprised of legislative developments as appropriate 
when the new Congress begins its 2017 session.  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 142 (paragraphes 4.4.5 et 4.4.6 – graphiques 4.2 et 4.3)  
51. Les États -Unis peuvent -ils fournir des informations sur les produits et ressources qui sont 
passés de la catégorie orange à la catégorie verte durant les 14 dernières années?  
RESPONSE : The United States is not aware of any products and resources that went from the 
amber box to the green box category during the last fourteen years.  
Niveaux de soutien  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 154 (tableau 4.8)  
Alors que les premières données semblent indiquer que le nouveau programme américain 
spécifique au Coton STAX ne jouit que d'un taux d 'adhésion mitigé, les chiffres de l 'OCDE révèlent 
une augmentation notable des transferts au titre d 'un seul produit pour le Coton entre 2014 et 
2015, en comparaison avec les années précédentes. De façon similaire, les transferts au titre d 'un 
seul produit pour le sucre ont significativement augmenté, passant de 8 pour cent des revenus 
agricoles bruts en 2013 à près de 45 pour cent en 2015.  
Questions : 
52. Les États-Unis confirment -ils les affirmations du Rapport du Secrétariat ?  
RESPONSE : The OECD data for 2015 are provisional. Therefore, it is not possible to confirm or 
provide comment on the information contained in this table.  
53. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils expliquer les hausses des soutien s accordés au Coton et au 
sucre ?  
RESPONSE : See response to question 51 . 
54. Quelles sont les réformes envisagées par les États-Unis concernant les mesures de soutien 
interne afin de réduire les distorsions quant au prix des produits agricoles sur le marché mondial, 
en particulier s 'agissant du coto n? 
RESPONSE : Current  farm programs are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 2018 
crop year. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed of any changes that may occur in a future Farm Bill.  
55. Quel lien exis te-t-il entre le coût de production au kilogramme du Coton aux USA et les 
effets de distorsion du prix  du Coton sur le marché mondial ? 
RESPONSE : There is no link between production costs for U.S. cotton and world cotton prices. 
Many countries maintain poli cies that affect global cotton trade and world prices.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 34 - 
 
  56. A quels niveaux d 'engagement de réduction des soutiens internes dans l'Agriculture et le 
Coton, les États-Unis envisagent -ils de situer la mise en œuvre des Décisions Ministérielle s de Bali 
et de Nairo bi?  
RESPONSE : The United States programs are consistent with the Decisions Members agreed to 
during the Bali and Nairobi WTO Ministerial s. 
Mesures de sauvegarde spéciales pour l 'agriculture  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 139 (Paragraphe 4.36)  
La clause de s auvegarde spéciale fondée sur les prix est automatiquement invoquée par les 
États-Unis lorsque les prix d 'importation déclarés pour des produits hors contingent sont en 
dessous de la fourchette de prix établie. Les États-Unis ont ainsi appliqué des mesures  de 
sauvegarde fondées sur les prix sur 53 lignes tarifaires en 2013 et 44 lignes en 2014.  
Questions : 
57. La mesure de sauvegarde spéciale fondée sur les prix a -t-elle été invoquée sur une 
importation en provenance des PMA au cours de la période couverte par le présent document 
d'Examen des Politiques Commerciales ?  
RESPONSE : Yes. A total of two shipments, both from Bangladesh, were assessed price -based 
safeguard duties during 2013 -2014.  
58. Si tel est le cas, quels étaient les produits ?  
RESPONSE : The actions app lied to these two shipments consisted of one shipment of butter 
(classified within subheading 0405102000, HTSUS) in 2013 and one shipment of cheese (classified 
within subheading 0406909700, HTSUS) in 2014.  
Crédits à l 'exportation  
Page 139 (Paragraphe. 4.37 ) 
D'après le Rapport du Secrétariat, la durée maximale du crédit en vertu du programme de garantie 
du crédit à l 'exportation (GSM -102) est de 18 mois, identique aux dispositions prévues par la 
Décision Ministérielle de Nairobi relative à la concurrence à l 'exportation. Toutefois, cette durée 
pourrait varier d 'un comté à l 'autre, et la Loi agricole de 2014 prévoit une durée maximale de 
garantie du prêt de 24 mois.  
Question : 
59. La disposition de la Loi Agricole de 2014 est -elle susceptible d 'affecter la capacit é des 
États-Unis à mettre en œuvre la Décision Ministérielle de Nairobi portant sur la concurrence à 
l'exportation, qui fi xe la durée du crédit à 18 mois ?  
RESPONSE : The United States has been operating the GSM -102 program in accordance with the 
elements o f the Nairobi Decision since prior to December 2015 and continues to do so.  
Concurrence à l 'exportation  
60. Les Etats -Unis ont -ils pleinement mis en œuvre la Décision de Nairobi sur la concurrence à 
l'exportation, en particulier en ce qui concerne le coton?  
RESPONSE : The United States programs are consistent with the provisions of the Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 35 - 
 
  Aide alimentaire  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 140 (Paragraphe 4.40)  
Le Rapport du Secrétariat souligne que la majeure partie de l 'aide alim entaire américaine est 
encore fournie en nature. Les organismes non -gouvernementaux bénéficiaires doivent également 
assujettir un minimum de 15 pourcents des dons alimentaires américains non urgents à la 
monétisation. Toutefois, la Décision de Nairobi préc ise, dans le domaine de la concurrence à 
l'exportation, que les Gouvernements ne doivent pas fournir l 'aide alimentaire internationale en 
nature lorsque celle -ci affecte négativement la production locale ou régionale. Elle déclare 
également que l 'aide alim entaire ne peut être monétisée que "dans les cas où il y  a un besoin 
avéré de le faire" , et qu 'une analyse du marché doit être effectuée avant que la monétisation n 'ait 
lieu. Bien que plusieurs propositions aient été présentées par l 'Administration américa ine et des 
membres du Congrès, afin de résoudre certaines de ces questions, la plupart n 'ont guère évolué 
au niveau du Congrès.  
Question : 
61. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils expliquer la manière dont ces réalités pourraient affecter la 
capacité des États-Unis à totalement mettre en œuvre effectivement et pleinement les dispositions 
relatives à l 'aide alimentaire de la Décision Ministérielle de Nairobi sur la concurrence à 
l'exportation ?  
RESPONSE : The United States programs are consistent with the provisions of the  Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition.  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward 
to keeping the Membership informed as appropriate if there are changes by Congress in the future.  
Services  
Rapport du Secrétariat, page 162 (Pa ragraphe 4.118)  
Le Rapport du Secrétariat indique que le service d'accès à l 'internet haut débit n'est soumis à 
aucune restriction à la propriété étrangère aux États -Unis. Le rapport souligne cependant qu'il 
existe des restrictions de la présence étrangère , sans approbation préalable de la Commission 
fédérale des communications, à 20 % de l'investissement direct et 25% de l 'investissement 
indirect pour les titulaires de licences ordinaires de services sans fil, et d'autres restrictions.  
Questions : 
62. Les États-Unis confirment -ils les informations du Secrétariat?  
RESPONSE : The provision of broadband internet access service is not subject to any foreign 
ownership restrictions. There are, however, restrictions applicable to entities that seek to use 
spectrum to p rovide services, including potentially broadband internet access services. In 
particular, foreign ownership of common carrier wireless licensees is limited by Section 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 to 20% direct investment and 25% indirect investmen t.  
Under this provision of the Act, the FCC must conduct a public interest analysis when evaluating 
applications to receive authorization to exceed the 25% foreign -ownership benchmark. The public 
interest analysis relies on an "open entry" standard, where by the FCC starts from a rebuttable 
presumption that foreign entry does not threaten competition in the U.S. telecommunications 
market. The analysis also involves a consideration of any policy concerns raised by federal 
government agencies in relation to n ational security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade 
policy. Since the inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has ever been denied a common 
carrier wireless license under the FCC's public interest analysis.  
63. Ces restrictions peuvent -elles créer d es obstacles au flux des investissements mondiaux 
dans le commerce électronique, notamment ceux qu i pourraient bénéficier aux PMA ?  
RESPONSE : The provision of broadband internet access service is not, in and of itself, subject to 
any foreign ownership rest rictions. Since the inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has ever 
been denied a common carrier wireless license under the FCC's public interest analysis.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 36 - 
 
  64. Les États-Unis envisagent -ils de réduire ces restrictions?  
RESPONSE : It is not clear why the qu estion refers to Page 150 or to subsection 4.63 (we note 
that subsection 4.63 is page 125 of the official version of the Secretariat Report) which concerns 
the Dodd -Frank Act. To the extent the question is concerned with the provision of broadband 
internet  access service, the U.S. does not impose foreign ownership restrictions on this service.  
Page 150 (Paragraphe 4.63)  
Le Rapport du Secrétariat décrit les réglementations bancaires américaines et mentionne 
brièvement les règles du secteur non bancaire.  
Questions : 
65. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils détailler la façon dont les transferts de fonds, les services 
bancaires mobiles et les services d 'échange de devises sont traités sous ce régime  ? Ces secteurs 
sont importants pour les fournisseurs PMA.  
RESPONSE : These s ervices may only be supplied through commer cial presence within the 
United  States. For more information, see : 
https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/examination s/supervisory/insights/siwin12/mobile.html  and 
https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/mobile -payments -industry -workgroup/update -on-the-us-
regulatory -landscape -for-mobile -payments.aspx . 
66. Existent -ils des restrictions sur la fourniture de ces services par des organismes étrangers  ? 
Si tel est le cas , quelles sont ces restrictions ? 
RESPONSE: Foreign organizati ons may offer these services in the U.S. market, but they must 
meet U.S. statutory and regulatory obligations applicable to the non -banking sector, such as those 
described in the links in the response to Question 64.  
Assistance technique  
Rapport du Gouver nement, page 27 (Paragraphes 6.2 et 6.3)  
Le Groupe des PMA remercie les États-Unis pour leur contribution aux activités de promotion du 
commerce et du développement, en particulier en faveur des PMA, implication considérable dans 
l'accompagnement de leurs partenaires des pays en développement, leur permettant de mieux 
bénéficier du système commercial mondial. Les États-Unis prennent part à des activités de 
renforcement des capacités en partenariat avec des institutions internationales, telles que l 'OMC, 
la Banque Mondiale, le FMI, les banques de développement régionales ou les Nations Unies. Les 
Nations Unies sont également engagées dans des initiatives bilatérales d 'Aide pour le commerce.  
Questions : 
67. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils indiquer quels programmes ont été mis en œuvre, en partenariat 
avec les diverses Institutions Internationales, afin de renforcer spécifiquement les capacités des 
PMA dans le domaine du commerce ?  
RESPONSE : The United States is the largest single country provider of trade capacity build ing 
assistance ($593 million in Fiscal Year 2014) to support 147 geographic regions, and trade groups. 
Details are available at : http://tcb.usaid.gov/ . 
68. Les Etats -Unis peuvent -ils indiquer les initiative s bilatérales en  faveur des PMA ?  
RESPONSE : Please see the response to question 66.  
69. Combien de PMA bénéficient  de ces initiatives bilatérales ? Existent -ils des PMA ne 
bénéficiant pas de ce genre d 'actions américaines ?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 37 - 
 
  RESPONSE : Please see the response to question 66.  
70. Que comptent faire les États-Unis pour aider à la mobilisation des ressources nécessaires  au 
Budget de la phase 2 du CIR ?  
RESPONSE : The United States will continue to work with participating organizations and the EIF 
Secretariat to facilitate the work of the  EIF. The United States will continue to support the EIF 
through complementary bilateral assistance to EIF participating countries.  
Pages 28 (Paragraphe 6.5 et 6.7)  
Le Groupe des PMA remercie les États-Unis pour leur participation aux discussions de l 'Aide pour le 
commerce de l 'OMC, ainsi que pour leur contribution au Fonds global d 'affectation spéciale pour le 
Programme de Doha pour le développement et pour la détermination de l 'Agence américaine pour 
le développement international (USAID) à apporter un so utien bilatéral complémentaire aux PMA, 
dans le cadre du Cadre Intégré Renforcé.  
Question : 
71. Les États-Unis envisagent -ils d'augmenter leurs dotations, afin de couvrir un plus grand 
nombre de PMA avec les programmes d 'aide?  
RESPONSE : The incoming Administr ation will need to work with the U.S. Congress on its priorities 
and approaches for upcoming federal budgets. We look forward to keeping the Membership 
informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into place.  
Pages 28 -30 (Paragraphes 6.8 à 6.15)  
Le Groupe  des PMA remercie les États-Unis pour les programmes initiés en faveur de l 'Afrique, et 
particulièrement de l 'Afrique sub -Saharienne, afin de renforcer les infrastructures commerciales de 
ces pays, leur attractivité économique, leur capacité à mettre en œu vre les Accords de l 'OMC 
(OTC, SPS, Facilitation des Échanges ) et leur secteur agricole (particulièrement le secteur du 
coton). Ces programmes ont, de manière indéniable, permis aux PMA de mieux bénéficier et de 
prendre une part plus active dans le système  commercial mondial.  
Questions : 
72. Les États-Unis peuvent -ils faire savoir si ces programm es ont vocation à se pérenniser ?  
RESPONSE : This is a decision that will be made by a future Administration. We look forward to 
keeping the Membership informed as the n ew U.S. Administration comes into place.  
73. Ces programmes seront -ils étendus à d 'autres PMA ? 
RESPONSE : This is a decision that will be made by a future Administration. We look forward to 
keeping the Membership informed as the new U.S. Administration comes in to place.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 38 - 
 
  BRAZIL  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.3.2.2. Unilateral Preferences: (Page 31, Para. 2.3.2.2)  
1. Could the USG provide the list of items with tariff benefits under the General System of 
Preferences (GSP) restricted t o LDC countries that are not being used?  
RESPONSE: US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) lines limited to GSP for Least Developed 
Countries (LDCs) are identified in the HTS with an A+. This information can be found in the US 
Tariff Database at https://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/tariff_databases.htm .  
Question 2  
Section 2.3.2.2.1. GSP (Page 33, Para. 2.32)  
The rules of origin under the U.S. GSP programme remain unchanged since the las t TPR. Products 
must contain at least 35% value added in the beneficiary countries, and imported inputs in eligible 
products must undergo double substantial transformation. " 
2. Considering that the U.S. GSP program already applies the 35% ad valorem criterion  to 
determine substantial transformation, which other criterion or criteria are required to establish that 
a product has undergone "double " substantial transformation?  
RESPONSE: To establish imported materials has undergone a "double" substantial transform ation, 
the imported material must undergo a substantial transformation in the beneficiary developing 
country (BDC), which means that the imported material is transformed into a new and different 
constituent material with a new name, character and use. Then  the constituent material must be 
transformed in the BDC into a new and different finished article with a new name, character and 
use. Inputs from member countries of GSP ‐eligible regional associations will be treated as 
single‐country inputs for purposes of determining origin. The calculation of the cost or value of 
materials produced in the BDC is described in 19 CFR 10.177. A list of the items included in the 
"direct co sts of processing" is provided in 19 CFR 10.178. CBP's customs value handbook may be 
found on CBP's web site at: http://www.cbp.gov/document/publications/customs -value . 
Questions 3 -4 
Section 2.4 Investment Regime (Page 34, Para. 2.42)  
According to the United States, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) 
is authorized to review the national security aspects of transactions that could result in a foreign 
person g aining control of a U.S. business.  
3. Can the United States provide some examples of national security aspects that have been 
reviewed by the CFIUS in more recent concrete cases?  
RESPONSE: The CFIUS Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the  Committee 
and perceived adverse effects of select covered transactions. See: 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -
reports.aspx . 
4. On average, how long has the CFIUS taken to review transactions since the last Trade Policy 
Review?  
RESPONSE: The CFIUS Annual Report includes data regarding CFIUS reviews, which can last 
30 days, and investigations, wh ich can last an additional 45 days. See: 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -
reports.aspx . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Question 5  
Section 3.1.4.2. Applied Rates (Page 45, Para. 3.40)  
"Legislation providing temporary tariff suspensions on several hundred products of importance to 
U.S. manufacturing enterprises expired at the end of 2012, and tariff suspensions on two other  
lines expired at the end of 2014. The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 
(PL 114-159) provides a new process for the consideration of temporary tariff suspensions. 
Enterprises seeking tariff relief are to petition the USITC, which will exa mine such petitions, 
receive comments, and issue a report to Congress providing specified findings on the requested 
duty suspensions and reductions. Based on such a report, Congress will consider a miscellaneous 
tariff bill that could authorize tariff reli ef." 
5. Could the U.S. provide further information on the American Manufacturing Act of 2016? In 
particular, Brazil would like to understand the criteria adopted by the U.S. and whether the tariff 
suspensions, if approved, are applicable only to transactions of the companies that requested them 
or to every transaction on the relevant products.  
RESPONSE: The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 establishes a process by 
which the U.S. International Trade Commission considers petitions for temporar y duty suspensions 
and reductions. The Act requires that the petitions submitted to the Commission contain "[a] 
certification by the petitioner that the proposed duty suspension or reduction is available to any 
person importing the article to which the pro posed duty suspension or reduction would apply", and 
that the Commission's final report to the Congressional committees include "a determination of the 
Commission whether. . . the duty suspension or reduction is available to any person importing the 
article that is the subject of the duty suspension or reduction." A temporary duty suspension or 
reduction, if enacted by Congress, would covers all goods described in the relevant HTS heading 
regardless of the importer.  
Questions 6 -8 
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumpi ng, Countervailing, and Safeguard Measures (Page 54, Para. 3.70)  
The United States asserts that an U.S. industry petitioning for the initiation of an AD or CVD 
investigation must provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that dumping and/or 
subsidiz ation of a particular product is occurring. In that sense, the authority shall review the 
accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine whether the 
evidence is sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.  
6. Does the U.S. have specific legal criteria/guidance to determine what is a "reasonable basis" 
to suspect that dumping or subsidization of a particular product is occurring?  
RESPONSE: In every initiated proceeding, Commerce identifies relevant documentation rel ated to 
the sufficiency of the petition and its initiation criteria. For initiations during the TPR period of 
review, these documents can be found in the U.S. reports to the appropriate WTO committees. 
This information is also available for antidumping and  countervailing duty proceedings through 
Commerce 's e-file system ( https://access.trade.gov/ ). 
7. How does the U.S. authority verify the accuracy of the information presented by the 
petitioners?  
RESPONSE:  See reply a bove.  
8. Article 11.2 (iii) of the SCM Agreement indicates that the application for the initiation of a 
subsidy investigation shall include sufficient evidence with regard to the existence, amount and 
nature of the subsidy in question while the U.S. authority  requires presenting "a reasonable basis 
to believe or suspect that dumping and/or subsidization of a particular product is occurring" in a 
petition of initiation of a subsidy investigation. How does the U.S. authority believe that its 
legislation is suffi cient in order to comply with the obligation presented in article 11.2 (iii)?  
RESPONSE: The information above erred in using the term "reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect" which does not appear in U.S. law for purposes of initiating countervailing duty 
proceedings. To clarify, under Article 11.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Measures, an application shall include evidence of the elements set  out in that provision. 
Article  11.2 states that "Simple assertion, unsubstantiated by relevant evidence, cannot be 
considered sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph." The provision requires that the 
"application shall contain such information as is reasonably available to the applicant" with respect 
to each of the enumerated elements.  The same requirement exists in U.S. law for initiation of 
countervailing duty proceedings. Section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, pertaining to 
countervailing duty petitions (applications) requires that the petition "alleges the elements 
neces sary for the imposition of the duty . . . and which is accompanied by information reasonably 
available to the petitioner supporting those allegations."  
Questions 9 -11 
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, Countervailing, and Safeguard Measures (Page 56, Para. 3.7 8) 
Article 2.2 of the Antidumping Agreement separates the meanings of "ordinary course of trade" 
and "particular market situation", when it considers that one or another might not permit proper 
comparison. In the new legislation, however, the United States  seems to merge those elements by 
considering that any particular market situation would automatically be transformed into an 
"outside of the ordinary course of trade" status.  
9. Does the U.S. distinguish between what is "outside of the ordinary course of tra de" and a 
case where there is a "particular market situation"?  
RESPONSE: Yes, these concepts are contained in different parts of U.S. law and are treated 
individually in a particular proceeding.   
10.  If positive, what is the distinction in the U.S. administer ing authority view?  
RESPONSE: Discussion of the individual concepts can be found in the specific proceedings where 
they are discussed. For proceedings during the TPR period of review, relevant documents can be 
found on Commerce 's e-file system ( https://access.trade.gov/ ). 
11. Is there any difference in the consequences of these situations existing in a particular case?  
RESPONSE:  See reply above.  
Questions 12 -16 
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, Countervailing, and Safeguar d Measures (Page 56, Para. 3.78)  
In the new antidumping and countervailing duties legislation, the U.S. authority may use another 
calculation methodology than the ordinary one in determining the constructed value of subject 
merchandise being imported at le ss than fair value, if a particular market situation exists where 
the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the 
production cost in the ordinary course of trade.  
12. Based on this, could the U.S. provide e xamples of which different methodologies could be 
used rather than the ordinary one, when a particular market situation is determined to exist?  
RESPONSE: Any determination of "another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any 
other calculation met hodology " will be based on the factual evidence of the investigation or review 
on a case -by-case basis. To date, Commerce has not found that a "particular market situation " 
exists under the amended provisions of the statute.  
13. Which parameters are decisive in establishing that the costs of materials and fabrication or 
other processing of any kind would not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary 
course of trade?  
RESPONSE: Discussion of the parameters involved in finding whether a "particula r market 
situation " exists under the amended provisions of the statute will be based on the factual evidence 
of each investigation or review on a case -by-case basis. To date, the United States has not made a 
final determination under these amended provisio ns of the statute.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 41 - 
 
  14. Which benchmark or methodology is used to define what should be the cost of production in 
the ordinary course of trade?  
RESPONSE: See reply above.  
15. What is the definition of "other processing of any kind"?  
RESPONSE:  See reply above.  
16. Which  different elements rather than cost of materials and fabrication does it include?  
RESPONSE: See reply above.  
Questions 17 -18  
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, Countervailing, and Safeguard Measures (Page 56, Para. 3.79)  
Section 773(c) of the Tariff Act of 1 930 was amended by adding a provision that gives the 
investigating authority discretion to disregard price or cost values without further investigation if it 
has determined that broadly available export subsidies existed or particular instances of 
subsidiz ation occurred with respect to those price or cost values or if those price or cost values 
were subject to an antidumping order.  
17. In that sense, could the US specify the concept of a "broadly available export subsidy"?  
RESPONSE: In general, a "broadly avail able export subsidy " is a subsidy that Commerce has 
determined to be contingent, in law or fact, upon export performance, alone or as one of two or 
more conditions, and that is not narrowly limited with respect to the eligible companies or 
industries.  
18. Does the U.S. ITA have a way to quantify if the export subsidy is broad or not?  
RESPONSE: See reply above.  
Questions 19 -20  
Section 3.1.8. Standards and other technical requirements (Page 61, Para 3.101, 3.102)  
"Standardization activities in the United States  are decentralized and demand -driven. Voluntary 
consensus standards (VCSs) are developed by private sector standards developing organizations 
(SDOs) in response to specific concerns and needs expressed by industry, government, and 
consumers". "The American  National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private, non -profit 
organization that coordinates and administers the private -sector VCS system in the United States. 
ANSI is the U.S. member body to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the  
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), via the U.S. National Committee. American 
National Standards (ANS), a type of VCS, are prepared by some 245 ANSI -accredited standards 
developers (ASDs). These ASDs have sponsored more than 11,000 ANSs.(.)".  
19. Could the U.S. explain the measures the government has been taking in order to comply 
with the provision of the TBT Agreement Article 8.1, which establishes that Members shall take 
reasonable measures to ensure that non -governmental bodies within their te rritories comply with 
the provisions of Articles 5 and 6?  
RESPONSE: Article 8.1 requires members to take reasonable measures as may be available to 
them to ensure that non -governmental bodies operate conformity assessment procedures in 
compliance with the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the TBT Agreement. The measures available 
to the U.S. Government are included in OMB Circular A -119. In February 2016 a revision of OMB 
Circular A -119 was issued to provide guidance to federal agencies on the use of confor mity 
assessment procedures. Circular A -119 references the WTO TBT Agreement, including Articles 5 
and 6, and directs agencies to use conformity assessment procedures, including those undertaken 
by non -governmental bodies, that are in accordance with statut ory and international obligations, 
which include TBT Articles 5 and 6. A -119 also directs agencies to consult with USTR on how to 
comply with international trade obligations.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 42 - 
 
  20. Also according to TBT Article 8.1, Members shall not take measures which have the  effect of, 
directly or indirectly, requiring or encouraging such bodies to act in a manner inconsistent with the 
provisions of Articles 5 and 6. What actions has the U.S. Government taken in this regard?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. has not taken measures that have  the effect of encouraging bodies to act in 
a manner inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the TBT Agreement.  
Question 21  
Section 3.1.8. Standards and other technical requirements ( Page 62, Para. 3.104)  
"Federal law specifically prohibits  any U.S. government agency from engaging in standards -related 
activity creating unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Moreover, 
federal agencies are obliged to ensure that imported goods are treated no less favourably than li ke 
domestic products in the application of standards -related activities. " 
Question:  
21. How does the U.S. ensure that imported goods are treated no less favourably than like 
domestic products in the application of standards -related activities?  
RESPONSE: The Un ited States maintains a robust system to support implementation of its trade 
obligations through strong central management of its regulatory regime, an effective interagency 
trade policy mechanism, and public consultation. The central regulatory review pro cess 
administered by the Office of Management and Budget ensures international trade obligations are 
taken into account in the development of regulatory policies, including standards -related activities. 
E.O. 12866 and Circular A -4 are the primary basis on which good regulatory practice (GRP) has 
been integrated into the Federal regulatory structure. These practices ensure openness, 
transparency, and accountability in the regulatory process, and, as a result, help ensure that the 
United States fulfills key W TO obligations, including ensuring that imported goods are treated no 
less favorably than like domestic products. In addition, the Administrative Procedures Act requires 
agencies to undertake a notice and comment process open to all members of the public, both 
foreign and domestic, for rulemakings, and to take these comments into account in the final rule. 
The notice and comment process under the APA provides an opportunity for trading partners to 
provide input to regulators regarding the impact of proposed  regulations on imported products.  
Questions 22 -24 
Section 3.1.8. Standards and other technical requirements ( Page 63, Para. 3.109)  
"The United States is the only WTO Member notifying measures at the local government level; one 
such notification was receiv ed in 2014, and none in 2015. However, 39 measures proposed or 
maintained at the State level were notified under Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement in the first half 
of 2016."  
22. How is NIST informed by local, state and other federal institutions of a new requi rement 
established? Is there any legal provision that obligates the local and regional authorities to inform 
NIST?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. WTO Inquiry Point staff reviews on a regular basis a database of sub -federal 
proposed technical regulations. The Inquiry P oint and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
work together in close collaboration to notify relevant proposed state technical regulations to the 
WTO.  
23. Who is responsible for deciding which regulation should be notified to the WTO and under 
which agr eement, especially on TBT and SPS issues?  
RESPONSE: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the U.S. Department of 
Commerce serves as the U.S. notification authority and inquiry point for purposes of the TBT 
Agreement. The U.S. inquiry  point reviews the Federal Register and other materials on a daily 
basis and notifies the WTO of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures that 
agencies propose to adopt. The decision to notify is made by the Inquiry Point and the Office o f the 
U.S. Trade Representative, which work together in close collabor ation to ensure that the 
United  States appropriately notifies proposed regulations to the WTO.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 43 - 
 
  The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture serves as the U.S. 
notification authority and enquiry point for purposes of the SPS Agreement. The U.S. regulatory 
agencies (food safety) monitor in consultation with the U.S. National Notification Authority the 
Federal Register and other materials on a daily basis. The  relevant regulatory agency drafts a 
notification for SPS measures that the agency proposes to adopt. The U.S. SPS National 
Notification Authority submits the draft notification to the WTO. The decision to notify is made by 
the relevant regulatory agency i n close collaboration with the U.S. SPS National Notification 
Authority, to ensure that the United States appropriately notifies proposed regulations to the WTO.  
24. Could the U.S. provide more information on its structure and process to examine foreign 
notifications related to TBT and SPS? How the Government encourages private sector entities to 
analyse these notifications and report potential trade barriers, and what is the methodology used 
for identifying barriers to trade which could be raised as a STC?  
RESPONSE: The United States maintains rigorous, interagency processes and mechanisms for 
identifying, reviewing, analyzing, and addressing foreign government standards -related measures 
that act, or may act, as barriers to U.S. trade. USTR coordinates these processes and mechanisms 
through the Trade Policy Staff Committee, and, more specifically, its specialized SPS and TBT 
subgroups, the TPSC Subcommittee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TPSC TBT Subcommittee) and 
the TPSC Subcommittee on Sanitary and Phytosa nitary (TPSC SPS Subcommittee).  
Information on foreign standards -related measures is collected and evaluated through a variety of 
government channels including: the U.S. TBT Inquiry Point and Notification Authority (U.S. TBT 
Inquiry Point) at NIST, the Off ice of Trade Agreements Negotiations and Compliance (TANC), the 
Office of Standards and Investment Policy (OSIP), and the U.S. Commercial Service (UCS) in the 
U.S. Department of Commerce; the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and its Office of Agreements 
and Scientific Affairs (OASA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its officers in U.S. 
embassies abroad; the U.S. State Department 's economic officers in U.S embassies abroad; and 
USTR. U.S. Government outreach and consultations with U.S. stakeholder s generates much of the 
information supplied through these channels.  
Information for the TPSC Subcommittees on SPS measures is collected and evaluated through a 
variety of government channels including: the U.S. SPS Enquiry Point and Notification Authority  
(U.S. SPS Enquiry Point) at USDA 's Foreign Agricultural Service, and the U.S. Commercial Service 
(UCS) in the U.S. Department of Commerce; the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and its Office 
of Agreements and Scientific Affairs (OASA) in the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture and its officers 
in U.S. embassies abroad; the U.S. State and Commerce Department 's economic officers in U.S . 
embassies abroad; relevant food safety regulatory agencies; and USTR. U.S. Government outreach 
and consultations with U.S. sta keholders generates much of the information supplied through 
these channels.  
To disseminate information to U.S. stakeholders on proposed foreign notifications of standards 
related measures, the U.S. TBT Inquiry Point operates a web based service, Notify U. S., which 
automatically notifies registered stakeholders of measures proposed and adopted by other WTO 
Members in sectors of interest. To disseminate information to U.S. stakeholders on proposed 
foreign notifications of SPS -related measures, the U.S. SPS E nquiry Point operates a web based 
system, System for Tracking Agricultural Regulations (STAR), which automatically notifies 
registered stakeholders of measures proposed and adopted by other WTO Members in areas of 
interest. U.S. stakeholders, by providing comments through the U.S. SPS and TBT Enquiry Points, 
alert Federal agencies to their concerns and enable advocacy by Federal agencies on their behalf.  
Question 25  
Section 3.1.8. Standards and other technical requirements (Page 63, Para. 3.110)  
"There is a n interagency Regulatory Working Group serving, where appropriate, as a forum to 
discuss international regulatory cooperation activities."  
25. Can the U.S. provide more information about this Regulatory Working Group that promotes 
regulatory cooperation activi ties? It would be useful to obtain more details on its structure, 
participants, action plans, ongoing discussions, results and the ways it supports trade negotiations.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 44 - 
 
  RESPONSE : The Regulatory Working Group was established  by Executive Order 12866 of 
30 September 30 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review). Executive Order 13609 of 1 May 2012 
designated the Regulatory Working Group to serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop 
a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and pri orities with respect 
to international regulatory cooperation activities. The Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) serves as the Chair 
of the Regulatory Working Group. The grou p also includes a representative from the Office of the 
United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, other agencies. On 26 June 2015, the 
group released guidelines to address a number of responsibilities that the Executive Order gives to 
the Wor king Group and to agencies. The guidelines are available here:  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo_13609/eo136 09-working -group -
guidelines.pdf . 
Questions 26 -28 
Section 3.1.8. Standards and other technical requirements ( Page 64, Para. 3.111)  
"Many of the bilateral FTAs of the United States include common provisions reaffirming the parties' 
obligations under the TBT  Agreement; adherence to the principles of the Decision of the TBT 
Committee of 13 November 2000; mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures; 
transparency; joint work on standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures; and  exchange of information."  
26. What trade facilitating initiatives besides mutual recognition has the U.S. already negotiated 
and which partners were involved?  
RESPONSE: The United States pursues a broad agenda and active engagement with foreign 
governments on  trade facilitating initiatives. In addition to the negotiation of mutual recognition 
agreements, engagement includes: technical assistance through the Standards Alliance, the U.S. 
Department of Commerce 's Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP), Market Development 
Cooperator Program, Total Economic Engagement (TEE) Program, and NIST 's Standards in Trade 
Program; concluding equivalency arrangements with other governments, such as organic 
equivalency arrangements; active participation in multilateral fora such as the WTO TBT 
Committee and its associated special thematic sessions, and the Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and Development; regional engagement on standards issues, for example under the 
United States -ASEAN Expanded Economic Engagement (E3) Initiative, which includes cooperation 
on standards development and practices, and through the Asia -Pacific Economic Partnership 
(APEC) Forum 's Sub -Committee on Standards and Conformance; and through bilateral Regulatory 
Cooperation Fora with the EU, Mexic o and Canada. In addition, United States FTAs build on the 
disciplines in the TBT Agreement in important ways, strengthening cooperation with trading 
partners on standards -related issues.  
27. How are the sectors and the level of commitment chosen? What is the level of engagement 
of the private entities in this process?  
RESPONSE: The sectors, level of commitment and level of participation of private entities varies 
depending on discussions with other parties and the nature of the initiative pursued.  
28.  How does t he U.S. ensure that these arrangements do not discriminate against other WTO 
Members?  
RESPONSE: The United States domestic legal framework creates statutory obligations for 
agencies that prohibit their engagement in standards -related activities that creat e unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In particular, 19 U.S.C. § 2532 specifies 
four requirements in order to avoid these obstacles:  
1. Ensuring that imported products are not treated less favorably than like domestic products  or 
imported products from other countries;  
2. Taking into consideration international standards – and basing standards upon them if 
appropriate;  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 45 - 
 
  3. Developing standards based on performance criteria rather than design criteria when 
appropriate; and  
4. Ensuring foreign suppliers have access to conformity assessment procedures on the same 
basis as other domestic and foreign suppliers of like products.  
Questions 29 -30  
Section 3.1.9. SPS – Basic Legal and Institutional Framework (Page 64, Para. 3.113 and 3.114)  
According to Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement, in the assessment of risks, Members shall take into 
account available scientific evidence; relevant processes and production methods; relevant 
inspection, sampling and testing methods; prevalence of specific dise ases or pests; existence of 
pest - or disease - free areas; relevant ecological and environmental conditions; and quarantine or 
other treatment. However, Article 5.7 of the SPS established that "In cases where relevant 
scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures on the basis of available pertinent information, including that from the relevant 
international organizations as well as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other 
Members. I n such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional information 
necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and review the sanitary or phytosanitary 
measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time.  
29. In the beginning of 2016, Brazi l presented a complete scientific and legal report in order to 
export avocados to the United States. Since then, there was no response from the U.S. SPS 
authorities. How long does it take for the U.S. SPS authorities to establish the Assessment Risk 
evalua tion? What has been causing this delay?  
RESPONSE: When a request is received, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
determines whether a risk assessment is needed. The Brazil avocado request is new, dated June 
2016, and APHIS does not cons ider it delayed. The time frame for conducting risk assessments is 
subject to many variables, including obtaining necessary scientific and technical information, 
making a timeline very difficult to establish. Market access requests which include conducting  a 
risk assessment depend not only on APHIS information gathering but also depend on information 
the requesting country provides, which APHIS has no control over. We encourage Brazil to work 
with USDA SPS authorities to address any concerns they have.  
30. In 2015, 10 Brazilian shipments/containers of papaya were incinerated in the United States. 
The U.S. Government indicated that the decision was due to the identification of a pest, but a 
report on the ground of the decision was not provided. The Brazilian priv ate sector claims that the 
process that led to the incineration of the shipments was not transparent and that there was no 
demonstration/proof that a specific fruit pest was actually identified. How does the U.S. authority 
identify if shipments contain a s pecific pest? How is this process conducted? Are there 
administrative appealing opportunities? What was the scientific basis for the incineration of 
Brazilian papayas containers in 2015?  
RESPONSE: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Agricultural Speci alists conduct the 
inspections at ports of entry and send pest interceptions to APHIS for further identification. The 
identification of an actionable pest led to the action on these papaya shipments. The exporter is 
given the option of how to proceed with its shipment once an actionable pest is found. Actions 
range from re -export to destruction of the commodity. APHIS shares this interception information 
with the exporting country and if necessary will hold further discussion should it be requested. We 
encourage Brazil to work with USDA SPS authorities to address any concerns they have.  
Question 31  
Section 3.2.3. Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing (Pages 71 -72, Para. 3.141)  
"... On 18 December 2015, legislation entered into force terminating th e licensing requirement 
with immediate effect. Henceforth, crude oil is classified as EAR99 whereby no licence is required. 
The legislation provides for the reintroduction of export licensing requirements in certain limited 
circumstances, such as a nationa l emergency declared by the President, or due to sustained 
material oil supply shortages... " WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 46 - 
 
  31. What are the parameters used to define a "sustained material oil supply shortage "?  
RESPONSE: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (PL 114 -113), enacted on 
December  18, 2015, terminated licensing requirements for exports of U.S. crude oil exports. Most 
exports of crude oil may now be made as NLR (no license required). Under the statute, export 
licensing may only be re -imposed if the President determines that: 1 ) the export of crude has 
caused sustained material oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices significantly above world 
market levels that are directly attributable to the export of crude oil produced in the United States; 
and 2) those supply shortages or price increases have caused or are likely to cause sustained 
material adverse employment effects in the United States. Exports to embargoed or sanctioned 
countries or persons continue to require authorization. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of 
Industry Security will shortly be taking steps to amend the EAR to reflect this change.  
Questions 32 -33 
Section 3.2.5.1. EXIM (Page 75, Para. 3.160)  
"Section 55002 of PL 114 -94 states that the United States is to initiate and pursue negotiations 
with other ma jor exporting countries to reduce substantially, with the possible goal of eliminating 
(by 2025), subsidized export financing programmes and other forms of export subsidies. In 
addition, the law states that the United States is to initiate and pursue negot iations with countries 
that are not OECD members to bring those countries into a multilateral agreement establishing 
rules and limitations on officially supported exported credits... " 
32. Can the United States indicate the steps already taken to initiate and p ursue negotiations 
with other major exporting countries with a view to eliminate subsidized export financing 
programmes?  
RESPONSE: The United States is negotiating in the International Working Group on Export Credits 
(IWG) towards new global guidelines on official export credit support.  
33. Has the United States already concluded negotiations with non -OECD members to discipline 
officially supported exported credits? If so, with what countries agreements have been concluded?  
RESPONSE: No, the United States has n ot concluded bilateral agreements with any countries on 
export credits.  The United States ' negotiations with non -OECD members on officially supported 
export credits are ongoing in the IWG.  
Question 34  
Section 3.3.2. Subsidies and other government assistanc e (Page 79, Para. 3.175)  
"Outside of agriculture, federal -level subsidies are overwhelmingly directed towards the energy 
sector (Table 3.15). In addition, a number of energy related support measures are implemented at 
the sub -federal level, particularly in  relation to renewable energy (Table A3.4)."  
34. Are there any kind of local content requirements for the concession of benefits listed above, 
be it at the federal level or sub -federal levels?  
RESPONSE: No. 
Question 35  
Section 3.3.6.2. Intellectual Property R ights – General Regul atory Framework (Page 94, 
Para. 3.241)  
The United States is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and 
participates in a large number of international conventions and treaties related to intellectual 
property rights (IPRs).  
35. The United States supported WIPO 's Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published 
Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. Are there ongoing 
plans for its ratification?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 47 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The President subm itted the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification on 
February 10, 2016. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to 
keeping the Membership informed.  
Question 36  
Section 3.3.6.2. Intellectual Property Rights – Gener al Regul atory Framework (Page 96, 
Para. 3.246)  
"In October 2015, the United States updated the TRIPS Council o n its implementation of 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, noting that a major avenue for technology transfer from the 
United States is the U.S.  university system, where foreign students are educated and then take 
advantage of their training through private and public employment in their home countries. Since 
many U.S. universities are established as not -for-profit (tax -exempt) entities, education  is 
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer through tax revenues. In addition, the private endowments that 
assist financially many foreign students to attend U.S. universities were built with tax exempt 
donations.  
36. Can the U.S. inform how many foreign students from  LDCs that attend U.S. universities 
benefit from scholarships as compared to those that do not and also those that pay the full tuition 
fees? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain the requested statistics.  
Question 37  
Section 3.3.6.6. Trade Secret  Protection (Page 100, Para. 3.263)  
"In February 2013, the Administration issued a Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade 
Secrets. This Strategy lays out a series of steps to curb the theft of trade secrets, including 
diplomatic efforts to protect trade secrets overseas, voluntary best practices by private industry, 
enhanced domestic law enforcement operations, improved domestic legislation, and public 
awareness and stakeholder outreach... " 
37. Can the U.S. describe the "diplomatic efforts " undertaken t o protect trade secrets overseas?  
RESPONSE: U.S. government agencies, including the Commerce Department, State Department, 
and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, have continued to use trade policy tools to increase 
international enforcement against t rade secret theft in bilateral and plurilateral fora. For example, 
the United States has been working with economies in APEC to raise standards for trade secret 
protection and enforcement, including the adoption of a set of Best Practices in Trade Secret 
Protection and Enforcement Against Misappropriation.  
Question 38  
Section 3.3.6.7. Copyright (Page 102, Para. 3.271)  
With respect to new legislation on copyright approved during the review period, in July 2014, the 
U.S. Congress passed the Unlocking Consumer  Choice and Wireless Competition Act, which 
re-establishes a limited exemption to prohibitions on circumvention of certain technological 
protection measures for the purposes of "unlocking" wireless telephone handsets to allow cell 
phone owners to connect t o different wireless network providers. The President signed the Act into 
law on 1 August 2014. In addition, the U.S. Copyright Office completed its sixth triennial 
rulemaking proceeding under Section 1201 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The primary responsi bility 
of the Register and the Librarian of Congress in the rulemaking proceeding is to assess whether 
the implementation of access controls impairs the ability of individuals to make non -infringing uses 
of copyrighted works within the meaning of Section 1 201(a)(1). The Register of Copyrights 
forwarded her Recommendation to the Librarian of Congress, who adopted the recommendations 
and issued the Final Rule which resulted in regulations adopting limited exemptions from the 
general prohibition against the ci rcumvention of copyright protection systems for access controls.  
38. Could the U.S. elaborate on the scope of the exceptions and limitations adopted to allow for 
the circumvention of technological protection measures?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 48 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Section 1201 provides certain p ermanent exemptions to the prohibition on 
circumvention of access controls and, in some cases, copy controls. Separately, section 112 
includes a limited permanent exception to section 1201 for purposes of making ephemeral 
recordings. In addition, section 1 201 instructs the Librarian of Congress to make determinations in 
a rulemaking proceeding every three years, upon the recommendation of the Register of 
Copyrights, evaluating and, as appropriate, adopting limited exemptions for the ensuing 
three -year perio d from the general prohibition against circumvention of access controls. The 
Copyright Office maintains a webpage that contains links to the public comments, the Register's 
Recommendation, the Final Rule announcing the exemptions, and a document addressing  
Frequently Asked Questions about the rulemaking. An Introduction to the Register 's 
Recommendation summarizes the exemptions and the rulemaking process. Based on the 
Register 's recommendation, in this latest rulemaking the Librarian adopted exemptions cove ring 
twenty -two types of uses. All information related to the Sixth Triennial Rulemaking is available at:  
https://www.copyright.gov/1201/ . 
Question 39  
Section 4.1.2.1. The Farm Act (Page 107, Para. 4.5)  
39. When  does the US intend to update its notifications to the Committee on Agriculture, 
including domestic support under the 2014 Farm Act?  
RESPONSE: The United States will submit its 2014 domestic support notification once it is 
complete.  
Questions 40 -43 
Sectio n 4.1.2.1. The Farm Act (Page 108, Para. 4.7)  
"Principal new features of the 2014 Farm Act are: the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme, 
which provides payments on a share of historical base acres and yields when commodity prices fall 
below reference pric e levels for covered crops; the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programme, 
which provides payments on a share of historical base acres and yields when revenue at the 
county or farm level for covered commodities falls below a county -based or individual ben chmark 
guarantee for covered commodities; the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), an area -based 
insurance policy requiring, and taking on the characteristics, of the underlying policy; the Stacked 
Income Protection Plan (STAX), a subsidized supplemental in surance plan for producers of upland 
cotton; and the Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers (MPP -Dairy). In addition, a number 
of programmes established under earlier legislation have been continued unaltered or in modified 
form (Table 4.4)."  
40. How ar e the payments under the Insurance subsidy programs made? Are the payments 
channeled directly to the producer or does the Insurance entity/company give a discount to the 
producer when selling the insurance policy and the Government covers this discount wit h the 
subsidy?  
RESPONSE: Insurance companies collect the producer 's share of premium above any indemnities 
due at the end of the growing year after losses have been adjusted .  
41. How is the premium shared? Which percentage goes to the Government and which 
percentage goes to the producer? Does the percentage shared vary among crops?  
RESPONSE: The level of premium subsidy varies based on the insurance product, coverage level, 
and type of coverage purchased by the producers.  
42. The volume of resources allocated to  the programs would allow coverage of 90% of the 
arable land in the US. How does the US Government make sure this policy does not foster the use 
of land that is not suitable for Agriculture or crops that are not suitable for a competitive 
production?  
RESPO NSE: Funding for the crop insurance program is not allocated to cover a specific share of 
cropland acres. Insurance policies are rated based on actuarial risk principles and premiums are 
set to ensure the crop insurance program is actuarially sound.  In add ition, the crop insurance 
program does not offer coverage for crops in areas that are not suitable for production.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 49 - 
 
  43. Is insurance compulsory for farmers applying for credit guarantee?  
RESPONSE: The Federal farm loan guarantee program does not require that bo rrowers purchase 
crop insurance. Private credit providers may require crop insurance policies for federally 
guaranteed loans at their discretion, as they may for any agricultural loans they make.  
Questions 44 -45 
Section 4.1.2.2. Price Loss Coverage (Page 109, Paras. 4.8, 4.9)  
"PLC covers historical base (made up of historical area and yield) of maize, soybeans, wheat, other 
feed grains, other oilseeds, peanuts, pulses, and rice. For each covered commodity on a farm, PLC 
payments are made on 85% of historic al base when current average market year price falls below 
the reference price. Producers made a one -time choice for the life of the 2014 Farm Act of whether 
to elect PLC for historical base of each covered commodity on their farm. PLC is decoupled from 
current production as it is based on historical base. However, land owners had a one -time option 
to reallocate, but not to increase, their base acres for their farm using average planted acreage 
during 2009 -12. They also had a choice between retaining the pa yment yield under the earlier CCP 
programme and updating it to 90% of the average commodity yield in crop years 2008 -12. 
PLC payments are linked to current prices as they are triggered when the national average market 
price during the marketing year or the  national average loan rate, whichever is higher, falls short 
of reference prices (per bushel or pound) established in the 2014 Farm Act for the covered crops 
(Table A4.1). The payment to the farmer equals the difference between the national average 
market  price/loan rate and the reference price multiplied by the eligible base. According to the 
USDA Farm Service Agency, payments under PLC had totalled US$776.2 million by 20 May 2016 
on base acres of long grain rice (US$399.5 million), peanuts (US$321.5 mill ion), and canola 
(US$55.2 million). " 
44. Can the United States inform how it intends to notify the PLC to the WTO? Would it be 
notified as "non-product -specific AMS " or "product -specific AMS "? 
RESPONSE: The PLC program will be reported in the appropriate domes tic support notifications.  
45. Can the United States provide the base acre coverage and amount of disbursements per 
marketing year and per commodity covered under the PLC?  
RESPONSE: Expenditures under the PLC program will be reported in the appropriate domesti c 
support notifications.  
Questions 46 -47 
Section 4.1.2.3. Agricultural Risk Coverage (Page 110, Para. 4.12)  
"Data collected by the USDA Farm Service Agency indicates that ARC -CO was elected for 60% or 
more of base acres of maize, soybeans, oats, and chickp eas, while PLC was elected for 60% or 
more of base acres of barley, canola, crambe, flaxseed, safflower, sesame, sorghum, rice, and 
peanuts. For base acres of other covered commodities, elections were split between the two 
programmes. By 20 May 2016 some 9 19,000 farms had received ARC -CO payments totalling 
US$4.44 billion, primarily for historical base of maize (US$3.7 billion), wheat (US$349 million), 
and soybeans (US$317 million). Although decisions may vary significantly across states, the 
nationwide res ults indicate that producers chose ARC -CO for soybean base acres (97%), maize 
base acres (93%), and wheat base acres (56%). Very few farmers chose ARC -IC. Overall, the 
reallocation of base acres resulted in significantly higher historical base for maize (1 2.8 million 
acres) and soybeans (4.7 million acres), and a decline in wheat base of nearly 9.9 million acres. " 
46. Can the United States inform how it intends to notify the ARC to the WTO? Would it be 
notified as "non-product -specific AMS " or "product -specific  AMS"? 
RESPONSE: The ARC program will be reported in the appropriate domestic support notifications.  
47. Can the United States provide the amount of disbursements per marketing year and per 
commodity covered under the ARC -CO? WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 50 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Expenditures under the A RC program will be reported in the appropriate domestic 
support notifications.  
Question 48  
Section 4.1.2.4 Marketing Loan Programme (Page 111, Para. 4.14)  
"The statutory marketing loan rates are fixed for crop years 2014 -18 in the 2014 Farm Act, 
generally  at the same levels as in crop years 2010 -13. Loan rates have been set well below 
current market prices and current production costs in recent years, and the marketing loan 
programme is thus designed to provide income support at times of low commodity pric es. In its 
agriculture support notifications, the United States reports benefits under the marketing loan 
programme (i.e. LDPs, MLGs and forfeitures) as non -exempt direct payments in supporting table 
DS:7. Having peaked at US$6.5 billion in 2005 -06, market ing loan benefits have been modest in 
recent years, and amounted to less than US$36 million in marketing year 2013."  
48. Can the United States provide the amount of disbursements in marketing years 2014 and 
2015 per commodity covered under the Marketing Loan P rogramme?  
RESPONSE: Expenditures under the marketing loan program for 2014 and 2015 will be reported 
in the appropriate domestic support notifications.  
Question 49  
Section 4.1.2.5. Crop Insurance (Pages 111 -112, Paras 4.16, 4.17 and Table 4.5)  
"In general , farmers may choose between catastrophic coverage, insuring 50% of the normal yield 
and 55% of the estimated market price of the crop, and additional ("buy -up") coverage (50% -85% 
of normal yield and up to 100% of the estimated market price of the crop). T he Federal 
Government pays the entire premium for catastrophic coverage, while participants pay an annual 
US$300 administrative fee for each crop insured in each county. Buy -up plans are also subsidized, 
although the level varies according to the type of p lan and coverage selected. Since early 2015, 
eligible participants have also had the possibility to shift a portion of a farm's coverage from an 
individual plan to an area plan under the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO). As its name 
suggests, SCO is supp lemental, meaning that it requires the producer to have an underlying 
policy. SCO then takes on the characteristics of the underlying policy. Thus, if the underlying policy 
is a yield policy, the SCO will generate a guarantee for yields, and if the underly ing policy is 
revenue -based, it will generate a guarantee for revenues. SCO is an area -based policy, so (like 
ARC) if the revenues/yields of the operator do not correlate well with the county, the producer 
may not receive payments when individual losses oc cur and vice versa. Nevertheless, the first 
14% of the loss (actual versus expected revenue) is always borne by the participant. SCO may be 
combined with PLC, but not with ARC. The Federal Government subsidizes 65% of the insurance 
premium for SCO."  
"The g rowth in crop insurance has been significant since 1996, both in terms of acreage insured 
(60% increase since 1998) and average coverage level selected (58% in 1996, 75% in 2014). 
Over the same period, the insured liability has risen from US$35 billion to US$110 billion, i.e. an 
increase of more than 300%. The federal crop insurance programme is now considered the largest 
agricultural insurance programme in the world. However, the U.S. experience has shown that 
farmers have been reluctant to take on insuran ce unless it is subsidized. The share of premiums 
paid by farms has declined from 74% in the early 1990s to 38% in recent years. The annual costs 
of crop insurance for the Federal Government averaged US$8.2 b illion from 2008 to 2014 
(Table  4.5). The key co mponents of the cost structure are the subsidized insurance premiums and 
reimbursements to private insurers for their administrative and operating expenses in delivering 
the products. Private insurance companies operate under a Standard Reinsurance Agreeme nt 
(SRA) with the Federal Government. The SRA, which is renegotiated periodically, allows the 
Government and private insurers to share the results of insurance underwriting. Depending on the 
claims situation in any given year, the arrangement may thus prod uce an underwriting loss (or 
gain) to the Government. " 
49. Can the United States provide the amount of premium subsidies paid in marketing year 
2014 and 2015 per commodity covered under the CIP and SCO?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 51 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Expenditures under the Federal crop insurance p rogram for 2014 and 2015 will be 
reported in the appropriate domestic support notifications.  
Question 50  
Section 4.1.2.6. Cotton (Page 113, 4.1.2.6)  
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established "The Cotton Ginning Cost Share" program 
to provide an estimated $300 million in cost -share assistance payments to cotton producers, in 
order to expand and maintain the domestic marketing of cotton. According to the information 
available, sign -up for the program began on June 20 and ran through Aug. 5, 2016 . Payments 
would be processed as applications were received, and were expected to begin in July 2016.  
50. Can the United States provide the total enrollment in the program and the amount of 
payments already made?  
RESPONSE: Expenditures under the Cotton Ginning  Cost Share program will be reported in the 
appropriate domestic support notifications.  
Question 51  
Section 4.1.2.5 Crop Insurance (Page 112, Para. 4.18)  
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published reports in 2012 and 2013, arguing 
that fed eral costs could be cut through a reduction in the premium subsidies to all farmers and/or 
caps on individual premium subsidies. Moreover, the GAO released a study in March 2015, 
concluding that a reduction in premium subsidies for the highest income parti cipants could lead to 
significant savings while leaving 99% of the participants unaffected. Earlier studies have argued 
that the crop insurance programme is inefficient compared with other forms of government 
support, such as decoupled payments."  
51. Does the US intend to implement the recommendations contained in the GAO 2012 and 
2013 reports in order to cut federal costs through the reduction in the premium subsidies to all 
farmers or to establish caps on individual premium subsidies? If so, what is the expec ted 
timeframe for these modifications?  
RESPONSE: Current farm programs are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 2018 
crop year. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed.  
Questions  52-53 
Section 4.1.2.6. Cotton (Page 113, Para. 4.19)  
"The 2014 Farm Act does not authorize historical acreage planted with upland cotton to be enrolled 
in PLC or ARC. Instead, a new Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) provides coverage for losses 
of up to 20% of the expected county revenue. STAX may be purchased on its own or in 
conjunction with other crop insurance (companion policy). Indemnities are triggered under STAX 
when area revenue falls below 90% of the expected level and may increase to cover a  maximum 
of 30% of the expected revenue or the maximum loss level under the companion policy. In 
addition, the grower may increase (or decrease) the effective coverage under STAX by choosing a 
multiplier (protection factor) that may range from 80% to 120%.  The premium subsidy rate, 
i.e. the share paid by the Federal Government, is 80%. Nevertheless, cotton farmers have been 
reluctant to sign up to STAX."  
52. The report indicates that "cotton growers have been reluctant to sign up to STAX". Could the 
US explain why cotton growers have not adhered to the program as expected? Are there other 
subsidy programs available from which they could benefit in lieu of STAX?  
RESPONSE:  There are several potential reasons for the low participation. First, STAX is an 
index -based  insurance program, with the index generally derived from the county average yield. 
Index -based insurance does not directly cover the individual loss of the farmer. There is the 
potential that the farmer could experience loss and not receive a payment from  a STAX policy – 
otherwise known as 'basis risk '. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Second, any payments from an index -based insurance policy can be significantly delayed due to an 
unavoidable reporting lag in yield data. For example, any losses for the 2016 STAX policy will not 
be paid un til July 2017 when the cotton ginning process is mostly concluded. Basis risk and 
delayed payments make index -based insurance such as STAX generally less attractive to growers.  
There are other index -based products offered by the U.S. crop insurance program , and they have 
had low levels of participation as well. In general, farmers appear to prefer individual -based 
coverage such as what is provided by the Revenue Protection and Yield Protection insurance 
policies.  
Cotton producers may purchase other types of  crop insurance policies under the Federal crop 
insurance program without participating in the STAX program.  
53. Could the US provide more detailed information on STAX since 2014, particularly in terms of 
the program's coverage of acreage, number of producers,  indemnities paid, premium subsidy 
disbursements by the U.S. government, and underwritin g losses (or gains) to the 
U.S. government?  
RESPONSE:  The participation rate in STAX was around 30 percent of insured cotton acres in 2015 
(the first year it was availa ble) and has fallen to around 25 percent for 2016.  The number of 
policies dropped from around 8,400 in 2015 down to 7,900 in 2016.  STAX was not available in 
2014.  
Underwriting gains are not determined on a crop basis.  However, in 2015, the loss ratio for S TAX 
was around 0.41, or 41 cents of indemnity paid per dollar of total premium; indemnities are not 
yet available for 2016.  
Question 54  
Section 4.1.2.7. Sugar (Page 113, Para. 4.22)  
"The purpose of the market allotment mechanism for sugar is to manage sup plies such that the 
price of sugar remains above the level that would cause forfeitures. Allotments are based on 
production history and established at state -level for the sugarcane sector and processor -level for 
the beet sugar sector. The overall allotment s equal at least 85% of estimated domestic demand 
for human consumption. Excess sugar may not be sold in the market for human consumption and 
must thus be stored at the owner's expense. Depending on market conditions, USDA may adjust 
allotments upwards in the course of the marketing year to release more sugar into the market. In 
addition, excess supply situations are mitigated by the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP) that 
helps divert sugar from human consumption towards the production of ethanol."  
54. Could the U.S. explain how the tariff rate quota for sugar imports is administered? Brazil 
would like to understand the criteria and frequency according to which the participation of in -quota 
suppliers is updated.  
RESPONSE: The United States has tariff rate quot as (TRQs) for raw and refined sugar which are 
defined in U.S. Additional Note 5 of Chapter 17 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The raw 
sugar TRQ has a fixed minimum quantity pursuant to the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements 
(1,117,195 MTRV). The raw suga r TRQ is allocated among 40 countries based on historical 
shipments to the United States during a base period. Certificates of quota eligibility must 
accompany imports from any country for which an allocation has been provided.  
Question 55  
Section 4.1.3.2.  Trade Measures – Exports (Page 117, Para. 4.37)  
"The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of USDA administers the Export Credit Guarantee Program 
(GSM -102) on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Under GSM -102, CCC 
guarantees U.S. private secto r financing to approved foreign financial institutions, primarily in 
developing countries, for imports of U.S. food and agricultural commodities. The guarantee 
typically covers 98% of the principal and a portion of the interest payments. The maximum credit  
term is 18 months, but may vary from country -to-country. Commodities eligible for loan 
guarantees are bulk products (grains and oilseeds), intermediate goods (e.g. hides, flour and 
paper products), and high -value processed consumer products such as frozen  foods, meat, beer, WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 53 - 
 
  and wine. Registered guarantees per 31 July 2016 totalled more than US$1.6 billion, principally for 
exports of soybeans, including yellow corn (US$636 million), soybeans (US$325 million), soybean 
meal (US$264 million), wheat (US$171 mil lion), and rice (US$67 million). " 
55. Can the United States provide additional information on how its export financing support 
program is operating in order to guarantee that premiums are charged and are risk -based, in 
accordance with the Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015 on Export Competition 
(WT/MIN(15)/45 — WT/L/980)?  
RESPONSE: All fees charged under the GSM -102 program are publicly available on the USDA 
website at : https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit -gurantee -program -gsm-102/gsm -
fee-schedule . 
Question 56  
Section 4.2.2. Telecommunications (Page 136, Para. 4.118)  
Wireline providers, as well as submarine cable landing licensees, are not  generally subject to any 
foreign ownership restrictions beyond the FCC's general obligations and qualifications for 
ownership for such providers. The provision of broadband internet access service is not subject to 
any foreign ownership restrictions. Ther e are, however, restrictions for some other services: 
foreign ownership without prior FCC approval is limited, under Section 310 of the Communications 
Act of 1934113, to 20% direct investment and 25% indirect investment for common carrier 
wireless licensee s. Under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC must conduct a public interest 
analysis when evaluating applications to receive authorization to exceed the 25% 
foreign -ownership benchmark. Since the inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has ever been  
denied a common carrier wireless licence under the FCC's public interest analysis. During the 
review period, the policy stance in this respect has been modified. In 2013, the FCC revisited its 
prior de facto policy against streamlined treatment of applica tions involving more than 25% 
foreign ownership, and indicated that it may grant approval for foreign ownership greater than 
25% in a streamlined manner, depending on the circumstances.  
56. Could the United States clarify the foreign ownership restrictions for  wireline providers and 
submarine cable landing licensees?  
RESPONSE: The ownership restrictions for wireline providers and submarine cable landing 
licensees are related to competition concerns due to the licensee having market power in the 
foreign market a nd its ability to use that market power to adversely affect the U.S. market.  
In the case of wireline providers, a foreign carrier with market power in its home market that 
wants to provide international services between its home country and the United Sta tes must do 
so through a separate subsidiary with separate books of account and have separate ownership of 
transmission and switching facilities. The U.S. -licensed carrier must also file quarterly reports 
regarding provisioning and maintenance of basic net work facilities and service procured from its 
foreign parent, as well as its traffic and revenue and circuits on the route for which its parent has 
market power.  
Similarly, a U.S. submarine cable landing licensee with market power in a foreign destination  point 
of the cable or which is affiliated with a company with market power in a foreign destination point, 
must file quarterly reports regarding provisioning and maintenance of basic network facilities and 
service procured from its foreign parent and its circuits on the route for which its parent has 
market power.  
Question 57  
Section 4.2.2. Telecommunications (Page 137, Para. 4.122)  
In addition, the new Open Internet Order establishes a "no unreasonable 
interference/disadvantage" standard for conduct falli ng outside the three bright -line rules. Under 
this standard, a broadband internet access service provider "shall not unreasonably interfere with 
or unreasonably disadvantage end users' ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet 
access service or  the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or 
edge providers' ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end 
users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violatio n of this rule. The 
general conduct standard will allow the FCC to address practices not covered by the three 
bright -line rules on a case by case basis.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 54 - 
 
  57. Could the United States inform which criteria shall or could be used on this referred "case by 
case bas is"? 
RESPONSE: The Open Internet Order provides a non -exclusive list of factors that the FCC will 
consider in making its case -by-case assessment of whether a practice is consistent with the no 
unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard. The factors li sted are: end -user control; 
competitive effects; consumer protection; the effect on innovation, investment, or broadband 
deployment; free expression; whether the practice is application agnostic; and best practices and 
technical standards.  
Question 58  
Section 4.2.2. Telecommunications (Page 138, Para. 4.124)  
The new Open Internet Order does not apply to enterprise services, virtual private network 
services, hosting, or data storage services.  
58. Could the United States elaborate on its data localization and pri vacy protection 
requirements?  
RESPONSE: The Open Internet Order does not relate to data localization requirements. The Open 
Internet Order includes discussion of applicable privacy prote ction regulations at 
paragraphs  461-467. 
Question 59  
Section 4.2.3.1. 1. Air Transport (Page 139, Para. 4.132)  
Cabotage restrictions in the United States remain in place, i.e. domestic air services can be 
provided only by U.S. carriers, which are still required to be controlled by U.S. citizens. Non -U.S. 
citizens may not hol d more than 25% of the voting interest of any airline providing domestic 
services. In addition, the airline's president and at least two thirds of the Board of Directors and 
other managing officers must  be U.S. citizens. The DOT may, on a case -by-case, all ow total 
foreign equity investment (voting and non -voting) above the 25% threshold provided that actual 
control remains in the hands of U.S. citizens and an open skies agreement exists between the 
United States and the country of origin of the foreign inve stor. In fact, the DOT has allowed foreign 
citizens to own up to 49% of an airline's stock by using non -voting shares above 25%. Crews 
engaged in domestic air passenger and freight service must be U.S. nationals or U.S. residents.  
59. Could the United States clarify the criteria for the referred case -by-case analysis?  
RESPONSE: The decision to allow foreign citizens to own up to 49 % of the total equity of a 
U.S. carrier is one that can be made on a case -by-case basis by the Department of Transportation 
and has  been allowed only in circumstances where it was determined that, inter alia, 75% of the 
voting interest remained in the hands of the U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens would remain in actual 
control of the carrier, and there was an open -skies agreement in ef fect between the United States 
and the homeland of the foreign investor. In making such decisions, the Department of 
Transportation has never established a formulaic approach or rigid test; instead, the Department 
of Transportation considers the totality o f the specific facts and circumstances presented in each 
individual case.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 55 - 
 
  CANADA  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 1  
Section 7. Trade and Environment (7.7)  
1. It is mentioned that the United States released a National Strategy on combating wildlife 
trafficking in 2014. It is also mentioned that the United States already made substantial progress 
in implementing the National Strategy, including by securing enforceable commitments to combat 
wildlife trafficking in the TPP Environment Chapter. What other actions did the United States 
government take in order to implement its national strategy on combating wildlife trafficking and 
what were the results achieved?  
RESPONSE: The United States published a Progress Assessment for actions taken in 2015  that 
includes a comprehensive review of the actions undertaken by a range of U.S. agencies, including 
USTR, to implement the National Strategy. Highlights include an agreement by the United States 
and China to implement nearly complete bans on ivory impor ts and exports, implementation of 
environmental cooperation programs related to U.S. free trade agreements that supported wildlife 
conservation and anti -poaching efforts, training by U.S. agencies for over 2,000 enforcement 
officials in 40 countries to hel p combat wildlife trafficking, and the launch of a significant demand 
reduction campaign aimed at reducing the purchases of rhino horn. The full Progress Assessment 
is available at the following link: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/254013.pdf . Key 
accomplishments to date in 2016 include implementation of a near -total domestic ban on the trade 
in African elephant ivory and the first burn of illegal rhino horn in the United States. Additional 
details can be found at the following link: 
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/11/264594.htm .  
Question 2  
Section 7. Trade and Environment (7.9)  
2. It is mentioned tha t the United States is working bilaterally with China to enhance efforts to 
combat illegal logging and associated trade. Can the United States provide more information on 
the nature of the work it is doing bilaterally with China to combat illegal logging a nd associated 
trade as well as on the expected results of such work?  
RESPONSE: The goal of the United States -China Bilateral Forum on Illegal Logging and Associated 
Trade (Bilateral Forum) is to strengthen efforts to combat illegal logging and associated t rade, 
recognizing that together the United States and China represent a significant market share of 
wood products trade, and therefore have an opportunity to provide positive leadership. In 
November 2016, we held the seventh meeting of the Bilateral Forum,  and shared information on 
domestic actions and advances in enforcement, including enforcement of the U.S. Lacey Act, which 
prohibits trade in illegally harvested timber; discussed several specific trade flows as case studies 
to reflect on identified chall enges and efforts to address them; identified areas for continued and 
future cooperation around sharing of trade data, technology, and lessons learned in enforcement 
and wood traceability; and had extensive discussions on our work with civil society and th e private 
sector on addressing illegal logging and promoting legal trade in timber products. The Bilateral 
Forum includes government -to-government meetings and an open session with civil society and 
the private sector.  
Question 3  
Section 9. Small and Mediu m-Sized Business Trade (9.3 -9.4)  
3. As the U.S. seeks to encourage SME exports, including through the inclusion of provisions on 
IP rights protections and enforcement in U.S. trade agreements, has the USPTO or USTR 
undertaken any consultations with SMEs on t he value of understanding IP as an element of SMEs' 
export strategies?  
RESPONSE: Intellectual property protection is critical to fostering innovation. Without protection 
of ideas, businesses and individuals would not reap the full benefits of their invent ions and would WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 56 - 
 
  focus less on research and development. Similarly, artists would not be fully compensated for their 
creations and cultural vitality would suffer as a result. USTR's Office of Intellectual Property and 
Innovation (IPN) uses a wide range of bi lateral and multilateral trade tools to promote strong 
intellectual property laws and effective enforcement worldwide, reflecting the importance of 
intellectual property and innovation to the future growth of the U.S. economy, and consults with a 
wide arra y of stakeholders including small businesses on these initiatives. Further information on 
these initiatives may be found at : https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/intellectual -property# . 
In particul ar, U.S. small and medium -sized enterprises may lack the knowledge, expertise or 
resources necessary to develop and protect their IP. In fact, research conducted by the U.S. Patent 
and Trademark Office (USPTO) found that only 15 percent of small businesses  that conduct 
business overseas know that they need to file for IP protection abroad.  
Therefore, the U.S. Government has developed a number of free tools and resources for small 
businesses to help them more effectively tackle IP protection and enforcement at home and 
abroad. Free online web module training helps small businesses understand different types of IPR, 
including copyright, patent, and trademark, as well as the legal protections available for each of 
them; understand the process and benefits of ac quiring and protecting IPR; and discover resources 
to help small companies enforce their IPR. Country and industry IPR toolkits are also available 
online, as well as contact information for federal agencies responsible for protecting and enforcing 
intellec tual property rights. These resources may be found at www.stopfakes.gov.  
Additionally, trade experts and attorneys from the Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration (ITA) and the USPTO travel across the country to host one -day seminars on  how 
companies and individuals can protect and enforce intellectual property to get the most out of 
exporting abroad. The STOPfakes.gov Road Show answers companies ' questions about 
commercializing their creations and innovations, includes strategies for pr otecting and enforcing a 
company 's intellectual property when exporting to foreign markets, and advice for avoiding 
common pitfalls. Participants have the chance to ask export questions related to patents, trade 
secrets, trademarks, copyrights and domain n ames. At the conclusion of each Road Show, 
participants take advantage of one -on-one consultations with intellectual property experts to get 
targeted advice. Small and medium -sized businesses in particular benefit from this unique 
opportunity.  
Report by th e Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 4  
Section 1.2.2. Development in Trade and Investment – Trade in Services (1.34)  
4. Are analyses from the USPTO incorporated into forecasting trade deficits and surpluses, and 
if so, how?  
RESPONSE: No, they are not.  
Questi on 5 
Section 1.2.3. Foreign Direct Investment (1.37)  
5. Are IP analyses from the USPTO considered in the context of efforts by the U.S. to increase 
FDI? 
RESPONSE : USPTO issues periodic reports on trademark registration and patent activity by 
applicants from d ifferent countries, and the intensity of IP use across industries. The analysis 
contained in these reports is not conducted with the express intent of affecting FDI in the United 
States. However, based on results from the economics literature, we understan d the importance of 
enforceable patent rights in attracting FDI. The work of the USPTO, i n collaboration with other 
U.S. federal agencies, to improve intellectual property protection co ntributes to advancing the 
U.S. position as a global innovation leader and investment destination for best -in-class 
international businesses. Furthermore, the USPTO is a key stakeholder in investment promotion 
efforts via the SelectUSA Investment Interagency Working Group.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Question 6  
Section 3.1.1. Customs Procedures and Requ irements (3.3)  
6. To what extent would the USPTO be involved in raising IP awareness among U.S. and 
foreign customs agencies to support investigative actions, specifically related to Trademark and 
trade dress infringement?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO conducts intelle ctual property rights enforcement training, including 
training on trademark and copyright infringement, for customs, police, and judiciary officials in 
countries around the world.  The workshops are funded by the Department of State, Bureau of 
International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).  
Questions 7 -9 
Section 3.1.1.1.1. Single Window (3.7)  
The Secretariat Report highlights the ongoing implementation of the single -window International 
Trade Data System (ITDS), which will allow businesses to ente r electronically all data required by 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and its 47 Partner Government Agencies to determine the 
admissibility of import and export cargo.  
7. Is the fully implemented ITDS single -window system expected to reduce administrative 
burdens on foreign exporters exporting to the United States, in particular small - and medium -sized 
enterprises (SMEs)?  
RESPONSE: The United States anticipates that the fully implemented ITDS single -window system 
will reduce the administrative burdens on al l traders. Completion of the ITDS single window via 
ACE means a transition away from paper -based procedures to faster, more streamlined processes 
for both government and industry, as well as the divestment of the Automated Commercial 
System (ACS) – a syste m in use since the 1980s.  
8. SMEs frequently do not have significant administrative resources, and may also have 
low-volume shipments and therefore higher sensitivity to fixed costs, including user fees and other 
administrative costs. Does the new ITDS system  include any provisions specific to assisting SMEs 
to help them manage the new administrative requirements of the ITDS system?  
RESPONSE: Electronic communication through Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) allows traders to 
file their data directly or throug h a service provider, which allows them to receive faster responses 
on the movement of cargo. CBP also maintains a number of webpages dedicated to ACE, including 
educational materials, outreach pages, "getting started " overviews, and "how to " guides to hel p 
and educate all traders. Please see : https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated . 
9. Similar to the recently established ITDS, including the single -window approach for 
U.S. importers and exporters to electronicall y submit data required by U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (and its partner government agencies) for importi ng and exporting, does the 
U.S. network of competent authorities for SPS measures (APHIS, FSIS, FDA, EPA) have any similar 
type of "single window " mechanism that foreign companies exporting products to the United States 
can utilize to make comments, raise concerns or seek accommodation relating to administrative 
issues or burdens with specific U.S. SPS requirements?  
RESPONSE: There are no plans to e stablish a dedicated system for SPS data submissions from 
foreign entities. The data submissions are a requirement of the ACE ITDS single window system as 
part of the U.S. import declaration and clearance process.  
Questions 10 -11 
Section 3.1.5.1.4 Agricult ure Fees (3.51)  
The Secretariat Report provides the new Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) fee 
rates for all modes of conveyance, which entered into force on December 28, 2015.  
Under the new APHIS fee structure, Canada would bear the burde n of about 23% of the net fee 
increases while only contributing to 15% of total US merchandise imports, and commercial WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 58 - 
 
  trucking fees would increase by 187%, affecting 60% of Canada -US trade.  In comparison, the fees 
charged per container for commercial mari time cargo result in the same container, transported by 
truck from Canada as opposed to by ship from a third country, being charged upwards of 50 times 
more in inspection fees.  
The new APHIS fee structure also removes the caps on the number of times a spe cific conveyance 
will pay APHIS fees in a given year, which disproportionately affects Canadian exports to the US 
because Canada makes significantly more border crossings, by land and sea, than other WTO 
Members (other than Mexico).   
Evidence has also not been provided that proves Canadian exports represent a higher risk to 
animal and plant health than exports from other countries, or that explains why the new fee 
structure incorporates various other costs (e.g., depreciation costs, overhead costs, imputed costs 
such as retirement benefits, unemployment compensation and a reserve fund) which arguably 
should not be included in the calculation of the cost of the service rendered by APHIS. These 
shortcomings raise concerns that the new fees are not limited in a mount to the approximate cost 
of services rendered.  
10. Could the U.S. please provide policy reasons as to why its APHIS user fee increases 
disproportionately target imports entering by truck (which, as a result, has affected Canadian 
exports disproportionate ly), versus imports from other countries?  
RESPONSE: APHIS has not disproportionately targeted imports entering the U.S. by trucks. The 
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act (21 U.S.C. 136a) and Federal guidance for 
calculating user fees sta te that, where possible, a user fee should recover the full cost of providing 
the service. APHIS uses activity based costing (ABC) to establish the agricultural quarantine and 
inspection (AQI) fees. The ABC method is a generally accepted managerial account ing 
methodology that is widely accepted as a best practice for fee setting in the United States.  
Fees for various conveyances are calculated based on the projected number of conveyances 
subject to inspection within each transportation mode, using standard  units such as a truck or 
airplane. Inspection costs are driven by a number of factors, including number of conveyances, 
risk targeting, and other criteria. Resources are assigned to the pathway based on these factors. 
These resources generate cost. The fe es are designed to recover the cost to the U.S. Federal 
government. The rationale for collecting user fees, as opposed to funding the AQI program 
through appropriations, is to have those who benefit from a service cover its costs. The fees are 
calculated u sing the ABC methodology described above.  
The cost of providing AQI related services is assessed for each pathway covered within the fees 
through activity based costing. Using the ABC method we can assign the cost of AQI services to 
the pathway requiring A QI services. This is the only methodology where APHIS has a high level of 
confidence that one pathway is not subsidized by another pathway.  
Since all trucks pay the same fee regardless of the border location there is an equal impact on any 
nation that see ks to import their good via the truck pathway. As an example a good from any 
nation ships goods by container and that container is unloaded at a Canadian port and is shipped 
across the U.S. border by truck. The impact on the example country is equal to tha t of Canada. No 
country realizes a competitive advantage since the same fee is paid regardless of a products 
origin. This holds true with any of the pathways covered under the AQI user fee.  
The United States takes its international commitments seriously an d ensures that measures 
affecting traders, including fee increases, comply with our international trade obligations.  
11. Could the U.S. please provide information on how they are working to address and mitigate 
the adverse impacts of the increased fees affecti ng trading partners such as Canada?  
RESPONSE: The United States greatly values its extensive cooperation with Canada and carefully 
considers the impact of all regulatory actions to ensure they complement our nations ' joint work to 
safeguard North America 's agricultural and natural resources. While it was necessary to adjust our 
user fees to ensure adequate resources for agriculture inspection at U.S. ports of entry, we worked 
diligently to understand and minimize their impact on businesses both here in the United States WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 59 - 
 
  and in Canada. For example, we further reduced the commercial truck crossing rate from the 
proposed $8.00 to $7.55 and the air passenger fee from our proposed $4.00 rate to $3.96 after 
receiving stakeholder feedback.  
The United States takes i ts international commitments seriously and works to ensure that 
measures affecting traders, including fee increases, comply with our international trade 
obligations. We are committed to reviewing our costs on a regular basis and will make subsequent 
adjust ments as needed in our fee rates to ensure they remain consistent with the costs of 
delivering port of entry inspection services. We also continue to work with all affected stakeholders 
and keep a record of all concerns for use in future discussions regard ing changes to the AQI user 
fee regulation.  
Questions 12 -13 
Section 3.1.6.1. Import Prohibitions and Restrictions (3.57)  
12. What kind of documentation is required to trace the seafood products to satisfy the High 
Seas Driftnet Moratorium Protection Act so as to address unreported and unregulated (IUU) 
fishing?  
RESPONSE: The United States has several tools to combat IUU fishing. One is a Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program that will establish permitting, data reporting, and record -keeping requirements 
of catch an d chain of custody information relating to the importation of certain priority fish and fish 
products identified as being particularly vulnerable to IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud. On 
December 9, 2016, NOAA Fisheries published the final rule, which can b e found here : 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/seafood -import -monitoring -
program . The documentation required to  be submitted and retained pursuant to this program can 
be found in the final rule itself.  
Another tool is t he High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection 
Act) as amended by the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Mana gement 
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). This statute and implementing regulations requires the 
Secretary of Commerce to identify countries whose fishing vessels were engaged in IUU fishing or 
certain other activities, and to consult with those countries  on improving their fisheries 
management and enforcement practices. Two years after an identification, the Secretary is to 
certify whether corrective actions by the identified countries have adequately addressed the 
offending activities. If a nation has no t taken sufficient steps to warrant receipt of a positive 
certification, the United States may take certain measures, including prohibiting imports of certain 
fish or fish products from the nation and denying fishing vessels of that nation port privileges and 
entry into navigable waters of the United States.  
13. During the 2 year consultative process, what type of information is sought in order to certify 
a country?  
RESPONSE: Under the Moratorium Protection Act statute referenced above, NOAA will consider 
such information as whether the nation has, among other things, taken corrective action to 
address violations committed by individual fishing vessels through administrative or criminal 
procedures.  
Questions 14 -15 
Section 3.1.7.1. AD, CVD, and Safeguard Measures  – Legislation and Administration (3.68)  
14. How does the AD/CVD Operations unit determine whether goods are subject to duties when 
the scope of an AD/CVD finding does not align perfectly with HTSUS codes?  
RESPONSE:  The HTSUS subheadings provided in AD/CVD pr oceedings are for convenience and 
customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive as 
to whether goods are within scope of a specific proceeding or order.  
15. What policy measures are in place to ensure duties ar e not charged on the wrong products 
in such circumstances?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 60 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  If an importer, producer, or exporter has concerns regarding the scope of a certain 
product, they can request that the U.S. Department of Commerce conduct a review to determine 
whether th e product is/is not within the scope of a specific proceeding or order.  
Questions 16 -17 
Section 3.1.7.1. AD, CVD, and Safeguard Measures – Legislation and Administration (3.74)  
16. In cases where a government agrees to remove the injuri ous effect, how does the  
United  States determine whether to suspend a case?  
RESPONSE: The procedures for determining whether to suspend an investigation can be found at 
19 C.F.R. sec. 351.208.  
17. In addition, how does the United States determine that an injurious effect has, in fac t, been 
removed?  
RESPONSE:  The determination as to whether the behavior of exporters, producers, or foreign 
government has been modified to the extent that the injury being caused has been removed is 
done on a case -by-case basis and depends on the specific  facts and circumstances on the 
administrative record of an investigation.  
Question 18  
Section 3.1.7.1. AD, CVD, and Safeguard Measures – Legislation and Administration (3.75)  
This paragraph states that "if the number of companies or products involved is s o large as to make 
a request impracticable, the USDOC may choose to limit its review to a statistically significant 
sample of exporters, producers, or types of products, or to exporters and producers accounting for 
the largest volume of the subject merchan dise from the exporting country that can be reasonably 
examined ". 
18. How does the USDOC determine what constitute a "large" number of exporters that cannot 
be reasonably examined without sampling? Please explain the methodology used by the USDOC to 
determine whether it is necessary to limit its review to a sample of exporters. Is the methodology 
the same in subsidy and dumping investigations? Please also explain how the USDOC ensures that 
samples are "statistically valid ". 
RESPONSE: The determination of which respondents to examine in a particular proceeding is 
dependent upon the factual context, e.g., the makeup of the specific industry involved and the 
pertinent facts and circumstances of that particular proceeding.  
Question 19  
Section 3.1.8. Standard and oth er technical requirements (3.105)  
In January 2016, the US published the revised Circular A -119. Although the revised Circular 
establishes a preference for the use of voluntary consensus standards in lieu of 
government -unique standards, it does not preclude  the use of other standards in rulemaking, 
procurement, or other program activities in cases where voluntary consensus standards do not 
exist or the use of existing voluntary consensus standards would be inconsistent with the law or 
otherwise impractical, including where the use of a voluntary consensus standard would not be an 
effective at meeting the agency 's regulatory, procurement or program needs.  
19. Could the United States provide an example of "other standards " and describe how these are 
developed and a dopted?  
RESPONSE: Other standards or "Non -VCS" are standards developed under a process that is 
lacking any or all of the characteristics of a voluntary consensus standards process described in 
Section 2(e) of the circular. Examples may include many industr y consortia standards, state 
government issued standards, and corporate standards such as  those issued by manufacturers. 
The process under which non -VCS are developed vary from organization to organization.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 61 - 
 
  Questions 20 -22 
Section 3.1.9.1. SPS Requirement s – Basic legal and institutional framework (3.115)  
The Secretariat report describes the FDA role (including regulation of medical devices) on page 65, 
and notes in a table on page 163 that medical devices are subject to the requirements of the 
Public Heal th Security and Bio Terrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. In order to 
implement this Act, Canada understands that the United States has created subsequent 
requirements for establishments that are involved in the production and distribution of me dical 
devices intended for commercial distribution in the United States, as outlined at the web page 
entitled "Who Must Re gister, List and Pay the Fee ": 
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/Regist
rationandListing/ucm053165.htm . 
Based on the information on this web page, Canada further understands that Title 21 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations Part 807 requires these establishments to register with the FDA and, for 
most of them, to list their products sold as well as pay an establishment fee.  
20. Could the United States explain the policy rationale of the requirement for the payme nt of 
an establishment fee, in addition to the annual or per shipment fees it charges to marketers of 
medical devices?  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that the issues raised by Canada in Questions 20 -22, and the 
U.S. responses to these questions, should be considered under the WTO Technical Barriers to 
Trade Agreement and not under the WTO SPS Agreement.  
Device user fees were first established in 2002 by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization 
Act (MDUFMA). User fees were renewed in 2007, with the Medical Device User Fee Amendments to 
the FDA Amendments Act (MDUFA II), and in 2012, with the Medical Device User Fee Amendments 
to the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (MDUFA III). The FDA and representatives from the medical 
device industry and laboratory community have reached an agreement in principle on proposed 
recommendations for MDUFA IV. Once final, MDUFA IV will be in place from October 1, 2017 until 
Sept. 30, 2022.  
Under the user fee system, medical device companies pay fees to the FDA when they r egister their 
establishments and list their devices with the agency, whenever they submit an application or a 
notification to market a new medical device in the United States and for certain other types of 
submissions. These fees help the FDA increase the efficiency of regulatory processes with a goal of 
reducing the time it takes to bring safe and effective medical devices to the U.S. market.  
21. Could the United States explain the policy rationale for creating a distinction between 
domestic and foreign establ ishments?  
RESPONSE: The FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) was drafted and implemented in a 
manner so as to ensure that the activities of all companies, both domestic and foreign, are 
monitored in the most effective manner.  
22. According to the chart on the  "Who Must Register, List and Pay the Fee " webpage, 
U.S. domestic remarketers of used devices already in commercial distribution in the United States 
are exempt from the payment of the establishment fee. However, it appears that foreign 
remarketers of thes e same devices must pay that fee. Could the United States please explain the 
policy rationale for this apparent discrimination between domestic and foreign remarketers?  
RESPONSE: FDAMA as drafted and implemented reflects U.S. positions on effectively 
admin istering the regulations with which companies involved in the manufacturing and marketing 
of medical devices must comply. Under FDAMA, domestic importers as well as foreign exporters of 
used medical devices are required to register with FDA and pay applica ble fees.  
Questions 23 -24 
Section 3.2.5.1. The Export -Import Bank (3.160)  
Page 10, Paragraph 16 of the Secretariat 's report indicates that US Congress established a 
mandate for the US to "initiate multilateral negotiations to end export credit financing b y 2025. " In WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 62 - 
 
  contrast, paragraph 3.160 of the Secretariat 's report reflects that this commitment is to "reduce 
substantially, with the possible goal of eliminating, subsidized export financing programmes. " 
There appear to be two substantive differences betw een these statements: namely, (a) whether 
US Congress ' mandate is to "end" or "reduce substantially " export credit financing; and 
(b) whether US Congress ' mandate is in respect of all export credit financing or only that which is 
subsidized.  
23. Could you plea se clarify whether US Congress ' objective is to target all 
government -supported export financing programmes, or only those that are subsidized, in its 
negotiations?  
RESPONSE: The relevant statutory language is available in section 635a -5 of title 12 of the  United 
States Code.  
24. Could you please clarify whether US Congress ' objective is to "eliminate " or "reduce 
substantially " export credit programmes?  
RESPONSE: The relevant statutory language is available in section 6 35a-5 of title 12 of the 
United  States Co de. 
Questions 25 -26 
Section 3.2.5.1. The Export -Import Bank (3.160)  
PL 114 -94, SECTION 55002, Negotiations to End Export Credit Financing  
The above -noted legislation requires that the US Government "pursue [a proposal] with other 
major exporting countries , including OECD members and non -OECD members, to eliminate over a 
period of not more than 10 years subsidized export -financing programs, tied aid, export credits, 
and all other forms of government -supported export subsidies. " Paragraph 3.160 of the 
Secret ariat's report indicates that the Administration submitted its first annual report on its 
strategy to Congress in June 2016.  
25. Can the U.S. share any detail of this report and strategy?  
RESPONSE: The details of the report and strategy were provided only to the Congressional 
committee of jurisdiction.   
26. Is the report and strategy focused on negotiations to eliminate all export credits, or 
subsidized export credits?  
RESPONSE: The details of the report and strategy were provided only to the Congressional 
committ ee of jurisdiction.   
Questions 27 -28 
Section 3.2.5.1. The Export -Import Bank (3.160)  
The Secretariat report states the U.S. is seeking to initiate and pursue negotiations with other 
major exporting countries, as well as with non -OECD countries, to reduce s ubstantially, with the 
possible goal of eliminating (by 2025) subsidized export financing programmes, [tied aid, export 
credits] and all other forms of [government supported] export subsidies. The Secretariat report 
also notes that the Administration submi tted a non -public report on its strategy on export credit 
negotiations to Congress in June 2016.  
27. Does the U.S. consider the GSM -102 program as one of the suite of programs it is seeking 
to reduce or eliminate by 2015 ? 
RESPONSE: Consistent with the legisla tion, the Treasury Department submitted to Congress a 
proposal, and a strategy for achieving the proposal, that the United States Government will pursue 
with other major exporting countries, including OECD members and non -OECD members, to 
eliminate over a period of not more than 10 years subsidized export -financing programs, tied aid, 
export credits, and all other forms of government -supported export subsidies. The United States 
Government is pursuing this strategy.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 63 - 
 
  28. Does the U.S. plan to call for negotiatio ns on the reduction or elimination of export financing 
programs at the WTO or in another forum?  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Questions 29 -31 
Section 3.2.5.2. SBA Export Loan Programs (3.161 – 3.162)  
The Secretariat report outlines several different programs administered by the Small Business 
Administration 's (SBA) Office of International Trade which offer export financing for sm all 
businesses exporting or planning to export. These include the Export Working Capital Program, the 
International Trade Loan and the Express Loan Program.  
29. Are agriculture and agri -food businesses eligible for any of the export loan programs 
supported by  the SBA?  
RESPONSE: Yes, any for -profit, small business that meets SBA size standards could qualify 
regardless of industry sector.  
30. Could the U.S. provide the maximum repayment terms available for the Export Working 
Capital Program, the International Trade Loan and the Export Express Loan Program?  
RESPONSE: The maximum repayment periods are as follows: Export Working Capital: 3 years; 
International Trade Loan: 25 years (real estate); and Export Express: 25 years (real estate).  
31. Could the U.S. confirm that th e SBA is self -financing?  
RESPONSE:  The loan programs are self -supported and provided without government 
appropriation. The SBA, as a government agency, receives federal appropriations for staff, 
operations and other small business programs.  
Questions 32 -34 
Section 3.3.4. State trading, state -owned enterprises, and privatization (3.188)  
The Secretariat report describes government corporations and government sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs) at the level of the federal government.   
32. Do any such entities exist beyo nd the federal level (e.g., the individual states)?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain information in the normal course of business 
about government corporations or government sponsored enterprises at the sub -federal level, if 
any. 
33. If yes, in wh ich sectors are these entities present?  Could the United States please provide 
some examples of specific entities?  
RESPONSE:  See reply above.  
34. Are there any specific cases in which these entities compete with private firms offering the 
same or similar produ cts? 
RESPONSE:  See reply above.  
Questions 35 -37 
Section 3.3.5.2. Government Procurement – Institutional and Legal Framework (3.203)  
The report notes that simplified acquisition procedures (SAP) are applied to small purchases 
between the micro -threshold and  the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), which is currently set 
at US$150,000. As stated in footnote 192, the SAT may be adjuste d pursuant to statute 
41 U.S.C.  1908.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 64 - 
 
  35. Is the U.S. contemplating adjusting the SAT?  
RESPONSE: 41 U.S.C. 1908(c)(2) provides f or an adjustment to be made every five years (on 
October 1 of each year) of statutory acquisition -related thresholds for inflation, using the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI). Absent a change to the statute, the next review would be in 2020.  
36. If a SAT increase wa s to exceed the U.S. GPA goods threshold (i.e., US$191,000), how 
would the U.S. ensure that foreign companies have an equal opportunity to bid on tenders that 
exceed the U.S GPA thresholds?  
RESPONSE: While the SAT provides contracting officers and busines ses with a streamlined 
procurement process, the SAT does not affect U.S. obligations under the GPA which includes 
ensuring that goods, services and suppliers from GPA parties are treated as U.S. goods, services 
and suppliers in any GPA covered procurement.   
37. Can the U.S. describe how the SAPs comply with U.S. GPA commitments?  
RESPONSE: Procurements below the current SAT are not subject to U.S. GPA commitments. FAR 
13.500 allows the use of Simplified Acquisition Procedures for the acquisition of suppliers and  
services in amounts above the GPA threshold in accordance with the requirements of FAR part 12, 
Acquisition of Commercial Items. The FAR part 12 requirements are consistent with U.S. GPA 
commitments. See, e.g., FAR 12.205(c) regarding the deadline for sub mission of offers.  
Questions 38 -40 
Sectgion 3.3.5.2. Government Procurement – Institutional and Legal Framework (3.205)  
The report notes that "Federal agencies, as well as states and other sub -federal bodies may 
maintain lists of qualified suppliers for th eir (selective) procurement; several of the 37 states 
covered under the GPA use such lists when tendering for certain types of procurement. Lists of 
qualified or registered suppliers are made public. "  
38. Which of the 37 states under the GPA maintain a list o f qualified suppliers?  
RESPONSE: The Federal Government does not track the states ' use of lists of qualified suppliers.  
39. For which type of procurement do Federal and state agencies use lists in tendering 
processes?  
RESPONSE: Federal procuring entities cov ered by the FAR may use qualification requirements 
when the procuring entity determines that it is necessary for suppliers to demonstrate before 
contract award that the offered good or service meets the requirements. FAR 9.202(a)(1). 
Regarding state procur ement, the Federal Government does not track the states ' use of lists of 
qualified suppliers.   
40. Where can one find these lists of qualified or registered suppliers?  
RESPONSE: For Federal procurement, lists are published in accordance with agency procedures 
and furnished to the public upon request. FAR 9.204(c) and (d). Notices seeking additional sources 
or products for qualification are published periodically on : https://www.fbo.gov/ . FAR 9.204(a)(2). 
For state  procuremen t, the Federal Government does not track the states ' use of lists of qualified 
suppliers.  
Question 41  
Section 3.3.5.2. Government Procurement – Institutional and Legal Framework (3.207)  
The report notes that states must comply with certain federal statutor y requirements when the 
procurement is funded with federal money.  
41. Can the U.S. describe the federal statutory requirements that State 's must comply with 
when State -level procurement is funded with federal money?  
RESPONSE: Requirements for grant recipients vary depending upon the legal requirements 
established in a specific law authorizing the Federal financial assistance. Requirements address the WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 65 - 
 
  purposes for which funds may be used. Additional requirements may vary and would be program 
specific  
Questions 4 2-43 
Section 3.3.5.3. Government Procurement – Market Access Conditions (3.216)  
The report states that several of the 37 U.S. States that have GPA obligations apply domestic 
purchase requirements or specific state preferences.  
42. Can the U.S. describe these domestic purchase requirements in detail?  
RESPONSE: For information on U.S. state specific exclusions fr om the GPA, please see the 
U.S. GPA schedule Annex 2. The federal government does not track state procurement policies.  
43. Can the U.S. describe how these  requirements comply with U.S. GPA obligations?  
RESPONSE:  The United States is unaware of any state level buy local procurement requirement 
that is not applied consistent with U.S. obligations under the GPA. States apply such requirements 
to procurements e xcluded in the U.S. GPA schedule, including procurements below the GPA 
threshold and procurements by entities not covered under the GPA.  
Questions 44 -45 
Section 3.3.5.4. Government Procurement – Set-Asides and Preferences (3.220)  
The report notes that each  procurement contract with an anticipated value above the micro -
purchase threshold of US$3,500 and up to the simplified acquisition threshold of US$150,000 are 
exclusively set -aside for small business.  
44. If the U.S. increases the SAT beyond US$150,000, woul d the small business set -aside 
increase as well?  
RESPONSE: Simplified acquisition procedures are the preferred method for acquiring goods and 
services below the SAT. The requirement to set -aside acquisitions for small business above $3,500 
and below $150,0 00 is set in the Small Business Act (see 15 U.S.C. 644(j)); these thresholds are 
not tied to the micro -purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds. The small business set -aside 
thresholds are periodically increased due to inflation in accordance with 41  U.S.C. 1908(c)(2).  
45. If the SAT increases beyond the U.S. GPA goods threshold, can the U. S. describe in detail 
how procurements over $191,000 that use the simplified acquisition procedures would be in 
compliance with U.S. GPA obligations?  
RESPONSE: See res ponse above to Question 36.  
Questions 46 -47 
Section 3.3.5.4. Government Procurement – Set-Asides and Preferences (3.224)  
The report states in paragraph 3.224 that "…small businesses are required to perform minimum 
levels of work when they receive a federal  contract ". More specifically, "[in] the case of service 
contracts, the small business prime contractor must provide at least 50% of the contract cost for 
personnel; for supply contracts, the prime contractor must perform work for at least 50% of the 
cost of manufacturing supplies the supplies, not including the cost of materials, unless the concern 
qualifies as a non -manufacturer. Finally, the small business prime contractor must perform at least 
15% of the cost of the contract with its own employees, not including the cost of materials, for 
general construction contracts, and at least 25% in the cast of specialty construction contracts. "  
46. Is the small business contractor required to use only the services of other small businesses 
to fulfil the requirements  of a contract that is set -aside for small business?  
RESPONSE: No, the small business prime contractor that receives a contract through a set -aside 
may subcontract to a large business as long as it performs the applicable percentage of work 
required by 13  C.F.R. 125.6 (for example, in the case of a contract for services, it will not pay WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 66 - 
 
  more than 50% of the amount paid by the government, i n the case of a contract for special trade 
contractors, no more than 75% of the amount paid by the government, and in t he case of a 
contract for general construction, it will not pay more than 85% of the amount paid by the 
government  to firms that are not similarly situated ). 
47. If a small business can partner with a "large" business, how much of the work can be 
performed by the large business?  
RESPONSE: When a small business receives a contract through a set -aside, it could partner with a 
large business in a prime subcontractor relationship. See question 46 for discussion on the 
limitations on subcontracting performance requi rements. Additionally, through SBA 's All Small 
Mentor -Protégé Program, a small business protégé and its SBA approved large business mentor 
can form a joint venture eligible to submit an offer as a small business. SBA must approve the 
Mentor -Protégé Agreeme nt prior to offer. For any contract set -aside for small business, the joint 
venture must perform the applicable percentage of work required by 13 C.F.R. 125.6 and the small 
business partner to the joint venture must perform at least 40% of the work perform ed by the 
joint venture.  
Questions 48 -49 
Section 3.3.5.4. Government Procurement – Set-Asides and Preferences (3.230)  
Paragraph 3.230 provides an overview of recent amendments made to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) to implement the regulatory cha nges made by the Small Business 
Administration.  
48. Do any of the recent changes made to the FAR or the Small Business Administration alter 
the requirements referenced in paragraph 3.224 regarding the percentage of work that must be 
conducted by the small bus iness?  
RESPONSE: No, the amendments referenced in paragraph 3.230 do not change the percentage of 
work requirements. The Small Business Administration (SBA) pu blished a final rule on 
May 31, 2016 to implement 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
which revised and standardized the limitations on subcontracting (performance of work 
requirements). This rulemaking did not change the percentage of work required when a small 
business receives a set -aside award under the 8(a) program  or set -asides and sole -source 
procurements awarded under FAR part 19. However, the rule allows small businesses who are 
prime contractors to meet the limitations on subcontracting through subcontracts to similarly 
situated entities (i.e., small businesses  who have the same socioeconomic status as that which 
qualified the prime contractor for the award), as well as through work performed by the prime 
itself. This requirement will be incorporated into the FAR in the near future.  
49. For procurements valued betw een US$3,500 and US$150,000 that are set -aside for small 
businesses, does a small business have to manufacture all or a certain amount of the products in 
the U.S.? Does the small business have to manufacture a certain amount of the products itself?  
RESPONS E: No, for small business set -aside procurements below $150,000 the small business is 
not required to manufacture products in the United States nor is it required to manufacture a 
certain amount of the products itself.  
Questions 50 -52 
Section 3.3.6.1. Inte llectual Property Rights – Overview (3.240)  
The Report mentions that the Bayh -Dole Act allows universities, non -profit institutions, and small 
businesses to obtain patents arising from research funded by the Federal Government.  
50. What compensation do these e ntities provide to the Government in order to obtain title to 
inventions made with Federal funding?  
RESPONSE: The Bayh -Dole Act enacted in 1980 enabled universities and other non -profits, as 
well as small businesses (called "contractors " in the Act), to ow n patents resulting from 
government -funded research. To protect the government interests, the Act reserves to the WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 67 - 
 
  government certain rights in the results of federally funded R&D. These rights include a 
nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid - up license to practice or to have practiced the 
invention for or on behalf of the United States throughout the world. Also, the government retains 
march -in rights and, if certain statutory conditions are not met, can require a contractor to license 
the patent s on reasonable terms. The government also has the right to file patent applications 
anywhere the contractor does not file and has the right to pursue any U.S. or foreign patent or 
application which the contractor elects to abandon. Furthermore, the govern ment receives a 
number of indirect benefits from the commercialization of government -funded inventions by 
private entities in the form of taxes as a result of the creation of new jobs and new products.  
51. What metric is used to determine whether a business qu alifies as a "small business "? 
RESPONSE: Bayh-Dole provides that small business concern sha ll be defined as provided at 
15 U.S.C. 632 and implementing regulations of the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration.  
52. Will the Federal Government assis t in any capacity an entity to defend against alleged patent 
infringement at any time during the commercialization of the patent before or after it has been 
transferred?  
RESPONSE: A person that elects to retain title to a federally -funded invention and fil es patent 
applications - as the owner of any resulting patents – would expect to be responsible for enforcing 
its patent and for defending itself against any patent infringement claims.  
Questions 53 -54 
Section 3.3.6.2. Intellectual Property Rights – Genera l Regulatory Framework (3.243)  
The Report indicates that the STELA Reauthorization Act of 20 14, signed into law in 
December  2014, extends until 31 December 2019 the statutory licence under which satellite 
carriers retransmit distant television broadcast st ations to viewers who are unable to receive 
signals for such stations in their local market.  
53. What are the remuneration requirements under the statutory licence?  
RESPONSE: Under the STELA licenses, satellite carriers are required to deposit, on a semiannual  
basis, with the Copyright Office a royalty fee payable to copyright owners for the retransmission of 
distant signals in underserved markets. As of January 1, 2017, the royalty fee will be 27 cents per 
subscriber per month for carriage of each broadcast si gnal for private home viewing and 57 cents 
per subscriber per month for carriage of each broadcast signal for viewing in commercial 
establishments.  
54. How are remuneration levels set?  
RESPONSE: Where applicable under STELA, Copyright Royalty Judges, in the ab sence of a 
voluntary agreement among satellite carriers, distributors, and copyright owners, conduct a 
proceeding under sections 802 and 803 of the Copyright Act to determine the amount of 
remuneration in the form of royalty fees that represent the fair ma rket value of secondary 
transmissions, taking into account information set forth in section 119(c)(1)(F)(ii) of the Copyright 
Act. 
Question 55  
Section 3.3.6.2. Intellectual Property Rights – General Regulatory Framework (3.244)  
55. How does the U.S. use IP pro visions in its trade agreements to encourage innovation, while 
balancing this goal with the need to ensure that IP protection in its trade agreements do not act as 
a barrier to innovation?  
RESPONSE: The United States seeks to include provisions in trade ag reements to protect 
intellectual property and to combat counterfeiting, piracy, and other infringement, including trade 
secret theft; obligations to facilitate legitimate digital trade, including trade in creative content; 
and provisions to promote develop ment of, and access to, innovative and generic medicines. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 68 - 
 
  Examples of how the Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement promotes innovation and 
creativity can be found in the fact sheet at : https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP -Promoting -
Innovation -and-Creativity -Fact-Sheet.pdf . 
Question 56  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.248)  
56. In addition to the formal initiatives identif ied in this paragraph that are used by the U.S. to 
promote the development of IP systems nationally and international,, what informal outreach 
initiatives does the USPTO undertake? Are they seen as best practices, and how are they 
assessed?  
RESPONSE: The U SPTO provides educational and training programs for domestic and foreign 
government officials, small and medium -sized enterprises, universities, and other sectors of the 
public. In FY 2016, the USPTO conducted a total of 143 such training programs. The USP TO 
continued to refine its approach to teaching through its IP Boot Camps. In FY 2016, USPTO staff 
visited 10 cities throughout the United States and reached over 60 0 participants and conducted 
31 programs targeted to U.S. SMEs.  
Since 2005, the USPTO Globa l Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) has provided high -level IP 
training, capacity building programs, and technical assistance to foreign judges, prosecutors, 
customs officials, and enforcement personnel, as well as officials from copyright, trademark, a nd 
patent offices from around the world. Those individuals come to the United States to learn, discuss 
and strategize about global IP protection and enforcement. The program 's goals include fostering a 
better understanding of international intellectual pro perty obligations and norms, explaining the 
U.S. model of protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights, and promoting discussion of 
intellectual property issues in a friendly and supportive environment. GIPA provides both 
multilateral programs and  country -specific programs as needed. GIPA  also delivers training to 
U.S. small business owners, government officials, and the general public.  
In addition to conducting programs, GIPA continues to utilize technology to make its training 
programs more effic ient and to expand the reach of those programs. For example, GIPA hosts 
distance -learning modules on its website. The modules, available in five different languages and 
covering six different areas of IP protection. In FY 2016, the USPTO organized an e -learning team 
to supplement training in the field with a modern, efficient, and effective "blended learning " 
approach.  
The IP Attaché Program is also an important asset that supports the USPTO 's efforts to promote 
strong and balanced protection and effective enforcement of IP rights abroad. The attachés ' 
fundamental role is to advocate for U.S. government IP policy po sitions for the benefit of 
U.S. stakeholders through direct advocacy with host governments; educating host government 
officials on IP matters, in cluding training of judges, prosecutors, patent and trademark examiners, 
customs officials, police, and policy makers; assisting U.S. stakeholders with IP concerns in the 
host country or region; and building grass roots support for U.S. policy objectives b y conducting 
public awareness programs on intellectual property.  
The USPTO is actively working to better serve the local innovation economies through our new 
regional offices. All four of the USPTO 's regional offices in Detroit, Dallas, Denver, and San Jos e 
are up and running. Regional office benefits to the public include walk -in services to obtain general 
IP information; work stations for searching patents and trademarks; a hearing room to host PTAB 
proceedings; and interview rooms to connect applicants t o examiners working in the region, at 
headquarters or across the country. Regional office outreach efforts have included broad -based 
and issue -specific IP seminars for startups, small business and independent inventors; 
tech-specific partnership meetings; participation in science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics (STEM) education events; and working relationships with regional stakeholders 
including business interests and federal, state and local government officials.  
At the highest level, the missio n of the USPTO is to promote American innovation through 
intellectual property, across all geographic regions of our country and across all demographics. To 
that end, the USPTO provides educational and outreach programming for students, educators and 
young  innovators. The USPTO 's activities support federal government -wide efforts to attract and WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 69 - 
 
  retain K -12 students in STEM -based education to increase STEM competence and to support an 
internal and external stakeholder base for the USPTO. STEM is vital to inn ovation and economic 
development in the United States and the development of a future USPTO workforce.  
Question 57  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.249)  
The Report references the Department of Commerce 's Strategic Plan for 2014 -18, which includes 
innovation as a strategic goal.  
57. Is there an expected timeframe for reporting on the Strategic Plan 's results?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO 's Performance and Accountability Report is an annual report publically 
released each year that provides infor mation on the USPTO 's programs and the results of the 
agency 's programmatic and financial performance for that fiscal year. The report demonstrates to 
Congress, the administration, and to the public the USPTO 's efforts to promote transparency and 
accountab ility over the resources entrusted to the agency, including progress on the Strategic Plan 
for 2014 –2018. For more information on the USPTO 's annual Performance and Accountability 
Report, visit:  https://www.uspto.gov/about -us/performance -and-planning/uspto -annual -reports . 
Question 58  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.251)  
The Report explains a number of initiatives being carried out to impro ve U.S. domestic patent 
policies and processes, including patent quality.  
58. What measures is the U.S. Government pursuing directly with a view of reducing law suits 
brought by "non-practising entities " also known as "patent trolls "? 
RESPONSE: Without comment ing on the characterization of "non-practicing entities " and "patent 
trolls, " there have been a number of recent changes to the patent litigation landscape in the 
United States including judicial decisions and amendments promulgated by the Judicial Confere nce 
of the United States to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in December 2015. The effects of these 
changes on the patent litigation landscape continue to be reviewed.  
Question 59  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents  
The Report expla ins a number of initiatives under the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality to 
optimize the quality of patent products, processes and services.  
59. How do these initiatives work to reduce the granting of low -quality patents?  
RESPONSE: The United States suppor ts high quality patents. Continuing to improve patent quality 
both in terms of ensuring that every patent issued comports with all statutory requirements and 
has a clear record, is a top priority for the USPTO. Through issuing high -quality patents, we enab le 
certainty and clarity of rights which fuels investment in innovation and reduces needless litigation. 
Patents that are correctly issued in compliance with all requirements of Title 35 as well as the 
relevant case law at the time of issuance, enable cert ainty and clarity of rights, which fuels 
innovation and reduces needless litigation. To ensure that the USPTO continues issuing 
high-quality patents well into the future, the USPTO launched the Enhanced Patent Quality 
Initiative (EPQI) in February 2015. Th is multifaceted initiative builds on past efforts and includes 
almost a dozen programs aimed at improving the accuracy, clarity, and consistency of patents that 
are issued, as well as how patent quality is measured. For more information on the EPQI visit:  
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/enhanced -patent -quality -initiative -0. 
Questions 60 -62 
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.253)  
The Report indicates a number of amendments made under the Leahy -Smith America Invents Act. 
One amendment was to eliminate the requirement for inventors to set forth the best mode to carry 
out the invention as a defence in infringement actions or in post -grant review.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 70 - 
 
  60. What has been the effect of the AIA on patent quality?  
RESPONSE: The AIA created a new Patent Trial and Appeal Board and new post -grant 
proceedings to provide a faster, lower cost alternative to district court litigation to test the validity 
of a patent. These PTAB proceedings are a valuable check on patent quality, particularly in the 
later part of a patent 's lifecycle. The AIA also provided the USPTO additional fee -setting authority 
that allows the office greater flexibility to invest in new ini tiatives that can improve patent quality, 
for example, the USPTO 's Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative.  
61. Is the best mode still required when applying for a patent? If so, how is it assessed?  
RESPONSE: An applicant for a patent must disclose: (1) a written d escription 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 invent or of carrying out the invention.  
62. What was the policy rationale for this change?  
RESPONSE: The requirements in the Act were passed after consideration of a number of factors, 
including improving patent issuance and patent quality. See, e.g., 153 Cong. Rec.  
H10270 -H10307.  
Question 63  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.254)  
63. What realistic collaboration outcomes does the USPTO foresee in the coming years from 
collaboration on harmonization with its foreign partners, and how would these be assessed?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO continues to lead the promotion of harmonization by working closely with 
other international entities. Innovators need cost -effective ways of obtaining reliable rights in 
multiple jurisdictions; therefore, pursuing the alig nment of laws and procedures among IP systems 
is critical for ensuring consistency and clarity of rights for innovators as they seek to tap into 
global markets. The Leahy -Smith America Invents Act of 2011 moved this effort forward with the 
adoption of the first-inventor -to-file principle in the United States. The Patent Prosecution Highway 
and Collaborative Patent Classification efforts are examples of international work -sharing 
cooperation programs that both benefit from and contribute to international har monization of 
patent laws and operations. The USPTO also to engages with a subgroup of like -minded IP offices 
to develop an "objectives and principles " document that specifies both the principles for an 
internationally harmonized patent system and the goal s that such a system should aim to achieve. 
Further, the USPTO also pursues harmonization efforts within the IP5 and TM5 forums and hosted 
the inaugural Industrial Design Forum, or ID5, in December 2015. The ID5 seeks to promote and 
further the development  of user -friendly, highly -efficient and interoperable industrial design 
protection systems.  
Question 64  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.255)  
64. What challenges and successes has the Crowdsourcing Prior Art initiative presented for 
patent examiners?  
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 122(e), provides a mechanism for third 
parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential 
relevance to the examination of a patent appl ication with a concise description of the asserted 
relevance of each document submitted. This allows non -applicants the ability to contribute to the 
quality of issued patents and brings the most relevant prior art to the examiner's attention as early 
as po ssible during prosecution to enhance examination effectiveness and efficiency. Such 
submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or 
(ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a 
notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may 
prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent 
application.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 71 - 
 
  The USPTO hosted two roundtab les in 2014 on the use of crowdsourcing to identify relevant prior 
art, and received written comments from interested members of the public. Further information on 
preissuance submissions, the roundtables and other related matters can be found on the USPTO  
website at : https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third -party-preissuance -submissions . 
Questions 65 -66 
Section 3.3.6.3 Intellectual Property Rights – Patents  
The Report specifies that in June 2013, the Administration announced a proposed rule on 
transparency to ensure that records of patent ownership are accurate and up to date.  
65. What was the result of that rulemaking?  
RESPONSE: In June 2013, the White House issu ed a series of Ex ecutive Actions concerning 
high-tech patent issues, including bringing about greater transparency to the patent system. To 
improve transparency in patent ownership, the USPTO proposed rules that would have required 
patent applicants and ow ners to regularly update ownership information. The USPTO requested 
written public comment and hosted two public meetings to solicit stakeholder feedback on the 
proposed rules. Seventy -two written comments were received from the public regarding the 
propos ed rules. Some comments supported the proposed rulemaking, while others opposed 
various aspects of it. Based upon the nature of the public comments, the agency has opted not to 
advance the proposed rules to final at this time. For more information on this rule making process, 
including an archive of written public comments and meeting transcripts, visit:  
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/attributable -ownership .  
66. Does the USPTO have estimates on how many patent ownership records are inaccurate or 
out of date?  
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 261, provides the USPTO shall maintain a 
register of interests in patents and applications for patents and shall record any document related 
thereto upon request, and may require a fee therefor. Applications for patent, patents, or any 
interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. Registration of interests in 
patents and applications for p atents in the USPTO register is voluntary and the accuracy of 
recorded documents is not examined.  
Question 67  
Section 3.3.6.3. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.255)  
The Report specifies that in February 2014, the Administration announced three new  executive 
actions to encourage innovation and further strengthen the quality and accessibility of the patent 
system.  
67. What is the legal status of an "executive action "? Does it have the force of law? How is an 
executive action made?  
RESPONSE: Article II of  the United States Constitution delegates specific powers and 
responsibilities to the executive branch of the government. The President of the United States 
leads the executive branch. Executive actions fall within the executive powers delegated to the 
President and the scope of the executive actions must stay within the bounds of the constitution 
and established laws.  
Question 68  
Section 3.3.6.5.1. Intellectual Property Rights – Trademarks (3.260)  
68. How were the trademarks quality assessment standards develo ped? 
RESPONSE: Quality measurement takes into consideration adherence to registrability standards 
and the comprehensive excellence of Office actions, including research, writing, legal decision 
making, and evidence. The USPTO continuously works to improve training and feedback, promote 
electronic filing and processing, making greater use of online tools and enhanced processes, and 
adopting more rigorous, customer -centric measures. The USPTO develops guidelines specific to 
quality review findings.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 72 - 
 
  The USPTO has a multifaceted training program for its trademark examining attorneys and support 
staff. New examining attorneys are provided with classroom training and work with a mentor for 
an extended period. Experienced examining attorneys are provided with conti nuing training 
resources to improve performance. This includes in -house legal training by the USPTO 's Office of 
Quality Review, ongoing trademark case law updates and examination guidelines by the legal 
policy office, providing continuing legal education o n relevant topics by outside lawyers, and the 
use of IT to provide new research resources and procedure to minimize errors. The USPTO 
continues to engage stakeholders in validating trademark quality findings; offering user group 
provided industry specific training; and working with industry experts on updating identifications 
for goods and services. Regular meetings with outside constituent groups, a customer call center, 
and an email box for customer problems also provide valuable feedback about examinatio n quality.  
All performance metrics are developed through consultations with industry groups and with the 
USPTO 's Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC). The TPAC reviews the policies, goals, 
performance, budget, and user fees of trademark operations a nd advises the USPTO 's Director on 
these matters. See:  https://www.uspto.gov/about -us/organizational -offices/public -adviso ry-
committees/trademark -public -advisory -committee -2. 
Questions 69 -70 
Section 3.3.6.6. Intellectual Property Rights – Trade Secret Protection (3.264)  
The Report explains that the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which introduced an amendment to the 
Economic Espio nage Act by amending the Federal Criminal Code to create a private civil cause of 
action for trade secret misappropriation, authorizes a trade secret owner to file a civil action in a 
U.S. district court seeking relief for trade secret misappropriation rel ated to a product or service in 
interstate or foreign commerce.  
69. How are the legal standards for criminal proceedings and civil proceedings dealt with in light 
of a civil cause of action being incorporated into a criminal code? For example, what burden of 
proof prevails?  
RESPONSE: Without commenting on the accuracy of the question's characterization of Title 18 of 
the United States Code, with respect to the DTSA, the Act does not change the standard of proof 
required in criminal cases, which is beyond a reas onable doubt. To prevail in civil actions under the 
DTSA, plaintiffs will need to prove the elements of the cause of action by a preponderance of the 
evidence.  
70. What is the difference in scope in terms of when a trade secret owner could pursue a federal 
civil cause of action versus a state civil cause of action? In other words, in what scenario would a 
trade secret owner be precluded from pursuing a civil cause of action at the federal level? For 
example, would a trade secret owner that did not conduct busin ess outside of one state, and 
where the misappropriation did not result in harm occurring outside of that state, be limited to a 
civil action at the state level only?  
RESPONSE: The requirements for bringing a federal civil a ction can be found in Section 2 (b)(1) of 
the Defend Trade Secrets Act, P.L. 114 -153. 
Questions 71 -72 
Section 3.3.6.7. Intellectual Property Rights – Copyright (3.267)  
The Secretariat 's Report states that in April 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee 
on the Judiciary complet ed its series of hearings to review the current state of U.S. copyright laws.  
71. Does the US delegation have any information that it can share on the status of the work of 
this Committee on US copyright laws? Although the formal round of hearings has conclude d, we 
understand that the Committee is still continuing to engage with stakeholders on this topic – is this 
correct?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. delegation is not aware of anything beyond the public information provided 
by the Committee Chairman and Ranking Member,  available on the House Judiciary Committee 's 
website, dated December 8, 2016, which indicates plans for continued stakeholder engagement.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 73 - 
 
  72. Will the committee be issuing any recommendations in terms of US copyright reforms? If 
yes, when?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. delegation is not aware of anything beyond the public information provided 
by the Committee Chairman and Ranking Member, available on the House Judiciary Committee 's 
website, dated December 8, 2016, which does not appear to specify an anticipated time for any 
legislative recommendations.  
Question 73  
Section 3.3.6.7. Intellectual Property Rights – Copyright (3.269)  
The Report mentions work undertaken by the Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force 
(IPTF) issued in July 2013, a Green Paper on Copyrig ht Policy recommending adjustments to the 
public performance right for sound recordings by extending the right to cover broadcasting, as well 
as assessing and improving enforcement tools to combat online infringement. The report called for 
legislation to a dopt the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted works as 
exists for criminal reproduction and distribution. In January 2016, as a follow up to the Green 
Paper, the IPTF issued the White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Dam ages, which 
made recommendations for legislation to provide both more guidance and greater flexibility to 
courts in awarding statutory damages.  
73. What is the status of the recommendations contained in both the Green Paper and White 
Paper?  
RESPONSE: The Green  Paper recommendations have not been taken up by Congress. The White 
Paper 's recommendations relating to statutory damages were sent to Congress earlier this year 
but have not yet been taken up.  
Questions 74 -79 
Section 3.3.6.7. Intellectual Property Rights  - Copyright  
The Report explains that section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 investigations are instituted by the 
United States International Trade Commission (USITC); administrative law judges make an initial 
determination of whether there is an infringeme nt/contravention of the law, which is then subject 
to review by the USITC. If the USITC determines that Section 337 has been violated, it may issue 
exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, or both, after considering the effect of the orders on 
four statu tory public interest factors. Exclusion orders direct the CBP either to bar entry into the 
United States of infringing goods from whatever source (general exclusion orders) or to bar entry 
of imports from specifically identified entities (limited exclusion  orders). The President may 
disapprove a USITC order within 60 days.  
74. How many times as a U.S. President disapproved a USTITC order?  
RESPONSE: For clarity, in 2005 the United States President delegated to the United States Trade 
Representative the authority  to disapprove a USITC determination finding a violation of section 
337. United States Presidents have invoked the authority on five occasions, from 1978 to 1986. 
The USTR disapproved a USITC determination on one additional occasion, in 2013. As noted in 
response to a different question, section 337 is only one of a range of IP enforcement avenues 
potentially open to parties.   
75. Are those decisions judicially reviewable?  
RESPONSE:  A USITC determination finding a violation of section 337 may be subject to revi ew 
under section 337(c) and (j).  
76. Are there any criteria for disapproving a USITC order?  
RESPONSE: As noted in response to a different question, section 337 is only one of a range of IP 
enforcement avenues potentially open to parties. Information on the dis appro val of USITC 
section  337 determinations may be found at 19 U.S.C. section 1337( j) and S. Rep. No. 93 -1298, 
93d Cong. 2d Sess. 199 (1974).  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 74 - 
 
  77. Are investigations exclusively complaint driven? Are there any restrictions on who may file a 
complaint?  
RESPONSE : Information on the form, content and submitters of section 337 complaints is 
available at 19 U.S.C. section 1337 and 19 C.F.R. section 210.  
78. What percentage of IP -related investigations are complaint driven?  
RESPONSE: Information on the complaints in IP -related section 337 investigations is available in 
notices of institution published in the Federal Register . Additional information on complaints is also 
available at usitc.gov.  
79. How is the domestic industry requirement applied by the USITC?  
RESPONSE: The U SITC applies the domestic industry requirement as provided by statute, 
regulation, judicial precedents, and Commission practice.   
Question 80  
Section 4.1.1. Agriculture – Main features (4.2)  
The Secretariat report notes in table 4.1 "Value of U.S. producti on, 2008 -15", that the value of 
milk production for 2015 is significantly lower than that of the two previous years.  
80. Could the U.S. explain this decrease in milk production value?  
RESPONSE: Milk prices were significantly lower in 2015 than in the two prece ding years.  
Question 81  
Section 4.1.2.3. Agricultural Risk Coverage (4.12)  
The Secretariat report notes that the ARC -CO program was elected for 60% or more of base acres 
for maize, soybeans, oats and chickpeas and that PLC was elected for 60% or more of ba se acres 
of barley, canola, crambe, flaxseed, safflower, sesame, sorghum, rice and peanuts.  
81. Could the U.S. provide greater detail as to the enrollment numbers for ARC and PLC? In 
particular, what is the breakdown of the total number of producers enrolled in each of the two 
programs? What is the split between producers registered in each of the programs for each of the 
covered commodities? What is the split between base acres covered by ARC or PLC for each of the 
covered commodities?  
RESPONSE: Program elect ion data is available by historical base commodity as follows:  
Covered commodity  Price loss coverage 
(PLC)  Agriculture risk 
coverage -county 
option (ARC -CO) Agriculture risk 
coverage -individual 
option (ARC -IC) 
Base acres  Base acres  Base acres  
Barley  3,976,590  1,127,214  181,913  
Canola  1,436,766  31,814  7,736  
Corn 6,388,066  90,057,276  323,106  
Crambe  1,698  889 16 
Dry peas  196,636  219,471  25,783  
Flaxseed  145,584  82,871  1,837  
Grain sorghum  5,965,661  2,998,211  15,557  
Lentils  151,080  116,798  19,185  
Large chickpeas  19,412  56,636  9,587  
Long grain rice  4,007,809  6,912   
Medium grain rice (southern)  167,293  6,532   
Mustard  13,845  9,431  1,439  
Oats 671,385  1,410,063  13,778  
Peanuts  2,013,443  6,781  18 
Rapeseed  1,100  1,335  45 
Safflower  62,521  33,401  3,145 WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 75 - 
 
  Covered commodity  Price loss coverage 
(PLC)  Agriculture risk 
coverage -county 
option (ARC -CO) Agriculture risk 
coverage -individual 
option (ARC -IC) 
Base acres  Base acres  Base acres  
Sesame  4,378  828  
Small chickpeas  5,004  15,006  2,057  
Soybeans  1,688,365  52,635,553  191,053  
Sunflowers  920,546  710,724  19,683  
Temperate Japonica rice  355,082  197,020  23,092  
Wheat  27,045,581  35,394,613  1,258,950  
Question 82  
Section 4.1.2.5. Crop I nsurance (4.15)  
The Secretariat report notes that the U.S. Government Accountability Office has published several 
reports stating that the crop insurance program is inefficient, and calling for a cut in premium 
subsidies.  
82. Does the U.S. plan to make adjust ments to its crop insurance scheme to take into account 
these findings?  
RESPONSE: Current farm programs are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 
2018 crop year. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to 
keeping th e Membership informed of any changes that may occur in a future Farm Bill.  
Questions 83 -85 
Section 4.1.3.2 Agriculture – Exports (4.37)  
The Secretariat Report notes that the 2014 Farm Act reduced the maximum loan guarantee term 
for the U.S. Export Credit G uarantee program (GSM -102) to two years. It then notes that the 
maximum credit term is 18 months, but that the repayment terms may vary from country -to-
country.  
83. Could the U.S. provide more information on the number and value of export credit 
guarantees pr ovided through GSM -102 that have repayment terms longer than 18 months?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not have export credit guarantees through GSM – 102 that 
have repayment terms longer than 18 months.  
84. Could the U.S. state for which countries its GSM -102 program allows for repayment terms 
longer than 18 months?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not have export credit guarantees through GSM – 102 that 
have repayment terms longer than 18 months.  
85. Does export performance play a role in this repayment term va riability and, if so, what is it?  
RESPONSE: No, export performance does not play a role in this repayment term variability.  
Question 86  
Section 4.1.2.8. Dairy Sector (4.28)  
It is noted that under the Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP), dairy products ar e purchased 
by the Government to be donated to public and private non -profit organizations that provide 
nutrition assistance to low -income households, but only when the national production margin has 
fallen below a certain floor value.  
86. Could the U.S. speci fy whether this program is a market relief program, or a domestic food 
aid program?  
RESPONSE: The Dairy Product Donation Program is a domestic food aid program. Commodities 
are purchased based on consultation with public and private nutrition programs and distributed to 
eligible recipients based on low -income and other nutritional needs.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 76 - 
 
  Question 87  
Section 4.2.3.1.1. Air Transport (4.132)  
The Secretariat Report notes that the US maintains restrictions on foreign crew permitted on 
US-registered vessels.  
87. Are there citizenship restrictions on the 25% foreign crew permitted on US -registered 
vessels that are coastwise qualified?  
RESPONSE: It appears that question 87 actually refers to Secretariat Report Section 4.2.3.2.1 
Maritime Transport (4.145).  Taking that a s a given, under 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(B) not more than 
25% of the total number of unlicensed seamen on the vessel may be aliens lawfully admitted to 
the United States for permanent residence.  See also footnote 155 of the Secretariat Report, which 
contains thi s response.   
Questions 88 -89 
Section 4.2.3.2.1. Maritime Transport (4.145)  
The Secretariat Report notes that under the laws on documentation of vessels and the coastwise 
laws, restrictions on cabotage remain in place.  
88. Regarding foreign ownership of US corp orations, what are the foreign participation limits 
(i.e., voting shares, board of directors, veto) for US -registered vessels and for US -registered 
vessels that are coastwise qualified?  
RESPONSE: Certain coastwise laws restrict the transportation, dredging  and towing between 
points in the United States to vessels owned and operated by q ualified U.S. citizens. See, 
46 U.S.C. § 55102; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 46 U.S.C. § 55109; 46 U.S.C. § 55111; 46 U.S.C. 
§ 55118; 46 U.S.C. § 80104.  
A business entity must comply b oth with structural criteria —such a s being organized in the 
United  States —and a facts and circumstances assessment of U.S. citizen control in order to qualify 
as a U.S. citizen.  
A business entity must satisfy two structural requirements in order to qualif y as a U.S. citizen 
eligible to own and operate a vessel in the U.S. coastwise trade. First, a business entity must be 
eligible to document a vessel in the United States with the  U.S. Coast Guard. 46 U.S.C. 
§ 55102(b)(2). Such an entity can be referred to as a "documentation citizen. " Second, a 
documentation citizen must be owned at least 75% by U.S. documentation citizens eligible to own 
and operate a vessel in the coastwise trade. 46 U.S.C. § 12112;  46 U.S.C. § 50501; 46 U.S.C. 
§ 55102(b)(2).  
A business e ntity as a documentation citizen must be U.S. domiciled and must be managed by 
U.S. citizens. Specifically, for a corporation to document a vessel in the United States:  
(1) it must be incorporated under the laws of the United States or a state;  
(2) its chief exe cutive officer, by whatever title, and the chairman of the board of 
directors, must be U.S. citizens; and  
(3) no more than a minority of the number of directors necessary to constitute a quorum 
can be noncitizens. 46 U.S.C. § 12103(b)(4); 46 C.F.R. §§ 67.39(a ), 221.3(c)(2).  
A documentation citizen corporation, which does not seek the right to engage in the coastwise 
trade or to participate in certain U.S. -citizen -restricted government programs, such as the 
Maritime Security and the Capital Construction Fund pr ograms, see 46 U.S.C. chs. 531, 535, can 
be 100% owned by noncitizens.  
For a general partnership to document a vessel, each and every general partner must be a 
documentation citizen. 46 U.S.C. § 12103(b)(3); 46 C.F.R. §§ 67.35, 221.3(c)(3). In addition, 
unlike a corporation, U.S. citizens must own at least 50% of the "equity interest in the WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 77 - 
 
  partnership " for a general partnership to document a U.S. -flag vessel. 46 C.F.R. § 67.35; see also 
46 U.S.C. § 12103(b)(3); 46 C.F.R. § 221.3(c)(3).  
A documentation cit izen qualifies to own or operate a Jones Act vessel if it is also owned at least 
75% by U.S. citizens. 46 U.S.C. § 50501; 46 C.F.R. § 67.31(a).  
89. Could the US describe the conditions imposed on US employees, while onboard vessels and 
when off board ? 
RESPONS E: The conditions may be found in 46 U.S. Code Part E - Merchant Seamen Licenses, 
Certificates, and Documents and 46 U.S. Code Part F - Manning of Vessels.  
Question 90  
Section 4.2.3.2.1. Maritime Transport (4.146)  
The Secretariat Report notes that requests  for waivers of the provisions of the coastwise laws are 
made to the Commissioner of the US Customs and Border Protection.  
90. Could the U.S. provide the following information in relation to waivers from the provisions of 
the coastwise laws:  
a. How many requests for waivers have been made in the past 5 years?  
b. Of the waiver requests made, how many were approved and how many denied?  
c. How did the waiver requests from the past 5 years break down by vessel type? For example, 
how many were made to operate bulk cargo vess els and how many were made to operate 
container vessels?  
d. How did the waiver requests from the past 5 years break down by activity performed? For 
example, how many requests were for waivers to perform offshore exploration? To perform 
cabotage of cargo? To p erform other activities?  
e. What are the average, minimum and maximum amounts of times that waivers are issued 
for? 
RESPONSE:  
a. There have been 8 requests for Administrative Waivers submitted between 12/01/2011 
through 12/07/2016.  
b. Of the Administrative Waivers Requests submitted: 1 was granted; 5 were denied; and 2 of 
the requests were withdrawn by the Requestor.  
c. The Administrative Waivers Requests during the 2011 through 2016 (five year period) involved 
the following Vessel Types:  
 Tanker Carriers (8) : 7 Tanke rs: 3 carrying  crude oil; 4 carrying gasoline; 1 Tanker carrying 
other petroleum/fuel products  
 Bulk Cargo Carriers (1): carrying rock salt (winter road salt)  
 Container Carriers (1) carrying electrical transformer unit  
d. All of the requests in the last 5 yea rs were to perform transportation of cargo.  
e. In the last five years, only one waiver was issued pursuant to a request. This waiver was for 
the transport of fuel between Dutch Harbor, Alaska and Nome, Alaska by a foreign built ice 
tanker. Although a specific  amount of time was not indicated in the waiver, it was clear from 
the request that the transportation in question had to occur immediately to ensure that the 
transporting vessel could break the ice in transit between the two U.S. points.  
Question 91  
Section 4.2.3.2.1. Maritime Transport (4.147)  
The Secretariat Report notes that MARAD has responsibility for the programme for small passenger 
vessels waivers.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 78 - 
 
  91. Are there any similar programs in place for the carriage of cargo or for other commercial 
activities?  
RESPONSE: 46 U.S. Code § 501 permits waivers from:  
 Secretary of Defense when the waiver is necessary in the interest of national defense.  
 Secretary of Department of Homeland Security if MARAD determines that no coastwise vessels 
are available and capable to provide the proposed transportation and a determination is made 
that the proposed transportation is "in the interest of national defense. " 
 The maritime industry may request a Jones Act waiver from the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection ( "CBP"), which is  an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. Upon receipt 
of a waiver request, CBP immediately forwards the request to MARAD, the Secretary of DHS, 
DOD, and —if the transportation is energy related —the Department of Energy ( "DOE"). To 
determine if the re are U.S. -flag vessels available to meet the needs, MARAD surveys the 
maritime industry to establish the capability and availability of coastwise vessels to meet the 
needs of the requested transportation.)  
Question 92  
Section 4.2.3.2.1. Maritime Transpor t (4.148)  
The Secretariat Report notes that existing legislation continues to provide cargo preferences for 
domestically flagged vessels (i.e., for the export of goods that benefit from export loans or credit 
guarantees from the Ex -Im Bank, and for the tra nsportation of government -generated cargo).  
92. Could the U.S. provide the following information, over the past 5 years, in relation to these 
domestic cargo preferences:  
a. What is the financial cost of these programs?  
b. What is the total tonnage transported under these programs?  
c. What types of cargo are transported under these programs?  
RESPONSE:  
a. Cost information is not collected or calculated.  
b. The total tonnage transported under these programs for the last five years for which data is 
available is shown in the foll owing table.  
c. In the following table, total tonnage includes U.S. Department of Defense cargo, Food aid 
cargo, and other U.S. government agency cargo transported under these programs.  
Cargo -Preference Cargo in Metric Tons  
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  
Bulk ca rgo 3,991,000  5,011,000  4,386,000  4,204,000  3,884,000  
Non-bulk dry  2,230,000  2,323,000  2,937,000  3,825,000  3,608,000  
Total 6,221,000  7,334,000  7,323,000  8,029,000  7,492,000  
Source: "Impacts of Reductions in Government Impelled Cargo on the U.S. Merchan t Marine ". 
https://www.marad.dot.gov/wp -content/uploads/pdf/04 -21-2015-Repor t-to-Congress -on-the-
Impact -of-Reduction -in-Government -Impelled -Cargo -on-the-US-Merchant -Marine.pdf . 
Question 93  
Section 4.2.3.2.1. Maritime Transport (4.150)  
The Secretariat Report notes that the Maritime Security Program supports the US -flag merchant 
marine by providing a fixed payment to US -flag vessel operators.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 79 - 
 
  93. Could the U.S. provide the following information, over the past 5 years, in relation to the 
Maritime Security Program:  
a. What is the financial cost of these programs?  
b. What is the total tonnage tr ansported under these programs?  
c. What types of cargo are transported under these programs?  
RESPONSE:  
a. In Fiscal Years 2011 -2017, funding for the Maritime Security Program (MSP) was as follows: 
FY 2011: $174 M or $2.9 M per ship; FY 2012 – 2015: $186 M or $3 .1 M per ship; FY  2016: 
$210 M or $3.5 M per ship. For FY 2017, funding is $299 M or $4.9 M per ship (authorized but not 
appropriated).  
b. The Maritime Administration does not record cargo tonnage transported under the MSP 
program, and there is no requiremen t to track this information.  
c. Cargoes carried by MSP participating carriers includes U.S. Department of Defense, other 
U.S. Government agency, and commercial cargoes.  
Question 94  
America Invents Act 2011 35 U.S.C.§273 (Prior Use Defence)  
The America Invent s Act provides a "prior use defense " to patent infringement, which includes an 
exemption  where the defence cannot be asserted against a University.  
94. How many instances since this exemption was enacted has an alleged infringer been sued 
by a university and been prevented from asserting this defence?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not collect such statistics or information.  
FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS  
Canada Question 80  
Section 4.1.1. Agriculture – Main features (4.2)  
The Secretariat report notes in table 4.1 "Valu e of U.S. production, 2008 -15", that the value of 
milk production for 2015 is significantly lower than that of the two previous years.  Could the U.S. 
explain this decrease in milk production value?  
RESPONSE: Milk prices were significantly lower in 2015 tha n in the two preceding years.  
Follow -up question:  
1. Could the U.S. please provide an explanation of why milk prices were significantly lower in 
2015 than in 2014 and 2013?  
RESPONSE:  Milk and dairy product prices reached record high levels in 2013 and 201 4. In 
response, global milk production increased.  Major dairy producers including Australia, Canada, 
India, the EU, and the U.S. increased milk production in 2015 compared to previous years.  
Increased supply and weaker demand in major importing countries p ut downward pressure on 
prices in 2015.  
2. Using the same source as the data in the report (USDA National Agricultural Statistics 
Service online), the U.S. milk production volume (in pounds) was also comparatively higher 
in 2013 and 2014 than in 2015, or o ther years. Could the U.S. ex plain why prices were higher 
in 2014 and 2013 (compared to 2015 prices), but production volumes also remained high during 
those years? If the U.S. was over producing, what happened to the milk which was overproduced?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 80 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Canada states that "the U.S. milk production volume (in pounds) was also 
comparatively higher in 2013 and 2014 than in 2015, or other years. " According to the referenced 
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service website, total production in 2015 increa sed from 
2013 and 2014.  As explained in the answer to question 1, increased production was a response to 
record high prices in 2013 and 2014.  
U.S. dairy producers respond to market signals, and therefore experience fluctuations in prices as 
a result of cha nges in supply and demand.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 81 - 
 
  CHILE  
Documents: WT/TPR/G/350 and WT/TPR/S/350  
I. Report by the Secretariat  
Question 1  
2.2 Trade Policy Formulation and Objectives  
2.2.1 Trade policy objectives  
Paragraph 2.8  
As regards the Agricultural sector and the United States '' desire to establish additional disciplines 
in the use of geographical indications:  
1. Chile would like the United States to please provide more background on the disciplines 
being developed in this regard and their meaning and scope.  
RESPONSE: Under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, 
the principal negotiating objective of the United States with respect to agriculture is to obtain 
competitive opportunities for United States exports of agricultural commoditi es in foreign markets 
substantially equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in United States 
markets and to achieve fairer and more open conditions of trade in bulk, specialty crop, and value 
added commodities, including by "el iminating and preventing the undermining of market access for 
United States products through improper use of a country ''s system for protecting or recognizing 
geographical indications, including failing to ensure transparency and procedural fairness and 
protecting generic terms."  
Question 2  
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights  
3.3.6.7 Copyrights  
2. Chile would like the United States to please provide additional information on the 
implementation of Article 14 of the TRIPS, as regards the protection of performers, producers of 
phonograms (sound recordings) and broadcasting organizations.  
RESPONSE:  The United States provides protection for performers via statutory and common law.  
Section 1101 of the Copyright Act prohib its the fixation of a live musical performance or the 
reproduction of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation, without the authorization of the 
performer. To the extent a performer is an author, that performer is a copyright owner under U.S. 
law a nd therefore has the exclusive rights provided under Section 106 of the Copyright Act.  
Sound recordings are considered copyrighted works, and producers of sound recordings are 
considered authors and/or copyright owners under the Copyright Act and therefore  have exclusive 
rights under Section 106, including that of reproduction.  
The United States provides protection for broadcast signals, along with the content of the signal 
and technical measures used in connection with the signals and content, under U.S. c opyright law 
and telecommunications law.  Under the U.S. Copyright Act, the copying and distribution of 
broadcast copyrighted works, including material that is fixed simultaneously with the transmission, 
is prohibited.  Such unauthorized copying and distribu tion in the law also prohibits the interception 
of cable and satellite signals under the criminal code and telecom munication law. See 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2511; 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605. There are five federal statutes that further protect cable and 
satellite systems by criminalizing the trafficking in devices that facilitate the interception of a 
signal carrying protected content.  See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 and 2512; 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605.  
With respect to rental rights for producers and other right holders in phonogr ams under TRIPS 
Article 14.4, Section 109(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act prohibits an owner of a phonorecord that 
embodies a sound recording or musical work from renting it to the public for direct or indirect 
commercial advantage.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 82 - 
 
  The general term of protec tion for copyright in a work under Section 302 of the U.S. Copyright Act 
is the life of the author plus 70 years.  For works made for hire, the term is 95 years from first 
publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.  In both instances, the  term exceeds 
the TRIPS minimum of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which a fixation was made or 
a performance took place, required by Article 14(5).  
Section 104A of the U.S. Copyright Act implements Article 18 of the Berne Convention, restori ng 
copyright in certain foreign works that enjoy copyright protection in their source country.  
Question 3  
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  
3.1.6.2 Import licenses  
Paragraph 3.59  
There is mention of a Steel Import Monitoring and Anal ysis [SIMA] System that would make 
statistical data available in advance of the full trade data release. Mention is also made of licensing 
requirements being applied to all basic steel mill imports.  
3. Chile would like the United States to please explain t he reasons for the implementation of 
the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System and the specific licensing requirements described 
for all basic steel mill imports.  
RESPONSE:  The purpose of the SIMA system is to provide to the public statistical data o n steel 
imports entering the United States roughly five weeks earlier than it would otherwise be available. 
Aggregate data collected from the steel import licenses are made available to the public on a 
weekly basis following review by the Department of Com merce.  
Question 4  
3.2.5 Export finance, insurance and guarantees  
3.2.5.1 United States Export -Import Bank (EXIM)  
Paragraph 3.160  
"Section 55002 of Public Law 114 -94 [FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT] 
provides that the United States shall initia te and pursue negotiations with other major exporting 
countries, in order to substantially reduce, with a view to eventually eliminating (in 2025), 
subsidized export -financing programs and other forms of export subsidies. The law further 
establishes that t he United States shall initiate and pursue negotiations with non -OECD members 
to bring those countries into a multilateral agreement establishing rules and limitations on officially 
supported export credits. In June 2016, the Administration presented to Co ngress a report, not for 
public release, regarding its strategy for export credit negotiations."   
4. Chile would appreciate the United States expanding on the progress made in negotiations to 
substantially reduce, with a view to eventually eliminating (in 2025), subsidized export -financing 
programs and other forms of export subsidies, as described in Paragraph 3.160.  
RESPONSE:  The United States is negotiating in the International Working Group on Export Credits 
(IWG) towards new global guidelines on officia l export credit support.  
Question 5  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1 Legislation and enforcement  
Paragraph 3.73  
The ITA describes antidumping calculation methods as follows: "In market -economy calculations, 
the ITA bases  normal value (NV) on the company's actual costs and prices in the comparison 
market, which can be either the home country of the respondent or another suitable third country. 
If the ITA does not find a suitable comparison market, it bases NV on the constr ucted value (CV) 
which is a cost -based build -up of a surrogate price."  
5. Chile would appreciate the United States clarifying if, in determining normal value in a 
market economy, the ITA may always choose between using data on costs and prices of a suitabl e WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 83 - 
 
  third country and using the constructed value.  Chile would appreciate a more detailed explanation 
of the choice between these two methodologies.  
RESPONSE:  The United States cannot answer this question in the abstract.  The determination as 
to what method ology and data to apply depends on the facts and circumstances of a specific 
proceeding.  
Question 6  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1 Legislation and enforcement  
Paragraph 3.74  
Antidumping and countervailing duty investig ations may be suspended, in certain circumstances, 
when there is an agreement to temporarily restrict exports or eliminate their detrimental effect. In 
the case of antidumping investigations, suspension agreements allow exporters that account for 
substanti ally all of the imports of a given product under investigation to agree to temporarily 
restrict exports or accept price commitments. In non -market economies, antidumping suspension 
agreements may combine price commitments with additional measures to preven t price 
suppression or price undercutting. In the case of countervailing duty investigations, the 
government allegedly granting the subsidy may agree to eliminate it, neutralize the net subsidy 
entirely, or suspend or limit exports of the good to the Unite d States.  Any agreement that a WTO 
Member considered a market economy signs for the purpose of suspending an antidumping 
investigation may entail price commitments alone. Agreements related to investigations into 
countervailing duties may also involve quan titative restrictions.  
6. Chile would like the United States to please indicate the form that quantitative restrictions 
normally take, in the context of the countervailing measures me ntioned at the end of 
Paragraph  3.74.  
RESPONSE:  A quantitative restricti on in a countervailing duty suspension agreement would likely 
take the form of an annual export limit on the quantity of subject merchandise that could be 
exported to the United States, over the duration of the agreement.  The foreign government 
signatory w ould in most cases institute a type of export licensing system to ensure compliance 
with such export limits.  
Question 7  
3.3.2 Subsidies and other state aid  
Paragraph 3.175  
The United States, like other WTO Members, notifies the WTO of its subsidy programs,  regardless 
of the legal status of the subsidies as to specificity or whether they might be appealable or in other 
ways subject to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The last subsidies 
notification covers fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Ap art from the agricultural sector, the vast majority 
of federal subsidies are allocated to the energy sector (Table 3.15). Additionally, at the sub -federal 
level, there are numerous energy -related support mechanisms in place, especially with regard to 
renew able energy (Table A3.4).  
7. As mentioned in Paragraph 3.175, aside from the agricultural sector, the vast majority of 
federal subsidies go to the energy sector, and at the sub -federal level, there are numerous 
energy -related support mechanisms in place. C hile would like the United States to please provide 
greater detail on supports provided to the coal sector, specifically with regard to its transport and 
distribution.  
RESPONSE:  Please see the most recent subsidy notification of the United States 
(G/SCM/N /284/USA; 18 November 2015).  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 84 - 
 
  Question 8  
3.1.8 Standards and other technical requirements  
Paragraph 3.107:  
8. Chile would like the United States to please indicate  the international accreditation 
organizations to which the NIST belongs.  
RESPONSE:  U.S. priv ate sector and government accreditation bodies are signatories to the 
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), 
and members of the ILAC's regional subsidiaries the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation 
Cooperation (APLAC) and the Inter American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC).  U.S. private sector 
and government accreditation bodies are also signatories of the International Accreditation Forum 
(IAF) Multilateral Recognition Agreement (MLA), and members o f applicable sub or regional 
accreditation bodies including the Inter American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC) and Pacific 
Accreditation Cooperation (PAC).  The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 
(NVLAP), which is a program run by NIST, is  also a full member of ILAC, APLAC and IAAC.   
Question 9  
Paragraph 3.108  
9. Chile would like the United States to please indicate the length of time it takes the NIST 
Standards Coordination Office to respond to WTO members '' comments or observations about  
published proposals for Technical Requirements and Compliance Assessment Procedures.  
RESPONSE: NIST is responsible for responding to information requests from other WTO Member 
national enquiry points and constituents.  NIST transmits comments or queries it  receives from 
WTO Members on U.S. notified proposed measures to the relevant U.S. regulatory agency within 
one or two days.  
In the case of a rule -making, U.S. regulators take into account comments received from trading 
partners during the rulemaking proc ess, and respond to substantive comments in the final rule, 
which is published in the Federal Register, the national gazette of the United States.   
If a U.S. regulatory authority has specific comments or questions concerning a WTO Member 
comment submission  received through the Inquiry Point on a notified measure, the Inquiry Point 
will convey those comments or questions from the U.S. regulator to the Member as soon as those 
comments or questions are received by the Inquiry Point from the U.S. regulator.  
Question 10  
Paragraph 3.110  
10. Chile would like the United States to please indicate which countries, in addition to Canada 
and Mexico, are currently working on international cooperation on regulations, and in which 
sectors.  Chile would also like to know th e criteria used to select these countries.  
RESPONSE:  The United States uses a variety of mechanisms for international regulatory 
cooperation, which may include establishing formal intergovernmental structures as well as simply 
pursuing mutual interest in a topic between a U.S. regulatory agency and one or more foreign 
counterparts outside of formal arrangements.  Relevant committees of bilateral FTAs can serve as 
forums to explore reducing unnecessary technical barriers to trade, including those presented i n 
the regulatory context.  The United States also participates in three bilateral regulatory cooperation 
forums aimed at promoting regulatory best practices and aligning regulatory approaches in 
economically significant sectors.  The bilateral forums with Ca nada and Mexico grew out of NAFTA 
cooperation and are well suited to focus on longstanding challenges presented for countries 
sharing borders and a highly integrated market.  In addition,  the United States has engaged with 
the European Union (EU) to deepen cooperation in specific regulated sectors in the context of the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations as well as through the 
Transatlantic Economic Council, which has recently focused on reinforcing cooperation in important 
areas affecting innovative growth markets and technologies, such as electrical vehicles and smart 
grids, energy efficiency, nanotechnology, e -health and cloud computing.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 85 - 
 
  The United States also pursues international regulatory cooperation through its particip ation in 
international organizations such as the OECD, WHO, and standards development organizations; 
regulator -to-regulator dialogues, such as the International Medical Device Regulatory Forum 
(IMDRF); and regulatory cooperation efforts through regional fo ra, such as APEC, where we have 
collaborated with Chile in the Wine Regulator Forum and Food Safety Cooperation Forum.  
Regulatory cooperation of the kind undertaken in the U.S. -Canada RCC is guided by Executive 
Order 13609, issued by President Obama on May  1, 2012.  Guidelines on the applicability and 
implementation of that Order describe the considerations that would be relevant factors for 
evaluating the potential value of embarking on a regulatory cooperation council and regulatory 
cooperation activities with another country. See:  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo_13609/eo13609 -working -group -
guidelines.pdf . These include, for example, whether the other country ''s regulatory process is 
sufficiently guided by Good Regulatory Practices.  
Question 11  
Table 2.2  
"Some restrictions o n foreign investment, July 2015 " in Paragraph 2.40, establishes certain sectors 
and pro visions in which the United States restricts investment.  
11. Chile would like the United States to please indicate if there are citizenship or nationality 
requirements for ship captains that conduct activities in territorial waters and the type of 
restric tions that exist for cabotage.  
RESPONSE:  Please refer to 46 U.S.C. Chapters 121 & 551 for a description of requirements 
relating to the carriage of goods and passengers between two points in the United States.  As 
indicated, both cargo and passenger service  between two points in the United States – whether 
directly or via a foreign port – is inter alia, reserved for ships on which 100% of the officers and at 
least 75% of the unlicensed seamen are U.S. citizens.  
Question 12  
Table 2.2  
The table reflects the ex istence of foreign ownership restrictions for radio licenses in the 
telecommunications sector.  
12. Chile would like the United States to please provide additional information on whether, in 
this field, there are measures taken based on reciprocity.  If so, which ones?  
RESPONSE:  Apart from Direct -to-Home/Direct Broadcasting satellite services, the United States 
maintains no reciprocity -based measures in the telecommunications sector.  
Question 13  
Table 2.3  
The table reflects the transactions covered, executiv e orders and mitigation measures adopted 
between the year 2011 and 2014.  
13. Chile would like the United States to please indicate the cases in which transactions were 
blocked for posing a threat to national security.  Specifically, Chile requests the Unit ed States 
indicate the type of investment involved in a transaction blocked by executive order in 2012.  
RESPONSE: The CFIUS Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee 
and perceived adverse effects of select covered transactions . See: 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -
reports.aspx .  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 86 - 
 
  Question 14  
4.2.3 Transportation  
Paragraph 4.128  
It is stated that the United States continues to grant various types of preferential treatment to 
national maritime and air transport companies. In some cases, funding assistance to the transport 
sector is tied to industrial policy in other  related fields (such as shipbuilding).  
14. Chile would like the United States to please specify what the funding assistance to the 
transport sector entails.  
RESPONSE: Preferences that the United States accords to domestic carriers in aviation or 
maritim e transport are identified in the Report by the Secretariat in 4.2.3.1 Air Transport and 
airports (4.129 -4.142) and 4.2.3.2 Maritime transport, port services, a nd shipbuilding 
(4.143 -4.166).  
Question 15  
Paragraph 4.143  
It is stated that (…) The size of the  United States flagged fleet under private ownership has 
steadily declined over the years:  at the beginning of Augus t 2016 there was a total of 
171 privately owned ships, representing 7.9 million tons of deadweight, compared to 282 ships 
representing 12 mi llion [tons of deadweight] in 2000.  
15. Chile would like the United States to please expand on the reason for this decline.  
RESPONSE:  This decline is largely the result of reductions in the volume of available cargo for 
transport and a sharp decrease in t he number of tank vessels.  
Question 16  
3.1.3 Rules of origin  
Paragraph 3.1.3.4  
Certificates of origin: "An importer must certify the origin of a good to claim preferential 
agreement. Though NAFTA requires the certificate of origin be in a specific format, most other free 
trade or preferential treatment agreements do not. The importer must present the certificate of 
origin or other supporting documents, which must be  presented to CBP upon request. " 
16. Chile would like the United States to please clarify whe ther the importer is obligated to 
certify the origin of goods even when an importer has a certificate of origin issued by an exporter 
or producer.  
RESPONSE:  An importer is not obligated to provide a separate certification of origin if the 
importer relies on a certification of origin issued by an exporter or producer when making a claim 
for preferential tariff treatment.  
II. Report from the Government  
4. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2014  
4.1 WTO agreements and initiatives  
Question 17  
Paragraph 4.10  
It is stated that, "In order to ensure compliance with WTO Agreements, the United States has 
been one of the countries that has most availed itself of WTO  dispute settlement procedures. " 
17. Chile would like the United States to please provide additional infor mation on the 
implementation status of DSB recommendations and resolutions with respect to the United States 
dispute involving Section 211 of the Omnib us Appropriations Act of 1998 ("Havana Club" ). WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 87 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States notes that the WTO Appellate B ody found that Section 211(a)(1) 
was not inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States.  Furthermore, the Appellate 
Body did not question the right of the Unite d 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 co nfiscated in other territories." See Appellate 
Body Report, para. 362. The United States refers to its statements on this matter in th e Dispute 
Settlement Body.  
Question 18  
Paragraph 4.2.7: Trade between the United States and the European Union.  
18. Chile would appreciate additional information on the status of negotiations and matters 
contained in the Agreement.  
RESPONSE:  The United Sta tes and the European Union (EU) completed the 15th round of T -TIP 
negotiations in New York City in October 2016.  As outlined in the 2016 U.S. TPR Government 
Report, significant progress has been made toward completing negotiation of a comprehensive 
agreeme nt, particularly in the elimination of duties and in advancing a number of important 
regulatory issues.  While differences remain in several key areas, the work of negotiators over the 
past three years has brought greater clarity to our differences and enab led both sides to explore 
potentially promising avenues for reconciling them. The United States and EU are continuing 
technical work in order to memorialize the progress achieved so far in the negotiations for 
consideration by the next U.S. administration.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 88 - 
 
  CHINA  
Report by the Se cretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Questions 1 -5  
Page 8, Para 5  
Negotiations on the Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement were concluded in October 2015 
and the Agreement signed in February 2016, but ratification is still  pending. The Un ited States is 
actively engaged in negotiations to liberalize trade further, notably in the form of the 
Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).  
1. U.S. President -elect Donald Trump said that he will issue an executive order to withdraw 
from the TPP on the first day that he is in office. In the U.S., what is the legal status of a trade 
agreement already signed but not yet ratified? What is the role of the U.S. President in the 
ratification process of a regional trade agr eement, and what is the legal effect of the role?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
2. If the U.S. withdraws from the TPP, will the o riginal policies or commitments between the 
U.S. and the other TPP members, particularly policies on cross -border free data flow, remain in 
effect?  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
3. Donald Trump 's policies are casting shadows over the prospect of the TPP, NAFTA and the 
negotiations of many bilateral trade agreements. How does the U.S. view and assess the resulting 
effect on global t rade and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core? How would the 
US comment on the potential impact on the open trade policy of America?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Members hip informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
4. How would US comment on FTAAP and RCEP?  
RESPONSE: There is no FTAAP to join. FTAAP is an aspirational goal of a free trade area inspired 
by APEC, a non -negotiating forum. FTAAP is not a separately n egotiated FTA but is to be built on 
high-standard, comprehensive FTAs that address so -called next generation trade and investment 
issues. With respect to RCEP, we recognize that other WTO Members are pursuing bilateral and 
regional trade liberalization ini tiatives and, like other Members, await the results of that 
negotiation.  
5. Is there any intention for U.S. to join RCEP and FTAAP?  
RESPONSE: There is no FTAAP to join. With respect to RCEP, we remind Members that TPRs are 
retrospective reviews. We look forwa rd to keeping the Membership informed as the new 
Administration comes into place.  
Question 6  
Page 9, Para 12  
The investigations initiated during the period were mainly concentrated in the steel industry. The 
average duration of an AD measure in place at t he end of 2015 was seven years. There were 
60 countervailing duty (CVD) investigations initiated between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2016. A 
total of 69 CVD orders were in place in late June 2016.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 89 - 
 
  6. Iron and steel products account for a small proportion of U. S. trade, but constitute the 
targets of the most U.S. AD investigations. Is the U.S. government overprotecting its iron and 
steel industry? What 's the American take on the relationship between the abuse of trade remedy 
measures and the international overca pacity of steel and iron?  
RESPONSE: The United States disagrees with China 's characterization. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual determination of whether dumping exists and whether 
such dumped imports have caused, or threa ten to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. 
Similarly, any decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a factual 
determination of whether countervailable subsidies exists and whether such subsidized imports 
have caused, or threat en to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. Where dumped or 
subsidized imports, and material injury caused by those impo rts have been found, the 
United  States will impose an antidumping or countervailing duty measure, as applicable, and as 
permitt ed under WTO rules, including the AD and SCM Agreements.  
Questions 7 -11  
Page 10, Para.15  
Reform of the U.S. export control system continues. The aim of the Export Control Reform (ECR) 
Initiative is to achieve a reallocation of resources to improve control s on the more sensitive items. 
Fully implemented, the new export control system should be based on a unified control list, a 
single licensing agency, an integrated information technology platform for licensing and 
enforcement, and a single enforcement coor dination centre. The United States lifted an effective 
ban on exports of crude oil in December 2015. Following authorizations by the Department of 
Energy, the first major shipment of liquefied natural gas from the United States took place in 
February 2016.  
7. What impact will the lifting of its 40 -year ban on exports of crude oil by the US have on the 
global economy?  
RESPONSE:  The U.S. Energy Information Administration has issued a study on the effects of 
removing restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports. The re port examined the implications of removing 
current restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports for the price of domestic and global marker crude oil 
streams, gasoline prices, domestic crude oil production, domestic refining activity, and trade in 
crude oil and petroleum products. The report can be viewed at : 
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/crude -exports/ . 
8. Please provide further information on the ban -lifting on exports of crude oil and appr oving 
the export of liquefied natural gas. Please provide information on the administrative regulations, 
the procedures for approval and the qualifications for importers and exporters on the export of 
crude oil and natural gas.  
RESPONSE: On crude oil, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015 terminated licensing 
requirements for exports of U.S. crude oil exports with immediate effect. Most exports of crude oil 
may now be made as NLR (no license required). Under the statute, export licensing may only be 
re-imposed if the President determines that: 1) the export of crude has caused sustained material 
oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices significantly above world market levels that are directly 
attributable to the export of crude oil produced in the United States; and 2) those supply 
shortages or price increases have caused or are likely to cause sustained material adverse 
employment effects in the United States. Exporters should be aware that exports to embargoed or 
sanctioned countries or persons, i ncluding those listed in parts 744 and 746 of the Export 
Administration Regulations (EAR) and persons subject to a denial of export privileges, continue to 
require authorization. The Department of Commerce 's Bureau of Industry Security amended the 
EAR to r eflect this change on May 5, 2015 in the Federal Register 81 FR 28483.  
9. Are FTA partner countries and non -FTA countries treated differently in the export of LNG? If 
so, please explain the difference.  
RESPONSE: The Department of Energy 's authority to license  U.S. natural gas imports and exports 
arises from the Natural Gas Act (NGA). By law, under 15 U.S.C § 71 7c, applications to export 
U.S. natural gas to countries with which the United States has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 90 - 
 
  requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas are deemed to be consistent with the public 
interest, and the Secretary of Energy must grant authorizations without modification or delay. The 
NGA directs DOE to evaluate applications to export U.S. natural gas to non -FTA countries. Un der 
the NGA, DOE is required to grant applications for authorizations to export U.S. natural gas to non -
FTA countries, unless the Department finds that the proposed exports will not be consistent with 
the public interest, or where trade is explicitly prohi bited by law or policy.  
10. What are the specific contents of the U.S. export control reform? Has the U.S. published the 
unified control list ? Are  there any changes to the list? What are these changes? Are the 
cybersecurity -related products and services includ ed in the list?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. has not published a single control list, as this would require legislation. The 
Department of State and Department of Commerce have published a series of final rules amending 
the USML and the CCL to move less sensitive mi litary items to the CCL. The Federal Register 
Notices for the proposed and final rules amending the USML and the CCL are available at:  
https://bis.doc.gov/index.ph p/documents/pdfs/1566 -ecr-dashboard -10-12-16/file . Additional 
information about Export Control Reform can be found online at : http://export.gov/ecr . 
11. What are the specific functions of the integrated information techno logy platform for 
licensing and enforcement ? Do enterprises and the public have access to it?  
RESPONSE : The integrated information technology platform has many functions, from staffing 
and processing license applications for review, to providing the public  information on the status of 
their license under review. Enterprises and the public do not interface directly with the integrated 
information technology platform.  
Question 12  
Page 10, Para.16  
The reauthorization of EXIM Bank was accompanied by a mandate f or the United States to initiate 
multilateral negotiations to end export credit financing by 2025.  
12. With respect to providing direct loans and loan guarantees, do the EXIM Bank  of the U.S. 
and OPIC have overlapping functions? What are the differences betwee n the two institutions?  
RESPONSE: The basic mission of OPIC is to facilitate investments into emerging/developing 
countries. The basic mission of EXIM is to facilitate U.S. exports of American goods and services 
where there are financial gaps or foreign of ficial competition. While very occasionally both EXIM 
and OPIC may be supporting different parts of the same overall project, there is no overlap of 
functions.  
Question 13  
Page 10, Para.17  
The Small Business Administration continues to activel y support sma ll businesses and 
entrepreneurs, administering several programs offering export  financing to small businesses 
exporting or planning to export. Legislation passed in December  2015 simplified the taxation of 
small businesses and made certain tax cuts permane nt for them.  
13. What are the specific supporting measures provided by the Small Business Administration to 
small businesses? Are the programs offering export financing t o small businesses engaging in 
export or planning to export suspected of violating the ru les of Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures?  
RESPONSE: The SBA guarantees bank loans made to small businesses for a variety of purposes 
from business start -up to working capital to real estate financing. SBA charges a guaranty fee to 
the borr ower, which can make such financing significantly higher than conventional commercial 
financing. Therefore, SBA financing does not provide a "benefit " as the term has been interpreted 
under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 91 - 
 
  Question 1 4 
Page 11, Para.20  
"In the 2016 Report, 34 U.S. trading partners were listed: 11 on the Priority Watch List and 23 on 
the Watch List. " 
14. The 2016 Special 301 Report places China on the Priority Watch List. Please provide more 
detailed and specific informatio n on claimed IPR infringement of China.  
RESPONSE: Detailed and specific information on IPR infringement in China is found in the seven 
pages of the Report expressly addressing China (Section II), and there are numerous additional 
details and specifics as t o China included in Section I. Concerns of the United States have also 
been identified in comments of the United States on draft China measures and in bilateral 
engagements, including with respect to the elements of an intellectual property work plan .  
Question 15  
Page 12, para 23  
In February 2015, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) adopted a new Open Internet 
Order, which reclassified both fixed and mobile broadband internet a ccess services as 
telecommunications services. As a result, broadband int ernet access service providers are now 
subject to some of the same rules  that apply to common carriers, including a prohibition on 
unjust or unreasonable practices or unreasonable discrimination.  
15. The new Open Internet Order means that the broadband intern et access service providers 
will be considered as providing public services hence subject to stricter regulations. What do "some 
of the same rules " specifically include? Are there any additional restrictions on the access of 
foreign broadband operators?  
RESPONSE: The Open Internet Order applies the following provisions of Title II of the 
Communications Act to providers of internet access services: section 201 (duties of every common 
carrier; no unjust or unreasonable charges or practices for or in connectio n with service), section 
202 (no unreasonable discrimination in charges or practices for or in connection with service), 
section 208 (enforcement procedures), section 222 (Protecting Consumer Privacy), section 
225/255/251(a)(2) (Ensuring Disabilities Acces s), section 224 (Ensuring Infrastructure Access), 
and part of section 254 (Promoting Universal Broadband).  
The Commission forbore from applying the remaining 30 statutory provisions of Title II that might 
otherwise have applied. The Open Internet Order do es not impose any additional restrictions on 
foreign broadband operators.  
Questions 16 -17 
Page 12, para 24  
"The general framework for the transport sector in the United States remained largely  unchanged 
during the period under review… " 
16. In the "open skies agreements" (OSAs), what are the terms on market access, commercial 
opportunities and fair competition?  
RESPONSE: Open Skies agreements provide international market access up to the fifth -freedom 
for combination services and up to the seventh -freedom for all-cargo services. Provisions for 
cabotage are not included in Open Skies agreements. Please see Article 2 of the Open Skies model 
text available at : http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/1 14866.htm . For the terms related to 
commercial opportunities and fair competition, please see our model text Article 8 (Commercial 
Opportunities) and Article 11 (Fair Competition).  
17. Shall the U.S. also try to expand and open its markets to the WTO members that are not 
parties to the OSAs but have signed other bilateral agreements? Within the WTO framework and in 
the principles of free trade and fair competition, Shall the US timely negotiate, according to the WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 92 - 
 
  members ' demand for expanding flight rights, ove r updating terms in the existing bilateral 
agreement that no longer meet the market development needs?  
RESPONSE: We cannot opine on policies that might be developed during the next administration. 
However, the Obama Administration commitment to Open -Skies policy has not wa vered.  
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
Question 18  
Page 19, table 1.2  
18. According to table 1.2, in 2015, the U.S. exports were down 8%, imports down 5%, and 
trade deficit rebounded by 1%, and according to the current account balance for the first half of 
2016, the trade deficit was still expanding. Since November 2016, the U.S. dollar have shown a 
continuous and strong trend of appreciation, will this further enlarge the trade deficit in the future? 
Please comment on its impact on the stability of world economy and the development of global 
trade.  
RESPONSE: We will make no comment on the dollar. We have continued to urge other countries 
to use all policy tools to strengthen global demand. We continue to work for a stronger and more 
robust global adj ustment process that is symmetric and protective of global growth.   
Questions 19 -20  
(Page 23, Para.1.34) Furthermore, faster growing services imports added to the weaker growth in 
the services trade surplus.  
(Page 24, Para.1.36) Canada, Japan, China, Swit zerland, and Mexico are also important services 
trade partners for the U.S.  
19. Do the services imports contain medical services, especially service of Traditional Chinese 
Medicine (TCM)?  
RESPONSE: Imports of services related to Traditional Chinese Medicine ar e captured within our 
services statistics. Depending on how they are acquired, they would be represented in health 
related travel, travel for business, or other business services.  
20. In the trade in services between U.S. and China, how much percentage is take n by TCM 
service trade?  
RESPONSE: Due to TCM services trade being grouped in larger categories, it is impossible to 
estimate the share of U.S. -China services trade that is accounted for by TCM trade.  
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
Question 21  
Page 27, para  2.6 
"…In order to achieve these objectives, the U.S. is actively enga ged in negotiations within the WTO 
framework (e.g. towards an Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA))… " 
21. Has the U.S. conducted environmental impact assessment on the EGA? If so, please prov ide 
details.  
RESPONSE: The United States has carried out an interim environmental review of the EGA. USTR 
provided public notice of the interim environmental review and requested public comments on it. 
See 81 Federal Register 73191 (Oct. 24, 2016). The int erim environmental review is available at: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/EGA -Interim -Review -final.pdf . 
Question 22 -23 
Page 28, Box 2.1  
"…v. to ensure that trade and en vironmental policies are mutu ally supportive and to seek to 
protect and preserve the environment and enhance the internat ional means of doing so, while 
optimizing the use of the world's resources;  (…) WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 93 - 
 
  vii. to seek provisions in trade agreements under which  parties to those agreements ensure that 
they do not weaken or reduce the protections afforded in domestic environmental and labour laws 
as an encouragement for trade… " 
22. What measures has the U.S. taken to achieve the above t wo objectives set in the 2015 TP A? 
RESPONSE: The environmental and labor objectives set out in the 2015 TPA are longstanding 
objectives that have underpinned U.S. trade policy for over a decade. The United States works to 
address environmental and labor challenges through a range of mult ilateral, regional, and bilateral 
trade agreements and initiatives, and has achieved the TPA 's primary objectives on these issues 
by negotiating ambitious commitments  in the environment and labor chapters of new trade 
agreements. For environment, this incl udes ground -breaking commitments to  combat wildlife 
trafficking  and illegal logging,  protect our oceans, and implement the  Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in the  Trans -Pacific Partnership 
(TPP). For l abor, the United States negotiated the strongest labor provisions of any trade 
agreement in history in the TPP, including fully -enforceable commitments on freedom of 
association, collective bargaining, and prohibitions and protections on child labor, force d labor, and 
employment discrimination. The TPP also includes ground -breaking labor commitments to 
discourage trade produced by forced labor, and that Parties not weaken or reduce labor 
protections in export processing zones.  
Recent environmental measures and efforts include working with other U.S. Government agencies 
to prioritize anti -wildlife trafficking and related conservation objectives in environmental 
cooperation projects and support implementation of CITES obligations in the environment chapters 
of existing free trade agreements. For example, U.S. capacity building efforts supported wildlife 
trafficking efforts in Peru and in Central America and the Dominican Republic through free trade 
agreement work plans. The United States has engaged extensively  with partner countries, most 
recently key demand and transit countries in the Asia -Pacific region, to coordinate cooperation and 
prioritize activities to combat and cooperate to prevent wildlife trafficking.  
Through the Forest Annex of the U.S. -Peru Trade  Promotion Agreement, the United States has 
engaged extensively with Peru to promote sustainable management of natural resources, 
strengthen forest sector governance, and combat illegal logging and associated trade, including 
through capacity building acti vities.  
23. Can the measures taken help achieve the above objectives? Has the implementation effect 
been analyzed?  
RESPONSE: Monitoring environmental commitments in existing trade agreements and evaluating 
the impacts of trade agreements and promoting sustain able management of natural resources 
through other trade -related initiatives and fora is an essential component of the U.S. trade policy. 
The United States has had longstanding success in achieving TPA objectives and publicly reports 
the impacts and result s achieved under existing trade agreements. The United States also 
conducts thorough environmental reviews  to evaluate the positive and negative environmental 
impacts of trade agreements under negotiation.  An interim environmental review of the TPP, which 
provides a preliminary assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the agreement, has 
been released and can be viewed here: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP%20Interim%20Review%20 -
%20final%20for%20posting%20 -%208.22.13.pdf . 
The United States has also regularly monitored labor commitments under existing trade 
agreements and actively engaged with trade partner countries to advance the Labor Chapter 
objectives of the agreements. As with environmental issues, the United States has a history of 
success in achieving TPA objectives on labor, and issues public reports that describe and analyze 
ongoing efforts to promote labor righ ts through trade agreements. A joint report of the United 
States Trade Representative and U.S. Department of Labor from 2015, entitled "Standing Up for 
Workers ", contains a detailed analysis of the implementation of the labor objectives in trade 
agreements , and can be viewed here:  
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR%20DOL%20Trade%20 -%20Labor%20Report%20 -
%20Final.pdf . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Question 24 -25 
Page 29, Par a 2.13  
"…A trade advisory committee system channels input from U.S. public and private sector interests 
on trade policy and trade negotiating objectives…The system includes three tiers:…(ii) five policy 
advisory committees covering policy issues concerning  agriculture, Africa, state and local 
government, labour, and environment… " 
24. What roles do the EPA and the USTR respectively play in the Trade and Environment 
Advisory Committee?  
RESPONSE: USTR is solely responsible for administering the Trade and Environm ent Advisory 
Committee. USTR will share the advice received from the committee with other relevant agencies 
interested in the subject matter.  
25. How does the Trade and Environment Advisory Committee operate?  
RESPONSE: The Trade and Environment Advisory Commit tee provides USTR with policy advice on 
issues arising in connection with the development, implementation and administration of the trade 
policy of the United States that involve the environment. The TEPAC meets as needed, depending 
on various factors such  as the level of activity of trade negotiations and the needs of the USTR.  
Questions 26 -27 
Page 30, Para 2.20  
"…The U.S. and 11 other parties signed the Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement on 4 
February 2016...Several provisions are "new" in the sens e that they have not been included in 
other U.S. FTAs, such as provisions on … environmental conservation… " 
26. Why are these new provisions on environmental conservation included in TPP?  
RESPONSE: The new provisions on environmental conservation in the TPP —notably new 
commitments to protect marine life from illegal fishing and harmful fisheries subsidies and combat 
wildlife trafficking in species protected under CITES as well as any other species that has been 
taken or traded illegally, regardless of the sourc e country —are targeted at global environmental 
challenges that are particularly critical in the Asia -Pacific region. Major environmental challenges 
and threats, such as wildlife trafficking, illegal logging and illegal fishing, threaten natural 
resources a nd legitimate businesses.  
27. What potential impact will these new provisions on environmental conservation in the TPP 
have on trade and the environment?  
RESPONSE: Sustainable forest management and ensuring legal trade, can protect threatened and 
endangered sp ecies as well as the livelihoods of communities and legitimate business that depend 
on legally harvested timber to meet the demands of consumers. IUU fishing undermines efforts to 
sustainably manage fish stocks and protect marine species, like sea turtles.  It also hurts legitimate 
fishers and businesses, estimated to drive global economic losses in the billions each year. 
Subsidies to international fishing fleets exacerbate this problem, encouraging overfishing and 
further depleting global fishery resources . Combatting these practices will help protect ocean 
resources and the livelihoods of fishers and their communities in the Asia -Pacific. Enhanced 
conservation measures and protections, as well as requirements to effectively enforce 
environmental protection s and engage in enhanced regional cooperation will help protect 
endangered species. Loss of these species, and other overexploited and illegally taken species, 
could otherwise have profound impacts on the stability of ecosystems and even threaten human 
health. 
Questions 28 -29 
Page 33, Para 2.34  
…The renewed AGOA was also enhanced by promoting greater regional integration by expanding 
rule of origin and encouraging AGOA beneficiary countries to develop AGOA utilization strategies. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 95 - 
 
  ……The textile provisions in  AGOA apply specific apparel rules of origin….…Non -oil imports from 
AGOA beneficiaries reached U.S.  $4.1 billion, up from U.S.$1.4 billion in 2001. The leading AGOA 
exporters were South Africa, Angola, Chad, Nigeria, and Kenya. …  
28. How was the rules of origi n for textile and apparel items updated in the the AGOA renewed 
in 2015? What considerations are behind such updates?  
RESPONSE:  In the 2015 extension of AGOA, while no substantive changes were made specific to 
textiles and apparel, the rules of origin for  the program in general were updated to allow producers 
to include the direct costs of processing operations performed in one or more beneficiary sub -
Saharan African countries, or former beneficiaries, in achieving the required minimum 35 percent 
local val ue content. The reasons for this change were to simplify the rules of origin for AGOA and 
encourage further regional integration.  
29. After more than a decade 's implementation of AGOA, how are the beneficiary African 
countries performing in their exports of te xtile and apparel products to the U.S.? Can the top three 
beneficiary African countries be listed? Are the desired effects of the Act achieved?  
RESPONSE:  AGOA has contributed to industrial development and export diversification in 
beneficiary countries. Si nce AGOA was first enacted in 2001, U.S. imports of textiles and apparel 
from AGOA beneficiaries grew from $348 million in 2001 to $988 million in 2015. The top three 
beneficiary suppliers of textiles and apparel to the U.S. in 2015 were Kenya ($367 millio n), 
Lesotho ($299 million), and Mauritius ($207 million).  
Questions 30 -32 
Page 34, Para. 2.40  
2.40. The foreign investment regime in the U.S. remained unc hanged during the period under 
review. The regime is generally open and liberal, although some restric tions apply, primarily for 
prudential or national security reasons (Table 2.2). Restrictions on  foreign ownership principally 
apply in specific areas such as: atomic energy operations; oil pip eline right of way; the mining of 
coal and certain minerals, or petroleum exploration; and certai n fishing operations. The U.S. 
accords national treatment to foreign investment as a general rul e; notable limitations include 
eligibility for public funding of research and development (R&D), e mergency loans to agriculture , 
and loans, guarantees, and political risk insurance for investment  
30. "The regime is generally open and liberal, although some restrictions apply, primarily for 
prudential or national security reasons ". Please clarify what do "prudential reasons " refer to.  
RESPONSE: The United States is not aware of which "prudential " reasons the WTO Secretariat 
intended to refer to in paragraph 2.40.  
31. Are the restrictions listed above only at the level of the Federal Government? If so, please 
list detailed restrictions at the state level.  
RESPONSE: The measures listed in Table 2.2 are at the level of the Federal Government. Laws at 
the U.S. state level generally apply equally to all persons residing in a state and to all companies 
or other entities doing business in a stat e's territory. Where they exist, most differences in the 
treatment of domestic and foreign investors at the state level are minor and can frequently be 
eliminated through incorporation in the particular state. A few U.S. states restrict foreign 
ownership o f land. The U.S. GATS schedule provides detail on such measures.  
32. Are there further opening -up measures at the state level in the U.S.? If so, what are they?  
RESPONSE: The United States is not aware of any significant revision to measures at the U.S. 
state level that pertain to foreign investment during the period of review.  
Question 33  
Page 34, Para. 2.41  
The International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act requires foreign direct investment 
(FDI) into the United States to be reported to the releva nt authorities for analytical and statistical 
purposes…  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 96 - 
 
  33. The International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act established a foreign 
investment reporting system. How to supervise the implementati on of the system? What is the 
legal liability of a for eign enterprise for not reporting the information?  
RESPONSE: The data collection requirements of the International Investment and Trade in 
Services Survey Act are implemented through quarterly and annual sample surveys, as well as 
benchmark surveys conduct ed every five years and a survey covering new foreign investments, 
administered by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. The surveys are promulgated through a process of public notice and comment, 
pursuant to U.S. l aw and as part of the Department of Commerce's continuing efforts to reduce 
paperwork and respondent burden. Survey requirements apply to U.S. individuals and enterprises, 
in two situations: (1) a foreign person owns, directly or indirectly, 10 per cent or  more of the 
voting securities in a U.S. business enterprise or real estate held for other than personal use; or 
(2) a U.S. person owns, directly or indirectly, 10 per cent or more of the voting securities in a 
foreign business enterprise. Foreign entities  are not subject to the law, but may choose to 
complete the survey forms on behalf of the relevant U.S. person. Penalties for willful failure to 
respond to the survey are set out in the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act 
(civil penal ties of up to $44,539 and criminal penalties of up to $10,000 and one year in prison).  
Questions 34 -39 
Page 34, Para. 2.42  
2.42. Foreign investment is generally not subject to review. However, the President may conduct 
national security reviews of "covered  transactions" through the Committee on Foreign  Investment 
in the U.S. (CFIU.S.). ……The CFIU.S. statute and accompanying regulations do not limit review to 
certain industries or types of activity. CFIU.S. has indicated that, as it does not wish to 
unnecess arily impede the flow of foreign investment, the statute is to be implemented "only 
insofar as necessary to protect the national security ", and "in a manner fully consistent with 
the international obligations of the U.S."  
34. During the last review, when respo nding to China 's question, U.S. mentioned that "When a 
transaction poses a national security risk, CFIU.S. works to resolve it as expeditiously as possible, 
including through targeted mitigation rather than prohibition whenever possible. ". Could U.S. 
please further elaborate on the way CFIU.S. work to resolve a transaction which poses a national 
security risk? What are the procedures? Will the enterprises involved be informed of the process?  
RESPONSE: CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense P roduction 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 amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 
800. The CFIUS Annual Report describes covered tr ansactions reviewed by the Committee, 
perceived adverse effects of select covered transactions, and particular mitigation measures. See 
www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -
investment/Pages/cfius -reports.aspx . 
35. The U.S. claims that it reviews  foreign investment mainly due to prudence and national 
security concerns, and has no intention to intervene in the normal business activities. However for 
a long period of time, most of the reviews conducted by CFIU.S. have transparency problems. Is 
any agency entitled to propose to CFIU.S. the review of a busi ness activity on the pretext of 
"national security "? Are there scenarios where certain business competitors try to take advantage 
of the CFIU.S. mechanism to impede transnational business cooperation? Please provide 
explanation.  
RESPONSE: CFIUS is a nation al security process, not a business competition process, and does 
not operate on pretexts. It operates pursuant to section 721 o f the Defense Production Act 
of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) 
(section 72 1) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as  amended, and regulations at 
31 C.F.R. Part 800.  The CFIUS Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the 
Committee, perceived adverse effects of select covered transactions, and particular mi tigation 
measures. See www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -
center/inter national/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -reports.aspx . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 97 - 
 
  36. In recent years, there have been increasing number of cases that CFIU.S. paid close 
attention to and investigated. Some Chinese enterprises said that they were surprised and 
confused when their busines s projects were investigated by the CFIU.S (eg. the case of "Sany 
Heavy Industry buying the U.S. wind farm at Butter Creek " in 2012). Please explain the reason for 
the increasing number of cases year after year. Does the U.S. believe it is necessary to tak e 
measures to create a more predictable policy environment?  
RESPONSE: The number of cases CFIUS faces depends on the number of cases notified. CFIUS 
operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the 
Foreign Investmen t and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented 
by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.  The CFIUS Annual 
Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, perceived adverse ef fects of 
select covered transactions, and particular mitigation measures. See : www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  
and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -
reports.aspx . 
37. What are the criteria for "national security "? Is cybersecurity included? If so, which category 
in table 2.2 shall cybersecurity be classified?  
RESPONSE: CFIUS operates 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 amended, an d regulations at 31 C.F.R. 
Part 800. FINSA includes a description of national security factors to be considered. The CFIUS 
Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, perceived adverse 
effects of select covered transactions, and particular mitig ation measures. See : 
www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/interna tional/foreign -
investment/Pages/cfius -reports.aspx . 
38. Please specify the scenarios "necessary to protect the national security " in cyber space.  
RESPONSE: CFIUS operates 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 amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 
800. FINSA includes a description of national security factors to be considered. The CFIUS Annual  
Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, perceived adverse effects of 
select covered transactions, and particular mitigation measures. See : www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  
and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -
reports.aspx . 
39. Could the U.S. please specify "the international obligation s of the U.S. "? Do "the 
international obligations " here mean the obligations under the international law and international 
treaties? Do they include the obligations provided for in various statements, communiques or 
self-disciplined commitments?  
RESPONSE: The international obligations of the United States include treaty obligations and other 
obligations under international law.  
Questions 40 -43  
Page 35, para 2.43  
By statute, CFIUS may negotiate, enter into or impose, and enforce any agreement or condition 
with any party to a covered transaction in order to mitigate any threat to the national security of 
the United States that arises as a result of the covered transaction. The President can block a 
transaction when he determines that the transaction threaten s to impair the national security. 
According to the authorities, in practice, when an investment poses a national security risk, the 
United States addresses the risk as expeditiously as possible, including through targeted mitigation 
arrangements rather th an prohibition whenever reasonably possible.  
40. The U.S. claims that its administrative process is transparent and accessible to the public. 
However, requirements on national security review in the Foreign Investment and National Security 
Act are too general.  Moreover, CFIU.S. has not disclosed any basis or standards for assessment, WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 98 - 
 
  and has not provided the public with objective and measurable standards for determining if 
national security is jeopardized; CFIU.S. only informs the reviewed enterprises of the re sults but 
not the detailed process of the review; and for transactions rejected, no reason or basis thereof is 
provided. Please explain why.  
RESPONSE: CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as 
amended by the Foreign I nvestment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and 
as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800. 
FINSA includes a description of national security factors to be considered. The CFIUS Annual 
Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, perceived adverse effects of 
select covered transactions, and particular mitigation measures. See : www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  
and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -investment/Pages/cfius -
reports.aspx . 
41. What are the procedures and process of CFIU.S. ' review?  
RESPO NSE: CFIUS operates 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 amended, and regulations at 31 C .F.R. Part 
800. The CFIUS Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, 
perceived adverse effects of select covered transactions, and particular mitigation measures. See : 
www.treasury.g ov/CFIUS  and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -
investment/Pages/cfius -reports.aspx . 
42. Does US have any plan to im prove the transparency of the review process and relevant 
decision? How can the right of foreign companies to challenge review decisions be fully ensured?  
RESPONSE: The CFIUS Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, 
perceived  adverse effects of select covered transactions, and particular mitigation measures. See 
www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  and https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/international/foreign -
investment/Pages/cfius -reports.aspx . 
43. How can companies deemed to conduct a "covered transaction " file a complaint against the 
decision? How will the US deal with these kind s of complaints?  
RESPONSE: CFIUS operates 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 amended, a nd regulations at 31 C.F.R. 
Part 800. Treasury regularly meets with companies to discuss particular transactions. The CFIUS 
Annual Report describes covered transactions reviewed by the Committee, perceived adverse 
effects of select covered transactions, an d particular mitigation measures. See : 
www.treasury.gov/CFIUS  and https://www.treasury.gov/resou rce-center/international/foreign -
investment/Pages/cfius -reports.aspx . 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
Question 44  
Page 37, para 3.2  
"Thus, the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) was es tablished formally in February 2014 
to provide str ategic leadership and policy guidance as the deadline for completion of the 
single -window International Trade Data System (ITDS) is nearing (31 December 2016). " 
44. Please provide details on the ITDS. How will its establishment impact import and export 
clearan ce and related procedures?  
RESPONSE: Through the International Trade Data System (ITDS), the government is establishing 
a single window through which traders may submit data required by government agencies for 
international trade transactions. The technolo gy backbone for ITDS is the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE). The expected benefits of ITDS include: reducing or eliminating paper forms, 
which will reduce handling costs to the filers, CBP, and other government agencies; more quickly WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 99 - 
 
  introducing leg itimate goods into commerce, resulting in greater costs savings for both the 
government and the private sector; improving targeting, based on a risk -management approach 
with access to electronic data; improving policy formulation and review by providing mo re accurate 
and complete international trade data, more sophisticated access to this data, and improved 
timeliness for decision makers; and enhancing the ability of federal agencies with border 
responsibilities to work with the trade to improve compliance.  Please see the following link for 
more details:  https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/itds_capab_2.pdf . 
Questions 45 -51 
Page 39, 3.1.1.1.3 Advance Ruling  
45. Advanc e ruling requests pertaining to valuation or carriers need to be filed by letter, and 
those related to classification and place of origin can be filed online. What are the reasons for such 
arrangement by the CBP?  
RESPONSE: Generally, all advance ruling req uests may be filed by letter directly with Regulations 
and Rulings (RR), which is a part of CBP 's Office of Trade in CBP Headquarters Washington, DC.  
Most advance rulings on tariff classification are issued by the by the National Commodity Specialist 
Division (NCSD) of Regulations and Rulings in New York, NY. In general the ruling requests 
considered by the NCSD are those which may be issued within 30 days of receipt of all necessary 
information. The NCSD has an eRulings system which permits many of its ru lings to be filed on -
line.  
Rulings pertaining to valuation and carriers are issued by RR in CBP Headquarters. Classification 
matters that require more time due to the number or complexity of the issues or requests for 
confidential treatment are also issue d by HQ. Please see the following link for more information 
concerning the U.S. rulings program: 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cbp_rulings_prog_3.pd f. 
46. Must all the advance rulings made by the CBP be published? Have all of them been published 
already? Does the CBP have the choice to publish them or not? If so, what is the basis for such 
choice?  
RESPONSE: By law all advance rulings must be published. T hey are available on the internet on 
the Customs Ruling On -Line Search System (CROSS) at : https://rulings.cbp.gov/ . 
47. Does the CBP publish the full text of the advance ruling or only certain chosen elements 
thereof? I f the CBP has the right to choose, what is the basis for a choice?  
RESPONSE: CBP publishes the full text of an advance ruling, except for any material treated as 
privileged or confidential information.  
48. Does the advance ruling on valuation involve procedura l issues or substantive  issues of the 
valuation?  
RESPONSE: Advance rulings on valuation may involve both procedural issues and substantive 
issues of valuation.  
49. On whom and which batch of goods is the advance ruling binding? How long is its term of 
validity ? 
RESPONSE: An advance ruling is binding on the particular transaction or issue described in the 
ruling issued by CBP. Additionally, the principle established in an advance ruling may be cited as 
authority in transactions involving the same circumstances. A ruling 's effective date is the date on 
which the ruling is issued, and it remains valid until modified or revoked.  
50. Are there any cases in which an advance ruling is repealed or revised? In what 
circumstances can an advance ruling be repealed or revised?  Who can be applicants for such 
repeals or revisions? What procedures should be followed?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 100 - 
 
  RESPONSE: An advance ruling may be revoked or modified by CBP pursuant to its modification 
and revocation process described in 19 CFR §177.12, or in very rare instanc es through CBP 's 
publication of a change of practice as described in 19 CFR §177.10(e).  
Under the procedures set forth in 19 CFR §177.12, CBP may issue an interpretive ruling to modify 
or revoke an existing ruling if CBP finds that the existing ruling to be in error or not in accord with 
the current views of CBP. In addition, CBP 's position may be modified by: legislation or issuance of 
a Presidential Proclamation or Executive Order; a judicial decision; publication of a decision in the 
Federal Register as  the result of a petition by a domestic interested party; and subsequent 
regulatory changes.  
Please see the following link for more information: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?collectionCode=CFR&browsePath=Title+19
%2FChapter+I%2 FPart+177%2FSubpart+A%2FSection+177.12&granuleId=CFR -2003-title19 -
vol2-sec177 -12&packageId=CFR -2003-title19 -vol2&collapse=true&fromBrowse=true .  
51. If an applicant does not make customs declaration according to an advance ruling, what 
legal consequences shou ld he take? If an applicant thinks that the advance ruling is illegal or 
unreasonable, are there any channels for remedies?  
RESPONSE: If an applicant makes entry that is not in accordance with an advance ruling CBP 
officials may reject the entry or apply a  penalty. However, the course of action taken depends on 
the facts and circumstances presented.  
An applicant who disagrees with CBP 's advance ruling may request reconsideration of the ruling. In 
addition, a person may protest a decision by CBP applying the  ruling at the CBP field office, and 
seek further review by CBP headquarters if the criteria for such review, set forth in CBP 
regulations, are met. In addition, any person whose protest has been denied by CBP in whole or in 
part may seek judicial review a t the United States Court of International Trade.  
Question 52  
Page 40, para.3.14  
A voluntary public -private partnership programme focusing on cargo security, C -TPAT was 
established in 2001 and codified into law through the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act 
of 2006. C -TPAT candidates, e.g. importers, exporters, freight forwarders, manufacturers and 
customs brokers, submit applications online through the C -TPAT Portal. … it had five ongoing 
mutual recognition projects (China, Peru, India, Urugua y, and Brazil), and eight technical 
assistance projects.  
52. Please provide more details on C -TPAT, such as its purpose, functions and how it works. the 
US requires the carriers to provide documents related to anti -terrorist and safety declaration, such 
as AM S (American Anti -Terrorist Manifest System) and ISF (Import Safety Declaration), which may 
increase exporters ' cost. Do such requirements violate the spirit of voluntary public -private 
partnership programme focusing on cargo security ？Will the U.S. consider simplifying such 
requirements to enhance efficiency?  
RESPONSE: Through the C -TPAT program, CBP works with the trade community to strengthen 
international supply chains and improve United States border security. When an entity joins C-
TPAT, participants agree to an agreement is made to work with CBP to protect the supply chain, 
identify security gaps, and implement specific security measures and best practices, and. C -TPAT 
Partners enjoy a variety of benefits, including taking an acti ve role in working closer with the U.S. 
Government in its war against terrorism, and because they are considered to be of low risk, they 
are less likely to be examined at a U.S. port of entry. For more detailed information about the 
program, its applicatio n process, and the benefits please see : https://www.cbp.gov/border -
security/ports -entry/cargo -security/c -tpat-customs -trade-partnership -against -terrorism . 
Questions 53 -54 
Page 42, para 3.1.1.4 Bonded Warehouses  
53. What documents or materials are needed to apply for setting up a bonded warehouse?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 101 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Application materials and documents needed to set up a bonded warehouse can be  
found in Title 19.2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (19 CFR §19.2). A link to this 
provision can be found here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg /CFR-2011-title19 -vol1/pdf/CFR -
2011-title19 -vol1-sec19 -2.pdf.  
54. How does U.S. Customs administrate the storage of hazardous material in bonded 
warehouses?  
RESPONSE:  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP ), regulates the storage of hazardous material in bonded warehouses. EPA has 
issued regulations that require a high level of compliance by warehouse operators regarding 
storage of hazardous material. More information can be found at the following link:  
https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/labs/hazmat . 
Question 55  
Page 42, para.3.24  
Foreign as well as domestic goods may be brought into the zones and subjected to assemb ly, 
manufacturing, or processing or be held for storage or exhibition purposes.  
55. Is security review needed for goods entering into the foreign trade zones?  What are the 
specific procedures and mechanism for such review?  
RESPONSE: The process of security scr eening is the same whether the shipment is entering into 
the commerce of the United States or into a foreign trade zone (FTZ). Pre -arrival screening 
information is received via an advance electronic manifest. For containerized ocean freight, an 
Importer Se curity Filing is provided. For some air freight, an ACAS security filing is provided. This 
data is used to screen all cargo prior to arrival, and a determination is made to examine or allow 
movement under a bond based on that information. If the goods are entering the commerce of the 
United States, an entry is required from the importer. If a good is moved into an FTZ, commodity 
specific information, including HTS code, country of origin, and manufacturer, are provided to CBP 
prior to the movement to the FT Z. This information may be used to further refine the security 
screening as well as make admissibility determinations.  
Question 56  
Page 52, para.3.61  
"The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Treasury Department administers 
a number  of programmes involving the blocking of assets of Specially Designated Nationals and 
Blocked Persons (SDNs). " 
56. Could the U.S. please introduce the OFAC 's regulatory responsibilities on banking institutions 
and related rules and regulations.  
RESPONSE: The O ffice of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Treasury 
Department administers and enforces comprehensive and targeted economic sanctions programs 
in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. OFAC -administered 
regula tions can be found at Title 31, Chapter V of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and on 
OFAC 's website at : https://www.treasury.gov/ofac .  
Banking institutions that are U.S. persons and, in the case of sancti ons on Cuba and Iran, foreign 
entities that are owned or controlled by U.S. persons, are required to comply with OFAC -
administered rules and regulations. "U.S. persons " is generally defined as any U.S. citizen, 
wherever located, permanent resident alien, e ntity organized under the laws of the United States 
or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or a person (which 
includes individuals and entities) in the United States. Transactions with a U.S. nexus are also 
generally pro hibited, including funds transfers that are processed to or through the U.S. financial 
system.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 102 - 
 
  Questions 57 -58 
Page 53, Para 3.73  
The ITA uses two types of AD calculation methods: (i) market -economy (ME); and (ii) non market 
economy (NME). In both cases, the ITA compares prices in the U.S. to a normal value (NV). 
However, the determination of the NV varies according to whether the ITA is dealing with an ME or 
an NME.  
57. Please describe the factors considered by ITA when deciding which type of AD calculation 
method is used in a particular AD investigation. Is a NME more likely to suffer AD duties? And to 
what extent?  
RESPONSE: The AD calculation methodology to be used, as well as any results related to the 
calculation of an AD margin, depends on the facts and circumstances related to a specific 
company, industry, or country involved in a proceeding.  
58. According to Article 15 of China 's WTO Accession Protocol, the calculation method of 
adopting surrogate price in the anti -dumping investigation on China 's products  will automatically 
become invalid on December 11, 2016. Will the U.S. consider revising its related anti -dumping 
regulations, so that the anti -dumping investigations on China 's products no longer use the 
calculation method of prices in analogue countries?  
RESPONSE: The United States disagrees with China 's characterization and interpretation as to the 
effect of a specific provision in China 's Accession Protocol.  
Question 59  
Page 56, para 3.78  
59. The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015(PL114 -27) made chang es to the United States ' 
AD and CVD laws, especially regarding the "Adverse Inference ", "Material Injury " and "Particular 
Market Situation ". Has the United States collected and considered public comments during the 
process of amendment? What is the purpose  of the United States to make such changes? How will 
these changes impact the respondents?  
RESPONSE: The TPEA was passed by Congress. During congressional consideration of the TPEA, 
there were numerous opportunities for public comment, as there are for all  legislation passed by 
Congress. The United States cannot comment as to what information was collected or considered 
by Congress during this process nor to the specific intent of the legislators.  
Any impact on interested parties as a result of these legisl ative changes will vary depending on the 
facts and circumstances of a particular proceeding.  
Questions 60 -61  
Page 58, para.3.85  
As of 30  June 2016, final AD orders were applied to imports from 39 trading partners; the most 
affected was China with 102 AD orders, and Chinese Taipei and the EU with 21 each, followed by 
India (16), Japan  (15) and the Republic of Korea (14) (Table 3.7).  
60. On February 19, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a notice and decided to initiate 
the anti -dumping and countervailing i nvestigations on imports of truck and bus tires from China.  
In this case, the U.S. Department of Commerce 's decision is lack of factual and legal basis; in 
particular, serious problems existed in the applicant 's qualification and industrial representation.  
The case was proposed by U.S. labor union organizations, but a number of major tire companies in 
the U.S. did not support for the initiation.  At the same time, the production and operation as well 
as profitability of domestic US enterprises are in good co nditions.  Under such circumstances, the 
U.S. still initiated the AD and CVD investigations on the above -mentioned  products.  Could the 
U.S. please explain the factual and legal bases for such investigations on the imports of truck and 
bus tires from China?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 103 - 
 
  RESPONSE : The United States disagrees with China 's characterization of its determination to 
initiate these investigations. The decision to initiate an antidumping duty or countervailing duty 
investigation is based on factual information contained in the pe titions presented by the relevant 
US industry producing the domestic like product. All petitions are closely examined with respect to 
our US statutory and WTO obligations and any deficiencies as identified by Commerce must be 
remedied by petitioner in orde r for AD and CVD investigations to be initiated. The specific facts of 
each initiation are clearly spelled out in the initiation check list that accompanies every initiation. 
US law is very clear regarding the rights of unions with respect to the filing of  AD/CVD petitions.  
61. In the first half of 2016, China was the country with the largest number of trade protection 
measures implemented by the U.S. The U.S. initiated a total of 102 AD and CVD investigations 
against China, and all the selected references in the investigations are a third country which is not 
representative. These practices are evidently targeted and have already posed a serious negative 
impact on the normal trade exchanges between the two major economies of China and the U.S. 
How would the U. S. explain this?  What measures will the U.S. consider to take to reduce the 
number of disputes in the Sino -US bilateral trade in goods?  
RESPONSE: The United States disagrees with China 's characterization of the situation. The 
decision to impose an antidump ing measure is based on a factual determination of whether 
dumping exists and whether such dumped imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material 
injury to a domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a 
factual determination of whether countervailable subsidies exists and whether such subsidized 
imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. Where 
dumped/subsidized imports, and material injury caused by those imports have been found, the 
United States will impose an antidumping or countervailing duty measure, as applicable, and as 
permitted under WTO rules, including the AD and SCM Agreements.  
Question 62  
Page 59, para 3.87  
62. Quite a lot of AD and CVD measures adopted by the Unit ed States last for a long time, 
among which many are applied to the products from China. What is the United States ' 
understanding of the rationale of Sunset Clauses in the relevant WTO agreements, and the 
consistency of the United States ' practice?  
RESPONS E: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with the 
applicable WTO agreements. In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or 
an antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of mater ial injury within 
a reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) considers the 
factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission considers these factors in the 
context of the record of the five -year review;  it establishes a new record for each five -year review 
of an order. In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty 
order 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 U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
The determinations in each sunset review conducted by the USITC or Commerce  are case -specific. 
The results for all sunset reviews can be found on the USITC 's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). Commerce publishes its sunset review determinations in the 
Federal Register an d also makes them available on Commerce 's website 
(http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ). From these sources, Members can obtain, on a 
case-by-case basis, information about the rationale fo r either the continuation or termination of a 
countervailing duty or an antidumping duty order.  
Questions 63 -64 
Page 62, para 3.105  
In January 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) i ssued a revised Circular A -119 
which takes into account regulat ory developments since the 1998 revision, including the 
increasingly easy access and online availability of documentation, and the timely updating of 
standards using the retrospective review mechanism set out in Executive Orders 13563 and 
13610 . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 104 - 
 
  63. What impac t may the revised Circular A -119 issued by the White House OMB in 2016 and 
the regulations issued by the OFR in 2014 have on the supervision of technical standards for 
imported products?  
RESPONSE: The changes to Circular A -119 and the Executive Orders refe renced do not change 
the treatment of imported products. Circular A -119 references the pre -existing obligations in U.S. 
law, 19 U.S.C. § 2532, which provide that "[n]o Federal agency may engage in any 
standards -related activity that creates unnecessary obs tacles to the foreign commerce of the 
United States… " and that "[e]ach Federal agency shall ensure, in applying standards -related 
activities with respect to any imported product, that such product is treated no less favorably than 
are like domestic or impo rted products… " 
Revised Circular A -119 takes into account representing an update of the regulatory developments 
since the 1998 revision over the last twenty years, including the obligations of the United States 
under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers  to Trade and other trade agreements, the 
increasingly easy access and online availability of documentation, and the timely updating of 
standards using the retrospective review mechanism set out in Executive Orders 13563 and 
13610. The revised Circular A -119 takes account of a final rule of the Office of the Federal Register 
(OFR), published on 7 November 2014, regarding access to standards and other material 
incorporated by reference in proposed federal regulations. The OFR rule obliges federal agencies to  
add more information regarding materials incorporated by reference in the preambles of their 
rulemaking documents, notably how this material may be considered "reasonably available" to 
interested parties, and by providing summaries of the material to be i ncorporated by reference.  
64. How does the US deal with the relationship among "industrial self -government ", 
"government administration " and "compliance with the WTO rules " in the formulation, 
implementation and regulation of its domestic technical standards.  
RESPONSE: The United States ' domestic legal framework mirrors WTO obligations, and thus 
facilitates U.S. compliance with WTO obligations.  
Federal law specifically prohibits any U.S. government agency from engaging in standards -related 
activity creating unn ecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United  States. The basic 
legal framework for the preparation and adoption of standards and technical regulations in the 
United States includes the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the Administrative Procedure Act of 
1947 (APA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (PL 104 -113) 
(NTTAA), OMB Circular A -119, and Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 13609  (Promoting Inte rnational Regulatory 
Cooperation), and 13610 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens).  
Question 65  
Page 62, para 3.109  
"The U.S. submitted 180 TBT notifications to the WTO in 2014 and 283 notifications in 2015. " 
65. What are the specific reasons for the sharp increase of the number of adopted technical 
trade measures from 180 in 2014 to 283 in 2015?  
RESPONSE: There are numerous conceivable factors that may affect the increase in notifications, 
and therefore the United States cannot identify a single facto r that explains the change.   
Questions 66 -67 
Page 65, para 3.115  
Implementation of the 2011 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which aims at shifting the 
regulatory approach from response to prevention of food safety hazards, has been a core activit y 
of the FDA in recent years. The law provides new abilities to hold food companies responsible for 
food safety.  
66. Has the workload of FDA substantially increased in the shifting of administrating food safety 
hazards from responsive approach to preventive ap proach? What measures has FDA taken to 
ensure the effective communication with numerous export enterprises?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 105 - 
 
  RESPONSE: FDA's implementation plan for FSMA addresses training and resource issues 
associated with the shift from response to prevention of food sa fety hazards. FSMA is clear that 
implementation must be done through partnerships with industry, academia, foreign governments 
and local government stakeholders. FDA and its partners have conducted extensive outreach to 
stakeholders directly affected by th ese regulations. FDA published FSMA proposed and final rules 
in the Federal Register, on its website, and notified those rules to the WTO SPS Committee for 
notice and comment by Members. FDA would welcome China 's input on continued engagement and 
outreach to interested enterprises exporting to the United States.  
67. The Chinese company Huasheng Aquatic Products Factory submitted a revised HACCP plan 
on dried anchovy production on 3 December 2015. It has been over one year since the submission 
yet no feedback wa s provided by FDA. Please explain the reason.  
RESPONSE: Please contact FDA 's Office in Beijing for a response to this inquiry as it is outside of 
the scope of a Trade Policy Review. Company -specific inquiries should be addressed directly with 
FDA. 
Questio n 68 
Page 68, Para. 3.129  
"…EPA responsibilities cover, inter alia, the registration of pesticides, including herbicides and 
fungicides, and the establishment of tolerances (maximum residue limits – MRLs) for pesticides in 
food... " 
68. Which institution in the  EPA is responsible for environmental and trade issues? Please 
provide detailed information of the institution.  
RESPONSE: Regarding the registration of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, and the 
establishment of tolerances, the USEPA 's Office of Chemic al Safety and Pollution Prevention 
(OCSPP) houses the Office of Pesticides Program (OPP), which is responsible for assessing the 
impacts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides to the environment and regulating, where 
necessary, through labeling. OPP also  facilitates trade by establishing pesticide tolerances, 
including harmonizing tolerances to Codex MRLs where appropriate. OCSPP works directly with 
USTR, other U.S. government agencies, international colleagues and stakeholders from the public 
and private  sector on trade issues concerning pesticides.  
Questions 69 -74 
Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing: Page 69, 3.2.3  
69. Which departments are involved in the export control of the U.S. and what are their 
responsibilities respectively?  
RESPONSE:  
• Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: Licenses defense services and 
defense articles.  
• Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security: Licenses dual -use and certain 
munitions items.  
• Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control: Administers and enforces 
economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries, terrorism sponsoring 
organizations, and international narcotics traffickers. The OFAC Web site provides 
information on these sanctions as well as the complete list of Specially Designated 
Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN list").  
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of International Programs: Licenses nuclear material 
and equipment.  
• Department of Energy, Office of Arms Controls and Nonproliferati on, Export Control Division: 
Licenses nuclear technology and technical data for nuclear power and special nuclear 
materials.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 106 - 
 
  • Department of Energy, Office of Fuels Programs: Licenses natural gas and electric power.  
• Department of Defense, Defense Technology Security Administration: The Defense 
Technology Security Administration administers the development and implementation of 
Department of Defense technology security policies on international transfers of defense -
related goods, services and technologies.  
• Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Import and Export of wildlife and 
endangered and threatened species.  
• Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Import -Export Unit: Oversees 
the export of controlled substances and  the import and export of listed chemicals used in 
the production of control substances under the Controlled Substances Act.  
• Food and Drug Administration, Office of Compliance: For the Export of Unapproved Medical 
Devices  
• Food and Drug Administration, Impo rt/Export: Licenses drugs.  
• Patent and Trademark Office, Licensing and Review: Oversees patent filing data sent abroad.  
• Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, International and Transportation 
Branch: Regulates hazardous waste exports.  
70. Please introduce the updates of Commerce Control List and U.S. Munitions List. Are there 
overlapping items in the above two lists? If so, how to determine the jurisdiction?  
RESPONSE: A key tenant of Export Control Reform has been to establish a bright line betw een 
those items on the USML and those that are subject to the EAR. In the event that a person is 
unable to determine the jurisdiction of their item, they may submit a commodity jurisdiction 
request to the Department of State. The Federal Register Notices f or the proposed and final rules 
amending the USML and the CCL are available at: 
https://bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1566 -ecr-dashboard -10-12-16/file . 
71. Please explain the progress on the U.S. ECR since 2014, in particular on the latest 
developments in "integrated supervision ", "single export control agency " and "unified control list ". 
RESPONSE: The single control list and single licensing agency require leg islation. At this time, no 
legislation is pending before our Congress.  
72. Is there an institution that is simultaneously responsible for examining and issuing the 
export licenses for dual -use goods?  
RESPONSE: The Department of Commerce 's Bureau of Industry a nd Security (BIS) administers 
and enforces controls on the export of dual -use and certain munitions items in coordination with 
several other agencies. BIS implements these controls through the Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR). The EAR set forth lice nse requirements and licensing policy for exports of these 
items.  
73. Are there any changes to the country -specific policies in the latest export control 
regulations?  
RESPONSE: There have been no changes except those related to the Entity List.  
74. In the impleme ntation of export control regulations, how are the "overall control principle " 
and "as export principles " apply?  
RESPONSE: The United States has laws which control the export of certain products and 
technologies for strategic reasons. The U.S. Government c ontrols exports of commodities, software 
and technology as a means to promote our national security interests and foreign policy 
objectives. Through our export control system, the U.S. government can effectively implement our 
national security and foreign policy goals by carefully reviewing exports. In addition, the 
regulations implement U.S. international commitments (i.e., nonproliferation regimes and UN 
Security Council sanctions and UNSC resolution 1540).  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 107 - 
 
  Questions 75 -76 
Page 70, para 3.137&Table 3.10&T able 3.11  
Munitions and dual -use (military/civilian) goods, including services, technology and data, are the 
main items subject to export licensing. The Department of Commerce maintains the Commerce 
Control List (CCL), regulated by the Export Administratio n Regulations (EAR), and is responsible 
for dual use and certain munitions goods. The Department of State is responsible for the U.S. 
Munitions List (U.S.ML), identifying items controlled and regulated by the International Traffic in 
Arms Regulations (ITAR ). Some types of items are similar to both lists, while others are unique to 
CCL or U.S.ML (Table 3.11). Both schemes are currently under reform (section  3.2.3.1). 
Harmonization efforts could include a common licence form.  
75. In the field of cyber security, t here are many technologies, products or data whose usage is 
difficult to be identified as civil, military or other purposes. Do all these technologies, products or 
datafall into the categories of export prohibitions, restrictions and licensing? If yes, whi ch category 
do they belong to, export prohibition, restrictions or licensing?  Which institution is responsible for 
classifying them and based on what laws or regulations?   
RESPONSE: In the area of cybersecurity, U.S. export controls will be based on those adopted by 
the Wassenaar Arrangement, a 41 -member international export control organization of which the 
U.S. is a member. In 2013, the Wassenaar Arrangement adopted controls in two areas bearing on 
cybersecurity: command and control platforms for network intrusion software, and Internet 
Protocol network surveillance tools, as well as associated technology. However, all controls 
adopted by Wassenaar must be implemented by through national law and regulation.  
The U.S. has not yet implemented the 2013 contro ls on these cybersecurity items, although we 
expect to in the near future. As these controls involve dual -use items, they will be controlled in the 
U.S. under the authority of the Export Administration Regulations administered by the Bureau of 
Industry and  Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce. As is the case with all items controlled 
under the EAR, controls may include a range of measures, including but not restricted to, 
restrictions on end -use, end -user, and validated licensing requirements dependi ng on the 
destination and conditions of the export.  
76. What do the "information security products " in commercial control products specifically 
include? Is there a definition or list? What is the difference between "information security 
products " and "cyber se curity products "? "Telecommunication products " may also involve cyber 
security products. How to distinguish them with "information security products "? Which category 
do they belong to?  
RESPONSE:  For purposes of the EAR, the term "information security produ cts" is used to refer to 
items that are controlled in Category 5 Part 2. Category 5 Part 2 contains a broad catch for items 
with encryption key lengths greater than 56 bits for symmetric algorithms or 512 bits for 
asymmetric algorithms, and then a long ser ies of specific types of items and functions that are 
released from this. Broadly speaking, Category 5 Part 2 controls computing, networking, and 
communications equipment with encryption, as well as software and components for such items.  
"Cyber security p roducts" is sometimes used to refer to network and computer security, and 
sometimes to penetration testing and related products. Currently in the EAR, those products 
typically fall under Category 5 Part 2 if they have encryption functionality. There is cur rently no 
separate control on "cyber security products."  
"Telecommunications products" are used in the EAR mainly to refer to items controlled in Category 
5 Part 1. Some telecommunications products with encryption would be controlled in Category 5 
Part 2.  
Questions 77 -78 
Page 72, para 3.143  
"President Obama launched the ECR Initiative to review and re form the export control system in 
2009. The review concluded that the present system was overly complicated, fragmented, and 
needed updating to respond to a ch anging economic an d technological landscape. The objective of WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 108 - 
 
  the reform is not to reduce or eliminate export controls, but rather to achieve better allocation of 
resources allowing improved controls on the more sensitive items. Export requirements for 
selected, less sensitive items have been made more flexible. " 
77. What substantial impact does the U.S. export control reform actions have on China -U.S. 
trade and bilateral trade in technology products?  
RESPONSE: Export Control Reform should have little to no im pact on U.S. -China trade and 
bilateral trade in technology products, as those less sensitive military items that have transitioned 
from the USML to the CCL will maintain a license requirement to China and the licensing policy will 
be one of denial, consist ent with our legislation.  
78. "The objective of the reform is not to reduce or eliminate export controls, but rather to 
achieve better allocation of resources allowing improved controls on the more sensitive items. 
Export requirements for selected, less sensit ive items have been made more f lexible. " What are 
the specific standards to define sensitive and non -sensitive items?  How to weigh and make final 
decisions on some dual -use goods?  How flexible can the decision be?  Could the US please provide 
some examples?  Is this flexibility specific and well -defined, or vague and general rules on 
exception?  
RESPONSE: A core element of the Export Control Reform initiative is streamlining U.S. Munitions 
List (USML) categories and adding items that the President determines d o not warrant control to 
the Commerce Control List (CCL). The defense articles that continued to warrant control under the 
USML, with limited exceptions, were those that provided the United States with a critical military 
or intelligence advantage. All oth er items were to become subject to the jurisdiction of the EAR 
and controlled as warranted for various national security, foreign policy, and other reasons. The 
Federal Register Notices for the proposed and final rules amending the USML and the CCL are 
available at:  https://bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1566 -ecr-dashboard -10-12-16/file . 
These rules were developed after extensive interagency discussions (incl uding the Departments of 
Defense, State, and Commerce) and interagency review of public comments submitted on the 
proposed rules.  
Questions 79 -80 
Page 72, para 3.145  
"Many of the regulatory changes have led to the migration of less sensitive items from the  U.S.ML 
to the CCL. Of the 21 categories on the U.S.ML list (Table 3.11), the regulatory revision process 
had been completed for 13 of them by 1 August 2016. Since then, revisions for another two 
categories have taken effect, and it is expected that revisi ons of 18 of 21 categories will be 
effective by the end of calendar year 2016. As of August 2015, Phase I of the ECR Initiative had 
been finalized, while Phase II was nearing completion. The conclusion of Phase III, which will 
require changes in legislatio n, should lead to a new export control system based on (i) a unified 
control list; (ii) a single licensing agency; (iii) an integrated information technology platform (for 
licensing and enforcement); and (iv) a single enforcement coordination centre. "  
79. When will Phase III  of the U.S. export control reform actions be completed?  
RESPONSE: The United States has accomplished the creation of the export enforcement 
coordination center and a unified information technology system across the agencies involved in 
implementing U.S. export controls. The single control list and single licensing agency require 
legislation. At this time, no legislation is pending before our Congress.  
80. Does "the migration of less sensitive items from the U.S.ML to the CCL " testify the trend of 
relaxing export control by the US? How effective are the completed reforms in practice? And can 
the original reform objectives be achieved?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. government is not relaxing controls under Export Control Reform as a goal. 
The goal is to revi se the export system to provide the proper level of control to each item, based 
on the national security risks associated with each item.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 109 - 
 
  Questions 81 -82 
Page 74, para 3.155  
Private -sector lenders normally act as partners in EXIM transactions.  
81. How do priv ate-sector lenders cooperate with the Export -Import Bank of the U.S.?  
RESPONSE: In recent decades, the vast majority of transactions supported by EXIM have been in 
the form of loan guarantees. Under this program, private -sector lenders provide the funding in the 
transaction, while EXIM provides, for a fee, an unconditional guarantee to the lender that covers 
100 percent of commercial and political risks. In this manner, EXIM and private -sector lenders 
cooperate very closely in guaranteed loan transactions w ith the lenders providing the funding and 
EXIM providing the risk coverage, which together provide a comprehensive financing package to 
the borrower.  
82. Does the Export -Import Bank of the U.S. carry out consortium loans or syndicated loans with 
private -sector  lenders? If yes, are the credit terms exactly the same?  
RESPONSE: The EXIM does not carry out any consortium or syndicated loans with private sector 
lenders.  
Question 83  
Page 73, 3.2.4.2 National Export Initiative  
83. Could the U.S. please further explain the  details of the  National Export Initiative, the budget 
funds at federal and state level, and the evaluation on the effects of policy?  
RESPONSE: The National Export Strategy (NES) Report will be available this month (December 
2016). It will be available at:  http://www.trade.gov/publications/ . This Report covers the National 
Export Initiative (NEI) and its successor NEI/NEXT, including the evaluation of this U.S. policy 
initiative and an appendix providing me trics. 
Question 84  
Page 75, para 3.159  
"While certain small - and medium -term loans can be approved by EXIM Bank staff, medium and 
long term authorizations above U.S.  $10 million require approval by the Bank's Board of Directors. 
At present, with three of i ts five seats vacant, the EXIM Bank does not have the quorum to take 
such decisions. " 
84. Under the circumstance when the medium - and long -term projects above U.S.  $10 million 
cannot be approved by the EXIM Bank for the time being, how does the U.S. meet the 
medium -and long -term export financing needs of enterprises? Does the government provide 
financing through other channels?  
RESPONSE: In the United States, the commercial banking sector continues to provide a very 
substantial amount of export financing. In the absence of a quorum, EXIM is unable to support 
medium - and long -term transactions over $10 million and, therefore, cannot meet the medium 
and long -term financing needs of certain US exporters. While there are other USG financing 
programs that may, or do , support US exports, none of these programs has the mission scope or 
operational capacity to step in for EXIM.  
Questions 85 -86 
Page 75, para 3.160  
"The United States is to initiate and pursue negotiations with other major exporting countries to 
reduce sub stantially, with the possible goal of eliminating (by 2025), subsidized export financing 
programmes and other forms of export subsidies. In addition, the law states that the United States 
is to initiate and pursue negotiations with countries that are not O ECD members to bring those 
countries into a multilateral agreement establishing rules and limitations on officially supported 
exported credits. " WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 110 - 
 
  85. What are the specific considerations of the U.S. to end subsidized export financing system 
before 2025?  
RESPONS E: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
86. Will the EXIM Bank of the U.S. continue to be retained after the end of the subsidized export 
financing  programs? If so, what will be its main business?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Questions 87 -89 
Page 75, Table 3.12  
87. When the b usiness actually takes place, what is the respective percentage of loans, 
guarantees and insurance balances for the year 2014 and 2015?  
RESPONSE: In FY 2014 and FY 2015, the number, volume, and percentage of authorized 
transactions for loans, guarantees a nd insurance are as follows:  
 2014  2015  
Number  US$ million  % of total 
authorizations  Number  US$ 
million  % of total 
authorizations  
Loans        
Long term  14 1,927.6  9.42%  4 57.7 0.47%  
Working capital  55 20.2 0.10%  37 15.0 0.12%  
Guarantees        
Long term  51 10,786.7  52.70%  42 7,917.3  63.94%  
Medium term  58 137.5  0.67%  41 149.8  1.21%  
Working capital  431 2,389.8  11.68%  261 1,001.0  8.08%  
Credit insurance        
Short term  3,078  5,107.3  24.95%  2,216  3,196.5  25.81%  
Medium term  59 98.8 0.48%  29 45.7 0.37%  
88. What is the definition of "working capital " in the Table?  What are the term, objects and 
scope of support for the working capital loans?  
RESPONSE:  The EXIM Bank 's Working Capital Guarantee Program (WCGP) provides a 90% 
guarantee on loans made by com mercial lenders to creditworthy US businesses that export. The 
loans are secured by export -related accounts receivable and export -related inventory collateral.  
The WCGP is an asset -based lending product where the amount the exporter can borrow is 
determine d by the available collateral securing the loan based on formula advance rates.  The 
WCGP is a short -term product. The term of the loan facilities are generally 12 months but can go 
up to 36 months.  
89. Are the medium - and long -term loans provided to U.S. expor ters? What are the sources of 
repayment for these loans? Are they linked to export contracts?  
RESPONSE: EXIM does not provide medium - and long -term loans directly to U.S. exporters. The 
primary source of repayment of medium - and long -term loans is generall y the foreign buyer, but it 
could be another entity (e.g., the parent of the foreign buyer or the buyer 's government). 
Medium - and long -terms loans are linked to a U.S. export, whether via an export contract, 
purchase order, or other business arrangement.  
Question 90  
Page 75, para 3.161  
"The SBA as such is not a bank. Thus, the specific terms of SBA loans are negotiated between the 
qualified borrower and an SBA -approved lender. No minimum borrowed amount is required to 
qualify as an SBA loan. In turn, the SBA guarantees the loans (up to U.S.  $5 million) against a fee. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 111 - 
 
  The fee is calculated according to maturity and guaranteed amount. The guarantee fee is initially 
paid by the lender. " 
90. Does the U.S. SBA offer a wider range of loan guarantees than private fi nancial institutions? 
Are its rates more favorable than private financial institutions? Do they constitute officially -
supported subsidized export financing?  
RESPONSE: Private financial institutions typically provide loans, not loan guarantees. As 
previousl y noted, SBA guarantees do not provide a subsidy, since the cost of the guaranty fee to 
the borrower makes such financing more expensive to the exporter than a conventional loan 
without the guaranty.  
Question 91 -92 
Page 76, para 3.163  
"OPIC is the U.S. Gov ernment's development finance institution. OPIC mobilizes private capital to 
help address critical development challenges by providing investor financing, insurance of political 
risk, and private equity investment funding where these services are not avail able on commercially 
viable terms. OPIC does not compete with private -sector lenders. OPIC is an entirely financially 
self sustaining, independent government corporation. " 
91. Are the financing and loan guarantees provided by the U.S. OPIC more preferential th an 
those offered by private financial institutions? If yes, do they constitute subsidized export financing 
that is officially supported?  
RESPONSE: No, OPIC loans and loan guarantees are not preferential.  If a private sector lender is 
willing to provide fin ancing for a project on commercially viable terms, then OPIC encourages the 
use of the private sector lender.   
92. The U.S. development assistance agency OPIC has been evolving in recent years, and the 
U.S. Congress is considering its long -term running through  various plans. SBA also provides export 
financing for small businesses that engage in export or intend to operate export through 
specialized projects. Are the financing services provided by OP IC and SBA consistent with the 
financing requirements of the OE CD "Gentleman 's Agreement "? Are there shifts of export financing 
business from the EXIM to OPIC and SBA?  
RESPONSE: OPIC does not provide export financing.   
Questions 93 -94 
Page 76, Para 3.164  
"…However, OPIC is prohibited from supporting certain categories  of projects, such as those having 
adverse environmental or social effects in the country of operation or possible negative effects on 
the U.S. economy and employment…. " 
93. How does OPIC evaluate the environmental impact of a project? And are the evaluation 
results published or not?  
RESPONSE: OPIC's environmental policies and procedures are described in the  OPIC 
Environmental and Social Policy Statement  (ESPS), found here:  
https://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/consolidated_esps.pdf . 
OPIC publishes summaries of its environmental impact findings here: https://www.opic.gov/opic -
action/all -project -descriptions . 
94. What indicators does OPIC consider in assessing environmental impact?  
RESPONSE: Please refer to OPIC 's Environmental and Social Policy Statement : 
https://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/consolidated_esps.pdf . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 112 - 
 
  Question 95  
Page 76, para 3.165  
95. Does OPIC belong to the U.S. government 's official export credit institutions? Are the terms 
of loans provided b y OPIC consistent with the requirements of the OECD "Gentleman 's 
Agreement "? What are OPIC 's main business lines? What are their respective share in the total 
business?  
RESPONSE: No. OPIC is not an export credit institution. Information about OPIC 's main b usiness 
lines can be found here: https://www.opic.gov/what -we-offer/overview . Information on total OPIC 
business can be found in its annual report and audited financial statements found here:  
https://www.opic.gov/media -events/annual -reports . 
Question 96  
Page 77, para 3.167  
In December 2015, legislation was passed simplifying the taxation of small businesses and making 
certain tax cuts  permanent for them. Investments in small businesses are exempt from capital 
gains tax.  
96. How do federal and state governments support small business development through various 
tax policies? What is the role of SBA in this process?  
RESPONSE: There are a var iety of tax provisions that support small businesses in the United 
States, as there are in most countries. There are approximately 28 million small businesses in the 
United States, which are found in nearly industry of the US economy.  
In December 2015, th e Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act was passed. Three 
provisions specifically focused on small businesses:  
 Permanent extension of the existing research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit, which 
provides a credit for qualified expenditures ab ove a base amount. Small businesses with $50 
million or less in gross receipts will now be able to claim the credit against their alternative 
minimum tax (AMT) liability.  
 Permanent extension of increased expensing amounts for small businesses, removal of t he 
cap applied to investment in certain real property, and expansion of the definition of 
qualifying property to include air conditioning and heating units. Small businesses can 
expense up to a maximum of $500,000 of qualified expenditures with that maximu m 
amount reduced by the amount by which the taxpayer 's cost of qualifying property exceeds 
$2 million. These levels are indexed for inflation.  
 Permanent extension of the 100 percent exclusion of gains realized on the sale of certain 
small business stock he ld by an individual for more than five years. The PATH Act also 
eliminated the treatment of a percentage of the exclusion as a preference for the AMT. A 
qualified small business is a corporation whose gross assets do not exceed $50 million as of 
the date o f issuance of the stock.  
Questions 97 -99 
Page 78, para 3.173  
The U.S. has no overarching legal framework governing subsidies at federal and sub -federal levels. 
Traditionally, federal subsidies have been in the form of grants, tax concessions, loan guarant ees, 
and direct payments. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programmes exist for firms, workers and 
farmers. TAA has been re -authorized regularly, most recently in June 2015.  On a cost -sharing 
basis, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) program me provides professional 
guidance, and technical assistance for firms to develop recovery plans, and it co -finances the use 
of outside consultants. TAAF operates through 11  regional centres serving firms in the 50 states. 
Appropriations to the TAAF have am ounted to approximately U.S.$16  million annually in recent 
years.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 113 - 
 
  97. Please specify the formulation authority and general procedures of the U.S. federal and state 
tax-related policies.  
RESPONSE: The United States Constitution  provides that  Congress  "shall hav e the power to lay 
and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises ... but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be 
uniform throughout the United States. " The 16th Amendment  provides that "Congress shall have 
the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,  from whatever source derived, without 
apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." 
The 10th Amendment  provides that "powers not delegated to the United States by this 
Constitution, nor prohibited to the States,  are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people." State constitutions uniformly grant the state government the right to levy and collect 
taxes.  
98. Please introduce the channels for publication and enquiry of  the U.S. federal and state 
tax-related p olicies.   
RESPONSE: There are many channels of publication in the United States for federal and state tax 
related programs, see, for example : www.irs.ustreas.gov  and 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/spec.pdf . 
99. In 2015, the U.S. government reauthorized the implementation of the TAA program, which 
applies to U.S. enterprises, workers and farmers.  Please give an update on the implementation 
and effect of the program since its reauthorization in 2015, in particular with regard to agricultural 
enterprises and farmers.  
RESPONSE: The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers program off ers a variety of 
benefits and services to workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade.  Workers in the 
manufacturing sector have received the most TAA benefits, and the program was expanded to 
include service -sector workers in 2015.  Through the pr ovision of a number of benefits and 
services, the TAA program provides trade -affected workers with opportunities to obtain the 
support, resources, skills, and credentials they need to return to the workforce.  These include 
training, employment and case man agement services, job search allowances, relocation 
allowances, reemployment and TAA wage supplements for older workers, and income support in 
the form of Trade Readjustment Allowances.  Annual public reports and detailed information on the 
operations and o utcomes of the program can be found on the U.S. Department of Labor 's website 
for TAA ( http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/ ). The TAA for Firms program provides technical 
assistance to help U.S. firms experiencing  a decline in sales and employment to become more 
competitive in the global marketplace.  In general, the program provides technical assistance to 
create and implement targeted business recovery plans t o eligible import -impacted U.S.  firms.  
Additional infor mation on the TAA for Firms program is available at : 
http://www.eda.gov/about/investment -programs.htm . The TAA for Farmers program was 
reauthorized by the U.S. Congress in 2015 for fiscal yea rs 2015 through 2021.  However, the U.S. 
Congress did not appropriate funding for new participants for FY 2015 or 2016, and as a result, 
USDA did not accept any new petitions or applications for benefits during this period.  
Questions 100 -102 
Page 79, para 3.175  
In addition, a number of energy -related support measures are implemented at the sub -federal 
level, particularly in relation to renewable energy (Table A3.4).  
100.  It is known that California and other states, as well as the federal energy department and 
other agencies have provided relevant support policies in promoting energy efficiency, such as 
direct subsidies, tax preference, credit support and loan risk compensation mechanism. Could the 
U.S. please describe relevant policies and mechanisms?  
RESPONSE: Please see the most recent subsidy notification of the United States 
(G/SCM/N/284/USA).  
101.  Are there any changes to the energy subsidies policies during the review period?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 114 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Please see the most recent subsidy notification of the United States 
(G/SCM/N /284/USA).  
102.  Does the U.S. have any plan to introduce new subsidies to its energy sector?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question s 103 -104 
Page 80, 3.3.3 Competition Policy  
103.  In its annual report to the Congress, the U.S. -China Economic and Security Review 
Commission recommended that U.S. lawmakers "shall authorize CFIUS  to prohibit Chinese 
state-owned enterprises from acquiring or ot herwise gaining control of American companies ". 
Could the U.S. please explain the reasons?  
RESPONSE: The report of the U.S. -China Economic and Security Review Commission is available 
at: http://www.uscc.gov . 
104.  Can U.S. ant itrust authorities treat all enterprises from different countries equally when 
implementing antitrust laws? If yes, what measures are in place to e nsure that all the enterprises 
are treated equally?  
RESPONSE : The U.S. antitrust authorities base their enfor cement decisions on the competitive 
effects and the consumer benefits of the transaction or conduct being reviewed. Non -competition 
factors, such as the pursuit of industrial or domestic policy goals, play no role in the authorities ' 
enforcement decisions.  To ensure these policies are applied, the U.S. antitrust authorities each 
conduct investigations and enforcement actions using procedures that comport with fundamental 
fairness and transparency, regardless of the identity of the parties. Procedural fairne ss and 
transparency are ensured through a variety of protections in the U.S. legal system, including the 
U.S. antitrust authorities ' rules, policies, and guidance documents, statutes, judicial rules on 
procedure and evidence, the U.S Constitution, and comm on-law precedents. For example, the 
Commission 's procedures are codified in its publicly available Rules of Practice, available at : 
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -bin/text -
idx?SID=aa078420a11c10ee30297b9dc8b70e5f&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfrv1_02.tpl . 
The procedures of the Department of Justice 's Antitrust Division are published in the Antitrust 
Division Manual, available at: https://www.justice.gov/atr/division -manual .  
More detailed information about the procedures is available in the United States ' submission to the 
OECD "Roundtable on Procedural Fairness: Trans parency Issues in Civil and Administrative 
Proceedings, " DAF/COMP/WP3/WD(2010)45 , June 2010, available at : 
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us -submissions -oecd-and-other -international -
competition -fora/usprofairness.pdf  and in in the United States ' submission to the OECD 
"Roundtable on Procedural Fairness: Transparency Issues in Civil and Admini strative Proceedings, " 
DAF/COMP/WP3/WD(2010)24 , February 2010, available at : 
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/defau lt/files/attachments/us -submissions -oecd-and-other -international -
competition -fora/transparency_us.pdf .  
Question 105  
Page 82, para 3.182  
The FTC's merger and non -merger enforcement activities in FY2015 resulted in estimated savings 
to U.S. consumers of U. S. $3.4 billion  
105.  Please describe the composition, statistics and methods for calculation of the saving of 
customers ' expenses in M&A review and anti -monopoly enforcement activities of the US.  
RESPONSE: One of the FTC 's strategic goals is to maintain competi tion, and as part of the FTC 's 
annual performance measures, the agency reports the amount of consumer savings through 
merger actions taken to maintain competition, and the consumer savings through nonmerger 
actions taken to maintain competition. The method s and data sources used to calculate consumer WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 115 - 
 
  savings are detailed in "2014-2018 Performance Data Quality Appendix, " Performance Goals 2.1.2 
and 2.1.4, at p. 8 -9, available at : https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/fy -2016-
2017-performance -data-quality -appendix/dqafy16 -17.pdf . The FTC 's 2014 -2018 Strategic Plan can 
be viewed at:  https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/2014 -2018-strategic -
plan/spfy14 -fy18.pdf . 
Question 106  
Page 85, para 3.190  
In June 2016, the United States notified its state trading en terprises (STEs) pursuant to Article 
XVII:4(a) of the GATT 1994 and Paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article 
XVII, providing information on the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Isotopes Production and 
Distribution Program Fund, ce rtain power administrations, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  
106.  It seems that U.S. did not fully fulfill its notification obligation pursuant to Article XVII:4(a) 
of the GATT 1994 and Paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVI I, for 
the 2016 STE notification G/STR/N/16/U.S.A only provides the statistics in 2015 without any 
information about STEs in 2014. Could U.S. please explain the reason and provide a timeline when 
the notification for the year 2014 could be submitted?  
RESPO NSE: We thank China for bringing this issue to our attention. We are examining whether 
inadvertent lapses in STE notifications may have occurred and will explore whether any additional 
information needs to be submitted to the relevant body.  
Questions 107 -109 
Page 95, Table 3.22  
107.  What are the differences between the two Acts in the main legislation on the protection of 
geographical indications? Please explain in detail. Does the Federal Alcohol  Administration Act only 
protect alcoholic geographical indication s? Is the EU model adopted?  
RESPONSE:  All food stuffs and agricultural products, including cheeses and meat, wines and 
spirits, and a variety of other products of interest can qualify for protection in the United States. 
The United States protects geograph ical indications through its trademark system as certification 
marks, collective marks and trademarks. The system recognizes prior -in-time trademark rights 
and requires that generic terms 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, and their use can be enjoined. The overall trademark syst em is cost -effective, 
expeditious and user -friendly. For example, under our system, unlike many other countries, USPTO 
has the administrative authority to act on its own initiative to review applications for mark 
protection and deny applications that would  likely cause confusion with existing marks protected in 
our territory. The system is already used by a broad range of stakeholders, including SMEs as well 
as collective producer associations, large cooperatives, and geographic certification bodies. In fac t, 
EU agricultural producers hold over 25,000 U.S. mark registrations in the United States. 
Complementary protection is provided under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and its 
implementing regulations for wine and distilled spirits of both domestic a nd foreign origin. Further 
information can be found in the Lanham Act and Federal Alcohol Administration Act, among other 
measures.  
108.  When geographical indications are reviewed as trademarks, are there any differences 
between the criteria for judging whether  the indications are similar to those of the earlier marks 
and whether the general marks are similar to each other? If yes, please provide details.  
RESPONSE: There are no differences.  
109.  Is the indefinite protection of GI only for the geographical i ndications  protected under the 
Federal Alcohol Administration Act, or also for the geographical indications protected by means of a 
trademark? Please explain.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 116 - 
 
  RESPONSE: We object to the characterization of "indefinite protection. " Protection for a 
geographical indic ation may be maintained provided that the requirements of the Lanham Act, 
state law, or the Federal Alcohol Labeling Act continue to be met. Please refer to those laws for 
further information about such protections.  
Question 110  
Page 97, 3.3.6.3 Patents  
110.  Standard organizations in the U.S. are now formulating their own policies regarding standard 
essential patents without a unified rule, which increas es the uncertainty and cost of the whole 
procedure. Does the U.S. have any consideration on the balance of int erests of patent owners, 
standard enforcement organizations and the public? Will the U.S. consider promulgating a unified 
federal rule regarding standard essential patents?  
RESPONSE: The private sector leads standards setting in the United States, includi ng in the 
development of the policies of Standards Setting Organizations regarding standard essential and 
other patents. It is unlikely that there is a single approach to such policies that would best serve 
the wide range of standards setting organizations , and attendant circumstances that may change 
over time. Variation among SSOs ' patent policies could be beneficial to the overall 
standards -setting process.  
Questions 111 -112 
Page 98 para. 3.253  
These entailed: transitioning  the U.S. to a first -inventor -to-file system; providing an enhanced 
grace period for inventors to safeguard patent rights against disclosures made one year or less 
before the effective filing date; modifying the definition of prior art to include non -printed 
disclosures, including oral d isclosures, made available to the public anywhere in the world; 
providing prior art effect to U.S. patent applications as of their foreign priority dates; eliminating 
the requirement for inventors to set forth the best mode to carry out the invention as a defence in 
infringement actions or in post -grant review; and providing a 75% discount for patent fees to all 
applicants that qualify as micro entities.  
111.  During the review period, how many applicants in the U.S. advocated the novelty grace 
period each year? And how many applications were approved? How many of these were by foreign 
applicants?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain the requested statistics.  
112.  How do foreign small businesses apply for patent fee reduction or waiver?  
RESPONSE: The United St ates Patent and Trademark Office offers discounted fees for small 
entities and micro entities on a variety of patent services. Small entities can receive a fifty percent 
discount and micro entities can received a seventy -five percent discount. Procedures f or asserting 
Small Entity Status are found in the USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), 
sections 509.02 and 509.03. Procedures for certifying Micro Entity Status are found in the USPTO 
MPEP, section 509.04.  
Questions 113 -114 
Page 101, para 3.2 69 
In July 2013, it issued a Green Paper on Copyright Policy recommending adjustments to the public 
performance right for sound recordings by extending the right to cover broadcasting, as well as 
assessing and improving enforcement tools to combat online i nfringement.  
113.  Please provide further information on the assessment and improvement of enforcement tools 
to combat online infringement.  
RESPONSE: The annual reports issued by the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 
include information on efforts to  combat online infringement. For the annual reports of the WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 117 - 
 
  Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator visit : 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/intellectualproperty/sir . 
114.  Does the U.S. have any plans or actions to implement the amendment proposals on Green 
Paper on Copyright Policy?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. The Green Paper 
recommendations have not been taken up by Congress.  
Questions 115 -116 
Page 10 2, para 3.271  
In addition, the U.S. Copyright Office completed its sixth triennial rulemaking proceeding under 
Section 1201 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The primary responsibility of the Register and the 
Librarian of Congress in the rulemaking proceeding is to assess whether the implementation of 
access controls impairs the ability of individuals to make non -infringing uses of copyrighted works 
within the meaning of Section 1201(a)(1).  
115.  Please provide more details on the sixth rulemaking proceeding by the U S Copyright Office 
under Section 1201 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code.  
RESPONSE: Section 1201 instructs the Librarian of Congress to make determinations in a 
rulemaking proceeding every three years, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 
evalu ating and, as appropriate, adopting limited exemptions for the ensuing three -year period 
from the general prohibition against circumvention of access controls. The Copyright Office 
maintains a webpage that contains links to the public comments, the Registe r's Recommendation, 
the Final Rule announcing the exemptions, and a document addressing Frequently Asked 
Questions about the rulemaking. An Introduction to the Register 's Recommendation summarizes 
the exemptions and the rulemaking process. Based on the Reg ister's recommendation, in this 
latest rulemaking the Librarian adopted exemptions covering twenty -two types of uses. All 
information related to the Sixth Triennial Rulemaking is available at : 
https://www.copy right.gov/1201/ . 
116.  Please explain in detail whether the implementation of access  control is a violation of the 
main considerations under article 1201(a)(1).  
RESPONSE: Section 1201(a)(1) prohibits the circumvention of access controls, and also describes 
the standards for the triennial review process. Copyright owners are not required to place access 
controls on their works. If, however, a work is protected by an access control, then 
Section  1201(a)(1) prohibits the circumvention of such works, barring any per missible exemption 
for such circumvention.  
Question 117  
Page 102, para 3.272  
The Copyright Act provides for several types of statutory licences.  
117.  Could U.S. please list and elaborate on the types of statutory licences?   
RESPONSE: Below is a catalogue of the  statutory licenses in Title 17 of the United States Code:  
The statutory license for secondary transmissions by cable systems is set forth and elaborated in 
section 111. The statutory license for making of ephemeral recordings is set forth and elaborated 
in section 112. The statutory license for public performance of sound recordings by means of 
digital audio transmission is set forth and elaborated in section 114. The statutory license for 
making and distributing of phonorecords is set forth and elaborate d in section 115. The negotiated 
licenses for public performances by means of coin -operated phonorecord players are set forth and 
elaborated in section 116. The compulsory license for use of certain works in connection with 
noncommercial broadcasting is se t forth and elaborated in section 118. The statutory license for 
secondary transmissions of distant television programming by satellite carriers is set forth and 
elaborated in section 119. The statutory license for secondary transmissions of local televisi on WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 118 - 
 
  programming by satellite carriers is set forth and elaborated in section 122. The statutory 
obligation for distribution of digital audio recording devices and media is set forth and elaborated 
in chapter 10 of this title.  
Provisions in the Code of Fede ral Regulations also inform the operation of these statutory 
provisions.  
Questions 118 -123 
Page 103, 3.277  
…Section  337 investigations are instituted by the United States International Trade Commission 
(USITC);  administrative law judges make an initial de termination of whether there is an 
infringement/contravention of the law, which is then subject to review by the USITC.  If the USITC 
determines that Section 337 has been violated, it may issue exclusion orders, cease and desist 
orders, or both, after consi dering the effect of the orders on four statutory public interest factors … 
118.  Up to now, how many SEP holders have initiated the 337 investigation procedures? How 
about the results? Please provide a list of all relevant cases and whether or not an exclusion o rder 
and/or cense and desist order is issued finally.  
RESPONSE: A historical review of all section 337 investigations is beyond the scope of the current 
Trade Policy Review. Information on section 337 investigations is available at : www.usitc.gov  and 
https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/337external/ . 
119.  In the 337 investigation procedures initiated by the SEP holder LSI against companies such 
as Realtek, ITC affirmed that the ca se did not meet the criteria required by Section 337 for 
"domestic industry ". As a result, ITC did not issue exclusion orders and/or cense and desist orders 
to Realtek. Please explain why the ITC considered that the domestic industry standard of the case 
was not met?  
RESPONSE: The grounds for the ITC 's determination as to satisfaction of the domestic industry 
requirement and other issues are set out in the Commission 's Opinion in Certain Audiovisual 
Components and Products Containing the Same , Inv. No. 337 -TA-837 (March 26, 2014). 
Information on section 337 investigations is available at : www.usitc.gov  and 
https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/337external/ . 
120.  The U.S. domestic co urts can issue exclusion order on infringing products. What are the 
standards for the issuance of injuction by the courts? What are the standards for the issuance of 
injunction on SEP? Please provide the list of all SEP infringement cases heard by the US c ourts and 
final rulings since 2006.  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that Question 120 includes an inaccurate statement on the 
U.S. courts and exclusion orders and that a historical review of SEP infringement cases heard by 
U.S. Courts since 2006 is beyon d the scope of this Trade Policy Review. The referenced standards 
are addressed in 19 U.S.C. § 1337, eBay Inc. v. MercExchange , L.L.C., (U.S. 2006) and Apple Inc. 
v. Motorola, Inc.  (Fed. Cir 2014).   
121.  Is ITC 's standard of issuing the exclusion order the same  as the US domestic courts ' 
standard for issuing injuction? Especially in the case of LSI against Realtek, what are the 
considerations of ITC and U.S. domestic court respectively? If the standards are the same, please 
explain why they are the same; if not,  please explain whether this discrepancy will influence the 
imported products, because ITC has adopted remedy measures against imported products that 
infringe SEP according to Section 337.  
RESPONSE: Please see the responses to Questions 119 and 120 above.  
122.  Exclusion order and cease and desist order issued by ITC only target imported goods but the 
domestic standard implementers/producers in the U.S. will never face 337 investigations. Some 
foreign enterprise outside the U.S. claim that ITC 's standard for issu ing exclusive and cease and 
desist order is not the same as that of U.S. domestic courts. This leads to a certain level of 
discrimination against foreign goods. What is the U.S. response to the concern about and attention WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 119 - 
 
  to the "different standards of U.S . courts and ICT on order issuance in terms of SEP infringement 
and the resulting discrimination against imported goods "? 
RESPONSE: While the intention of Question 122 is not entirely clear, it appears to include 
inaccurate statements regarding the relatio nship between section 337 and domestic standard 
implementers (and an unclear statement regarding section 337 and "domestic standard ... 
producers " (emphasis added)). The United States rejects the suggestion of discriminatory 
treatment.  
123.  In 2013, White House  Task Force on High -Tech Patent Issues mentioned in ITC LEGISLATIVE 
PRIORITIES & EXECUTIVE ACTIONS that "Change the ITC standard for obtaining an injunction to 
better align it with the traditional four -factor test in eBay In c. v. MercExchange, to enhance 
consistency in the standards applied at the ITC and district courts ". Please explain the background 
and reasons for the statement. Does the U.S. think there is discrepancy between the standards of 
U.S. courts and ICT on order issuance? When and how does the  U.S. plan to address the 
discrepancy?  
RESPONSE: The Task Force in question issued a factsheet fully articulating its conclusions and 
expectations: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -office/2013/06/04/fact -sheet -white -house -
task-force-high-tech-patent -issues . 
Question 124  
Page 106, Table 4.2  
124.  Table 4.2 shows that the U.S. is the world 's leading producer of corn, wheat, cotton, 
soybeans, beef and poultry meat, and that these exports account for a large share of the world 
market. With reference to the 4.1.2 of the 2014 Farm Act, these products have been supported 
and protected by U.S. domestic support policies for a long time. The i mpact of these support 
policies may be transmitted to the international market along with t he export of U.S. agricultural 
products. Will this impact the agricultural products export interests of other members?  
RESPONSE: The United States provides domestic supports to agricultural producers that are 
consistent with the WTO obligations of the United States. Furthermore, the United States strives to 
ensure that where possible it utilizes policies with no, or minimal, trade distorting effects.  
TRADE POLICIES B Y SECTOR  
Questions 125 -128  
Page 105, para 4.2  
According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, the U.S. had 2.1 million farms generating a market 
value of goods sold (including government payments) of U.S. $402.6 billion in that year.  
125.  Please provide detailed  account and data on the scale of farms, including: the definition of 
farm and the number of farms of different scale (by area and income).  
RESPONSE: Information regarding the definition, number, and scale of farms can be found in the 
National Agricultural  Statistics Service (NASS) publication, "Farms and Land in Farms ": 
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmLandIn/FarmLandIn -02-18-2016.pdf .  
126.  Please provide the average level of agricultural subsidy for farms of different scales.  
RESPONSE: Official U.S. Government payment data do not include information on farm size.  
127.  Please provide the number of farms growing various kinds of agricultural products (if 
possible, please provide statistics according to the scale and sales revenue of farms)  
RESPONSE: Please see Tables 12 through 42 in the 2012 Census of Agriculture for 
commodity -specific data on operations by farm size and sales revenue : 
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pd
f. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 120 - 
 
  128.  Please provide the average level of subsidy for farms producing different agricultural 
products (if possible, please provide statistics by green box and amber box)  
RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain this data.  
Questions 129 -134 
Page 107, 4.1.2 The 2014 Farm Act  
129.  Please list and provide the policy measures and document s for the market price support 
programs on maize, soybean, wheat, sorghum and oatmeal.  
RESPONSE: The United States does not provide market price support for maize, soybeans, wheat, 
sorghum, or oatmeal.  
130.  Please list the departments participating in formulati ng the 2014 Farm Act and their specific 
responsibilities and distribution of labor in initiating, managing or monitoring the market price 
support programs.  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill is a statute that was prepared and passed by the U.S. Congress. 
The Far m Service Agency (FSA) of USDA implements the nonrecourse marketing loan program for 
sugar, which is the only market price support program currently in operation in the United States.  
131.  Please provide the production volume, production value and the amount of  subsidy for each 
type of agricultural products covered by the price support programs (mainly PLC and ARC) during 
the years 2008 to 2015.  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that neither Price Loss Coverage (PLC), nor Agriculture Risk 
Coverage (ARC), are pri ce support programs. As noted above, the United State maintains market 
price support for a single product, sugar. Between 2008 and 2014, the United States also 
maintained market price support programs for certain dairy products. Information is provided in 
our domestic support notifications for 2008 through 2013. Information for 2014 and 2015 will be 
released when those notifications are complete.  
132.  Please clarify the difference between PLC and ARC, and "Counter Cyclical Payment " and 
"Average Crop Revenue Elec tion". Please further clarify whether they, as amber box policies, have 
exceeded the U.S. commitment of subsidy levels.  
RESPONSE: The Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programs are 
authorized by the 2014 Farm Act and are in effe ct for crop years 2014 -2018. The Counter Cyclical 
Payment and the Average Crop Revenue Election programs were repealed by the 2014 Farm Act 
and are no longer in effect.  
The United States is in compliance with its WTO commitments.  
133.  With regard to PLC, 2014 Farm Act stipulates that the reference prices for maize, soybean, 
wheat, sorghum and oatmeal increase by 41%, 40%, 32%, 54% and 67% respectively compared 
to the last Act. How were the reference prices and increasing margin determined? What 's the 
difference  between these prices and U.S. external reference price at the WTO?  
RESPONSE: Reference prices for the PLC program are set by the 2014 Farm Act for the duration 
of the program under the Act. The PLC program will be reported in the appropriate domestic 
support notifications. See response to question 129.  
134.  Please introduce the context and reasons for implementing PLC and eliminating the direct 
payment and counter cyclical payment before the implementation of the new Farm Act. What 
impact does the implementatio n of PLC have on the formation of prices?  
RESPONSE: See response to question 132. The 2014 Farm Bill does not provide reasons for 
authorization or repeal of programs. The PLC program does not have an effect on prices.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 121 - 
 
  Questions 135 -136 
Page 109, para 4.8.   
"For each covered commodity on a farm, PLC payments are made on 85% of historical base when 
current average market year price falls below the reference price. " "PLC is decoupled from current 
production as it is based on historical base."  
135.  If PLC is decoupl ed from the current production, is it still required that farmers must engage 
in the production of relevant products?  
RESPONSE: PLC payments are made on historical base, not current production.  
136.  Since PLC payments are made on 85% of historical base, how wi ll the PLC programs be 
notified to the WTO, as the amber box or the blue box subsidy? If amber box, will the PLC 
programs be notified as product -specific subsidy or non -product -specific subsidy?  
RESPONSE: The PLC program will be reported in the appropriat e domestic support notifications.   
Questions 137 -138 
Page 110, para 4.13 . 
"As with all U.S. commodity and crop insurance programmes, farmers must comply with 
conservation and wetland protection requirements".  
137.  What are the content of "conservation and wetl and protection requirements"?  
RESPONSE: Conservation compliance requires producers to have a conservation plan approved by 
and on file with USDA if they plant annually tilled crops on highly erodible soil, and prohibits 
producers from planting on converted  wetlands or converting wetlands for crop production. The 
2014 Farm Act requires producers, and any affiliated individuals or entities to participating 
producers, to comply with these provisions.  
Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conserv ation (WC) provisions (known as 
"conservation compliance") aim to reduce soil loss on erosion -prone lands and to protect wetlands 
for the multiple benefits they provide. HELC and WC provisions apply to all land that is considered 
highly erodible or a wetla nd, and that is owned or farmed by persons voluntarily participating in 
USDA programs.  
138.  Do these requirements limit the freedom of farmers in making production decision? In other 
words, do farmers have to engage in certain forms of agricultural production a ctivities to get 
corresponding subsidy?  
RESPONSE: See response to question 137 . 
Questions 139 -140  
Page 118, para 4.43  
Among the main commodities tracked by the OECD, the highest single commodity transfers (as a 
percentage of gross farm receipts) are prov ided to sugar, milk,  and cotton. In principle, the OECD 
views positively the increasing U.S. policy focus on insurance and risk management to  provide a 
safety net for farmers in need. However, the OECD also states that the 2014 Farm Act may have 
transferr ed some of the risks normally incurred by farmers to the public budget.  
139.  We notice that fiscal transfer payment of sugar, dairy products and cotton still take up a 
large proportion of the farms' income. What impact do these subsidies have on farmers' income  
and the price of agricultural products?  
RESPONSE: Given that most of the 2014 Farm Bill provisions were not implemented until 2015, 
OECD data are only estimates. It is premature to draw conclusions about impacts of the new 
programs.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 122 - 
 
  140.  Does the U.S. agree wi th OECD's comment that the 2014 Farm Act may have transferred 
some of the risks normally incurred by farmers to the public budget? If yes, does the U.S. plan to 
adjust relevant stipulations?  
RESPONSE: With respect to OECD estimates, see response to questi on 139. We remind Members 
that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the Membership informed of any 
changes that may occur in a future Farm Bill.  
Questions 141 -142 
Page 121, para 4.53  
"The 2010 Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consume r Protection Act (PL 111 -203, H.R. 4173) 
(the Dodd -Frank Act), is the main piece of financial regulatory legislation introduced since the 
2008 financial crisis… In total, the Dodd Frank Act mandated 39 0 rulemaking requirements by 
20 regulatory agencies, a process that is still ongoing. As of July 2016, 274 of these 390 
rulemakings had resulted in finalized rules, 36 rules had been proposed, and the remaining 80 of 
these statutorily mandated rules had yet to be proposed by financial services regulators. " 
141.  As the major achievement of the regulatory reform after  the financial crisis, the 
2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act sets up a post -crisis 
fundamental framework for U.S financial regulatory legislation. However, President -elect Don ald 
Trump claimed to abandon the Act after he takes office. What does the U.S. regulator think of this? 
If the act was abandoned, will the regulatory measures that have been implemented be 
suspended? How will the relevant stipulations to be implemented, be ing made and to be made be 
changed? What influence will this have on the economic and financial environment?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed with respect to any changes in the future.  
142.  How did the Dodd -Frank Act serve as guidance of rulemaking for the regulatory agencies? 
Please describe the legislative procedure and list the finalized rules up to now.  
RESPONSE: If a law requires implementing regulations, the relevant federal  government agency 
promulgates them consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA generally requires 
such federal agencies to: (1) publish a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) review stakeholder 
comments; (3) publish a final rule; and (4) make the rule effective not less than thirty days after 
publication.  
Question 143  
Page 124, para 4.60  
The minimum liquidity requirements for systemically important, non -bank financial companies 
designated by the FSOC will be established at a later date.  
143.  Please introduce the minimum liquidity requirements. Are foreign -funded banks in the U.S. 
supposed to follow such requirements? What is the progress on the minimum liquidity 
requirements for non -bank financial companies?  
RESPONSE: Please see the Financial Stabil ity Oversight Council webpage on systemically 
important, non -bank financial companies at:  
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/designations/Pages/def ault.aspx#nonbank . 
Questions 144 -145 
Page 126, para 4.67  
 "Banking sector supervision in the United States is the responsibility of a number of federal and 
state regulators …The Federal Reserve Board (FRB), the OCC, the FDIC, and the state regulators 
all play a role in supervising the operations of foreign banks in the United States. State regulators 
are organized in the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS). " 
144.  Please introduce the state banking regulators and their regulatory responsibilities.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 123 - 
 
  RESPO NSE: A federal license or charter is issued by the Comptroller of the Currency, while a state 
license is issued by the relevant state banking authority. The website of the Conference of State 
Bank Supervisors (CSBS), a membership organization, has links to  the websites of  each of the 
state regulators : https://www.csbs.org/Pages/default.aspx  and 
https://www.csbs.org/ab out/what/Pages/StateBankingDepartmentLinks.aspx . 
145.  How do the federal and state banking regulators coordinate in the regulation of foreign 
banks? Does the federal banking regulators have any influence on the regulatory decisions of state 
banking regulators?   
RESPONSE: See the agreement at the link below from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, 
which covers this issue : https://www.csbs.org/regula tory/Cooperative -
Agreements/Documents/state_federal_fbo_agrmnt.pdf . 
Question 146  
Page 127, para 4.69  
Although geographic and other limitations are applied to foreign banks and foreign -owned bank 
subsidiaries generally on a national treatment basis, the U. S. GATS Schedule has reserved against 
national treatment for some measures  
146.  Does the U.S. plan to improve the measures reserved against national treatment? Do these 
measures still exist in the FTA which has already been signed by the U.S.?  
RESPONSE: There are no updates at this time. Reservations taken within a free trade agreement 
continue to be binding. Obligations in U.S. trade agreements are consistent with WTO obligations.  
Question 147  
Page 127, para 4.72  
The new amendments also allow the Board to orde r the termination of the activities of U.S. offices 
of such foreign banks in the absence of these criteria.  
147.  Please introduce in detail the "criteria " of U.S. financial institutions.  
RESPONSE: The criteria for the Board to consider in making a determinatio n to terminate the 
activities of the U.S. offices of foreign banks under section 7(e)(1) of the International Banking Act 
(IBA) are set forth in section 7(e)(1) of the IBA, 12 U.S.C. 3105(e)(1), and may be found at: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE -2011-title12/html/USCODE -2011-title12 -chap32 -
sec3105.htm . 
Question 148  
Page128, Para 4.74  
Initial entry into the U.S. market through the establishmen t or acquisition of a nationally chartered 
bank subsidiary by a foreign person is permitted in all states but there are commercial presence 
limitations which vary according to the state.  
148.  As the world 's largest financial market, the U.S. should set a good e xample in financial 
openness. But the market access restrictions pose huge obstacles to foreign banks ' conducting 
business in the U.S. Please clarify the necessity of these market access restrictions and whether 
there are any plans to lift these restrictio ns.  
RESPONSE: The United States welcomes foreign investment in all sectors, including the financial 
sector. Like other countries, we benefit tremendously from the participation of foreign firms in our 
financial sector. Some 20 percent of our banking syste m is foreign -owned. Please see the following 
website for the latest participation of foreign banking organizations in the United States:  
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/i ba/201606/default.htm . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 124 - 
 
  Question 149  
Page 128, Para 4.76  
The report states that "The GLBA, as amended, provides that "well capitalized" and "well 
managed" standards comparable to those applied to U.S. bank holding companies and banks, be 
applied to foreign  banks operating a branch or agency in the U.S., and any holding companies of 
those foreign banks.  
149.  Please describe the main contents and policy objectives of "well capitalized" standard, and 
its implementation results with regard to domestic financial sta bility.  
RESPONSE: The Gramm -Leach -Bliley ( "GLB") Act requires capital and management standards for 
a foreign bank that are comparable to the standards applied to a U.S. bank owned by a FHC, 
giving due regard to the principle of national treatment and equal ity of competitive opportunity. 
These prudential standards are applied on a non -discriminatory basis. In assessing a foreign 
bank's financial strength, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) considers a number of factors, 
including the composition of capital, a ccounting standards, long -term debt ratings, and 
government support. The Board will continue to review changes in the financial strength of foreign 
banks in order to assess comparability with the FHC standards applied to U.S. banks. See Federal 
Reserve onl ine information for how these rules were modified to address foreign concerns. 
Available at: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/boardacts/2000 /200012213/attachment.pdf . 
Please see Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) information in other questions for 
information about U.S. financial stability : 
https://www.treasury .gov/initiatives/fsoc/Pages/home.aspx . 
Question 150  
Page129, Para 4.85  
A national treatment exception for this measure was listed in the U.S. GATS Schedule.  
150.  China notices that the U.S. GATS Schedule retains many market access restrictions and 
requirements  on the nationality of board members, which poses huge obstacles to foreign 
insurance institutions ' conducting business in the U... Please clarify the necessity of these market 
access restrictions and whether there are any plans to lift these restrictive m easures?  
RESPONSE: Foreign participation in the U.S. insurance market is very robust, and we disagree 
with the premise that the existing market access requirements are "huge obstacles " to foreign 
suppliers. In 2015, the United States imported $30.6 billion  more in insurance services than it 
exported. In addition, the U.S. affiliates of foreign insurance firms had sales of $69.5 billion in 
2013, exceeding by $4.7 billion the sales of affiliates of U.S. firms in foreign markets. We are not 
aware of plans to r emove any of the limitations.  
Question 151  
Page 132, Para 4.101  
The report states that "The U.S. securities markets are the largest in the world. They are governed 
by the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act  of 
1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes -
Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and 
the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. " 
151.  Does the U.S. hav e any plan to further liberalize its securities market?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed with respect to any future changes.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 125 - 
 
  Questions 152 -154 
Page 135, para 4.117  
4.117.  Interstate telecommunications providers, wireless companies, interconnected VoIP 
providers, in ternet service providers (ISPs) , radio and TV broadcasters, cable providers, and 
satellite companies are all primarily regulated by the Federal Communications Commi ssion (FCC).  
152.  Is BIAS (Broadband Internet Access Services) regulated by  FCC? What aspects of BIAS are 
regulated?  
RESPONSE: Yes, broadband Internet access service is regulated by the FCC. The Open Internet 
rules for BIAS, summarized in the Secretariat repor t, are codified in 47 C.F.R. Part 8.  
The Open Internet Order describes the aspects of BIAS that are subject to regulation. The Order 
also provides a history of the regulation of BIAS, at paragraphs 60 -74: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -15-24A1.pdf . 
153.  Does the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NTIA) have relevant function of 
market regulation regarding Internet content management? What functions spec ifically?  
RESPONSE: We understand this question to be referring to the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology. (The name of this agency is abbreviated as NIST. The abbreviation NTIA refers to 
the National Telecommunications and Information Adminis tration). NIST does not have a role in 
the regulation of Internet content.  
154.  Are there any government agencies other than FCC who play a role in the grant of 
telecommunication licences? What is the role of Team Telecom in the application of 
telecommunicatio n licences? Please give a briefing on the foreign investments into the US telecom 
market since 2011, including the number of companies  approved, business scope, the origins of 
investment and the number of 214 licences granted.  
RESPONSE: The principal piece s of legislation covering telecommunications are the 
Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for "regulating interstate and 
international communication s by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. " The National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce is the 
principal advisor to the President on telecommunications and information policy issues and is 
responsible for managing the use of spectrum by the government of the United States and by 
governments of other countries operating inside the United States.  
Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that the foreign ownership of a U.S. 
wireles s licensee may not exceed 20% for direct investment and 25% for indirect investment 
unless the FCC finds that it would be in the public interest to allow such foreign ownership. When 
the FCC conducts a public interest analysis, executive branch agencies ma y offer advice to the FCC 
regarding any foreign applicant seeking a license to operate in the United States or to provide 
international services from the United States. As part of its public interest analysis, the FCC 
considers any national security, law e nforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy concerns that may 
be raised by a proposed foreign investment that would exceed the statutory or regulatory 
benchmarks. Any conditions imposed on a licensee by final FCC action as a result of advice from 
executive  branch agencies become part of a public record. To date, the FCC has not denied an 
application based on foreign ownership.  
Information on individual applications can be found in the FCC 's International Bureau Filing System 
at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/international -bureau -filing-system . For example, since 
January  1, 2011, the FCC has granted 1,259 authorizations for international telecommunications 
services under Section 214 of the Communications Act.  
Question 155  
Page 136, Para 4.118  
The report states that "There are, however, restrictions for some other services: foreign ownership 
without prior FCC approval is limited, under Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934 , t o WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 126 - 
 
  20% direct investment and 25% indirect investment for common carrier wireless licensees. Under 
the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC must conduct a public interest analysis when evaluating 
applications to receive authorization to exceed the 25% foreign  ownership benchmark. Since the 
inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has ever been denied a common carrier wireless licence 
under the FCC's public interest analysis. During the review period, the policy stance in this respect 
has been modified. In 20 13, the FCC revisited its prior de facto policy against streamlined 
treatment of applications involving more than 25% foreign ownership, and indicated that it may 
grant approval for foreign ownership greater than 25% in a streamlined manner, depending on t he 
circumstances. " 
155.  Please elaborate on the modifications of the policy stance.  
RESPONSE: In April 2013, the FCC adopted streamlined rules for approval of foreign ownership 
greater than the 25 percent statutory benchmark set out in 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4). Th is 
streamlined approach: (1) no longer requires petitioners for a foreign ownership ruling to identify 
foreign equity and/or voting interests of five percent or less or, in certain situations, of ten percent 
or less; (2) allows petitioners to request speci fic approval for any named foreign investor to 
increase, at some future time, its equity and/or voting interest up to and including a 
non-controlling 49.99 percent share; (3) permits petitioners to request specific approval for a 
named foreign investor tha t proposes to acquire a controlling interest of less than 100 percent to 
increase its interest to 100 percent at some future time; (4) adopts a 100 percent aggregate 
allowance for unnamed and future foreign investors, provided that the licensee obtains app roval 
before any foreign investor acquires an interest that exceeds five percent (or, in certain situations, 
ten percent) of the common carrier licensee 's equity and/or voting interests; (5) allows the 
licensee 's subsidiaries and affiliates to rely on the licensee 's foreign ownership ruling (rather than 
having to file a new petition for a declaratory ruling), provided that the ownership of the licensee 
and the subsidiary or affiliate remains in compliance with the terms of the licensee 's ruling and the 
requirements of the rules; (6) allows licensees to introduce new foreign -organized entities into the 
approved vertical ownership chain without prior approval, provided that the new foreign -organized 
entity is under 100 percent common ownership and control with  a previously -approved foreign 
investor; and, (7) eliminates the practice of issuing service - and geographic - specific rulings, and 
instead permit a licensee with a foreign ownership ruling to add new services and new geographic 
service areas without filin g a new petition for declaratory ruling. A copy of the FCC Order is 
available at:  https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -13-50A1.pdf . 
Question 156  
Page 138, 4.2.3 Tran sport 
156.  Please introduce the progress in the implementation of the high -speed railway development 
plan issued earlier by the U.S. Will the U.S. government continue to promote the development of 
high-speed railway? If yes, what concrete measures will be taken ? 
RESPONSE: Over the last 8 years, the U.S. Department of Transportation has invested more than 
$10 billion to develop high -performance passenger rail corridors across the United States. These 
investments include supporting the first phase of the State of California's new high -speed train 
service, and improving existing corridors to reduce trip times, add frequencies, and increase 
capacity and reliability. High -speed intercity passenger rail will continue to play a critical role in 
addressing the mobility n eeds of the United States, where the population is projected to increase 
by more than 55 million people over the next 25 years.  
Questions 157 -159 
Page 136, para 4.119  
The FCC maintains several regulatory safeguards to deter conduct by a foreign carrier tha t could 
result in harm to competition in the U.S. telecommunications market.  These safeguards include the 
"no special concessions" rule, the benchmark settlement rates policy, and dominant carrier 
requirements. The no special concessions rule prohibits U.S . international carriers from agreeing to 
enter into exclusive arrangements with foreign carriers that have sufficient market power to affect 
competition adversely in the U.S. market. The Foreign Participation Order adopted a presumption 
that carriers with  less than 50% market share in the foreign market lack such market power.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 127 - 
 
  157.  Does the "conduct by a foreign carrier that could result in harm to competition in the U.S. 
telecommunications market " include conduct that may have potential Internet safety threat or 
hidden danger? Or does it only refer to commercial conduct such as monopoly, dumping and unfair 
competition?  
RESPONSE: The "no special concessions " rule concerns competitive conduct. Specifically, it 
addresses the ability of a foreign carrier with marke t power in its home market to leverage that 
market power into the U.S. international services market to the detriment of U.S. carriers and U.S. 
consumers.  
158.  Please clarify the definitions and operation procedures of "no special concessions" rule and 
the benc hmark settlement rates policy.  
RESPONSE: Under FCC rules a "special concession " is defined as an exclusive arrangement 
involving services, facilities, or functions on the foreign end of a U.S. international route that are 
necessary for the provision of ba sic telecommunications services, where the arrangement is not 
offered to similarly situated U.S. -licensed carriers and involves (1) operating agreements for the 
provision of basic services; (2) distribution arrangements or interconnection arrangements, 
including pricing, technical specifications, functional capabilities, or other quality and operational 
characteristics, such as provisioning and maintenance times; or (3) any information, prior to public 
disclosure, about a foreign carrier's basic network ser vices that affects either the provision of basic 
or enhanced services or interconnection to the foreign country's domestic network by U.S. carriers 
or their U.S. customers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.14.  
The benchmarks settlement rates policy sets forth the maxim um rate that a U.S. carrier is allowed 
to pay to terminate traffic in a foreign country. The rate varies depending on the economic status 
of the country. For high income countries, a U.S. carrier may not pay for than $0.15 per minute to 
terminate traffic. The limit for U.S. carriers in middle income countries is $0.19 per minute, and it 
is, $0.23 per minute for lower income countries.  
159.  Please explain why 214 Licenses applied by China Mobile International Limited U.S. are still 
pending.  
RESPONSE: This applic ation is under ongoing review with respect to national security concerns.  
Questions 160 -161 
Page 136, Para 4.120  
Under the Open Internet Order, the FCC reclassified fixed and mobile broadband internet access 
service as a telecommunications service under Ti tle II of the Communication Act.  
160.  Please clarify the reason for classifying broadband Internet access service as 
telecommunications service and introduce the classification of telecommunications services and of 
Internet service in the US. Please list releva nt stipulations of specific laws and regulations.  
RESPONSE: The FCC explains its rationale for revisiting its classification of broadband internet 
access services in paragraphs 328 -330 of the Open Internet Order : 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -15-24A1.pdf . 
161.  Please give a briefing on the background and main consideration of introducing the "new 
open internet order ".  
RESPONSE: The Open Internet Order provides thi s briefing, for example at paragraphs 7 -13: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -15-24A1.pdf . 
Question 162  
Page 137, para 4.121  
The new Open Internet Order imposes t hree "bright -line" rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, 
and paid prioritization  … WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 128 - 
 
  162.  Paragraph 4.121 lists requirements of "NO BLOCKING ，NO THROTTLING ，NO PAID 
PRIORITIZATION ". Does it mean that under special circumstances , the regulators can resort to 
blocking and throttling? Please clarify if there are any specific criteria or regulations?  
RESPONSE:  These prohibitions apply to providers of BIAS service. The Open Internet Order does 
not authorize blocking by the regulator.  
Questions 163 -166 
Page 137, footnote 123  
Unlike the no -blocking and no -throttling rules, there is no "reasonable network management" 
exception to the paid prioritization  rule because paid prioritization is inherently a business practice 
rather than a management practice.  
163.  What does the "management practice " of "No Blocking " and "No Throttling " refer to?  
RESPONSE: A network management practice is a practice that has a prima rily technical network 
management justification. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for 
and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the 
particular network architecture and technolo gy of the broadband Internet access service.  The 
distinction between a "network management practice " and an "other business practice " is whether 
or not the practice has a primarily technical purpose. For more information, see the Open Internet 
Order at par agraphs 214 -224. 
164.  4.121 is actually talking about the net neutrality principle. Under this principle, shall the 
Internet regulation on the public and data acquisition by the government and operators also be 
moderate or limited?  
RESPONSE: Paragraph 4.121, i ncluding footnote 123, explains aspects of the Open Internet Order 
adopted by the FCC on 26 February 2015. We do not understand what is meant by this question, 
as currently stated, or to which portions of the Open Internet Order the question is intended to  
refer.  
165.  What do "management practice " and "business practice " refer to in the three rules for net 
neutrality? How to distinguish exceptions?  
RESPONSE: The response to Question 163 contains the definition of "network management 
practice " from the Open Int ernet Order. The distinction between a "network management practice " 
and an "other business practice " is whether or not the practice has a primarily technical purpose. 
For more information, see the Open Internet Order at paragraphs 214 -224: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -15-24A1.pdf . 
166.  Will the "net neutrality " principle change after the new government takes office?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retro spective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 167  
Page 138, para 4.124  
The new Open Internet Order does not apply to enterprise services, virtual private network 
services, hosting , or data storage services.  
167.  What are the U.S. considerations behind excluding enterprise services, virtual private 
network services, hosting, or data storage services from the Open Internet Order? If data storage 
services are not a part of the Open Interne t Order, has the U.S. adopted other measures to 
prevent stored data from being abused by the authority or operators?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 129 - 
 
  RESPONSE: This is discussed in the 2015 Open Internet Order 's in paragraphs 25 -35: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -15-24A1.pdf .  
It was also discussed in the 2010 Open Internet Order at paragraphs 44 -52: 
https://apps. fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -10-201A1_Rcd.pdf . 
Questions 168 -169 
Page 138, para 4.129  
"The legal and institutional framework for air transport remained largely unchanged during the 
period under review… " 
168.  Please introduce the authorities or responsi bilities of the U.S. Transportation Security 
Administration to encourage the civil aviation market competition (related laws, regulations, 
concrete policies and measures). In particular, in the market access of security inspection 
equipment, how is competi tion protected to avoid erecting additional technical barriers to civil 
aviation security?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, like all federal agencies, is bound by 
the 2016 revisions to Circular A -119, which inform agencies of the ir statutory obligations in 
standards -setting activities. Specifically, 19 U.S.C. § 2532 provides that "[n]o Federal agency may 
engage in any standards -related activity that creates unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States " and sp ecifies four requirements for agencies ' standards -related 
activities: (1) ensuring that imported products are not treated less favorably than like domestic 
products or imported products from other countries; (2) taking into consideration international 
standards – and basing standards upon them if appropriate; (3) developing standards based on 
performance criteria rather than design criteria when appropriate; and (4) ensuring foreign 
suppliers have access to conformity assessment procedures on the same basis  as other domestic 
and foreign suppliers of like products.  
169.  What application channels or equipment assessment and accreditation  are provided by the 
U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to security inspection equipment manufacturers 
from abroad f? How to ensure that the assessment and accreditation are conducted in the fair, 
equitable, transparent and non -discriminative  principle? Please specify the standards of 
assessment and accreditation and provide explanation of their full necessity? How doe s the U.S. 
Transportation Security Administration distribute its responsibility and cooperate with other 
departments (such as the Federal Aviation Administration) in anti -monopoly work? Please give 
examples.  
RESPONSE: The Transportation Security Administr ation (TSA) has in place an equitable process, 
open to domestic and foreign enterprises, for the request of evaluation and possible qualification of 
civil aviation security screening equipment. TSA accepts such requests on an ongoing basis and 
evaluates re quests from domestic and foreign producers in accordance with principles of fairness 
and non -discrimination . TSA is responsible for security in all modes of transportation.  
Question 170  
Page 138, para 4.130  
"The airline industry consolidation, begun in 200 1, continued during the period under review… " 
170.  What influence have the four largest airline companies formed upon a series of merger and 
acquisition exerted on the U.S. consumers? Has the overall social welfare improved?  
RESPONSE: Airline industry consolid ation was intended to achieve the formation of more efficient, 
financially stable companies better able to compete for passengers. Provided there remains 
sufficient competition in the U.S. airline industry, such transactions could have a positive effect fo r 
consumers in that U.S. carriers could become able to eliminate overhead, respond to changing 
market demands, and provide innovate new services to travelers and shippers.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 130 - 
 
  Questions 171 -172 
Page 139, para 4.133  
"Anyone wishing to provide air transport serv ices as a U.S. air carrier must obtain two separate 
authorizations from the DOT: an "economic" authority from the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, and a "safety" authority from the FAA… " 
171.  Currently, the U.S. did revise related laws limiting foreig n investment in U.S airline 
companies. What is the legal basis for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to approve 
foreign funds to own over 25% of the stock with voting rights in individual cases?  
RESPONSE: The United States has not revised la w related to limitation of foreign investment in 
U.S. air carriers. 49 USC 40102(a)(15) requires that U.S. citizens must hold at least 75 percent of 
the voting interest in U.S. air carriers. It is noted that the statutory provision is enforced by the 
U.S. Department of Transportation.  
172.  Please introduce how TSA protects competition in the allocation of air and flight schedule 
resources. How does the TSA distribute its responsibility and cooperate with other departments 
(such as the Fair Trade Commission) in a nti-monopoly work? Please give examples.  
RESPONSE: The question appears to be what role the U.S. Department of Transportation plays in 
the oversight of air and flight operations and how its responsibility is split with other U.S. Federal 
Government agencie s. The U.S. Department of Justice has the primary responsibility for 
overseeing airline mergers and acquisitions, as well as the conduct of airline firms in the 
marketplace. The U.S. Department of Transportation plays a secondary role in reviewing airline 
transactions. The U.S. Department of Transportation also has authority to review, and if 
warranted, grant antitrust immunity to U.S. and foreign airlines engaging jointly in foreign air 
transportation (49 U.S.C. § 41308 -41309), as well as prohibit unfair a nd deceptive practices and 
unfair methods of competition in the airline industry (49 U.S.C. § 41712).  
Questions 173 -175 
Page 140, para 4.136  
"Most U.S. public -use airports with commercial services are publicly owned, either by states or 
local governments, or local authorities… " 
173.  Are there any restrictions on the access of foreign investment in such air services as 
airports, navigation, aviation fuel, ground service and aircraft ma intenance? If so, what are the 
specific restrictions? What are the regulations on the shareholding ratio? Are there any plans and 
timetables for further opening -up? 
RESPONSE: U.S. and foreign privately -owned companies provide a variety of services at U.S. 
commercial service airports including airport and terminal management, parking,  private security, 
retail concessions, aircraft ground handling and fueling. Any Airport owner can contract with 
privately -owned companies to provide airport management and retail concession services under 
management or concession contracts. The Federal Av iation Administration will permit this 
arrangement as long as the Airport owner retains authority over the operation and management of 
the Airport, including the airport 's Federal obligations. The private company serves as an agent of 
the airport owner and  receives a management fee or retail concession fee for its services.  
174.  Please elaborate on the project scope, subsidizing standard and procedures for civil airport 
construction projects to apply for government subsidies?  
RESPONSE: The Airport Improvement Pr ogram (AIP) provides grants to public agencies — and, in 
some cases, to private owners and entities — for the planning and development of public -use 
airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). AIP grants 
for plann ing, development, or noise compatibility projects are at or associated with individual 
public -use airports (including heliports and seaplane bases). A public -use airport is an airport open 
to the public that also meets the following criteria:  
 Publicly owne d, or 
 Privately owned but designated by FAA as a reliever, or  
 Privately owned but having scheduled service and at least 2,500 annual enplanements.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 131 - 
 
  By subsidizing standard , we have assumed that the question is about the part of the project cost 
paid by the airport (local share). For large and medium primary hu b airports, the grant covers 
75 percent of eligible costs (or 80 percent for noise program implementation). For small primary, 
reliever, and general aviation airports, the grant covers a range of 90 -95 percent of eligible costs, 
based on statutory requirements.  
For an airport to receive federal funding for a project (a grant), the major project requirements are 
that project must be eligible, it must meet the technical standards for the project type, it m ust be 
able to be completed without undue delay, and it must be on the FAA approved Airport Layout 
Plan. 
175.  Please introduce the construction, investment, operation and management system of 
airports in the US, including the authority and procedure of project initiation and approval, source 
and structure of funds, operation modes and supporting policies.  
RESPONSE: The FAA develops engineering, design, and construction standards for civil airports, 
heliports, and seaplane bases. This includes standards for airfi eld pavement; airport lighting, 
marking, signs, and other visual aids; safety during construction; surveying and GIS data; deicing, 
ARFF, and other facilities; bird radar and foreign object detection systems; and more. Airports that 
use Airport Improvement  Program funding or Passenger Facility Charge funds must use certain 
Advisory Circulars, which define the FAA engineering, design, and construction standards for 
airports.  
Investment: Airports undertaking capital projects may use commercial bonds, local f unds, AIP 
grants, Passenger Facility Charges, or other sources of income for the projects.  
The operation and management system of airports in the United States is not dictated by the 
United States government. Rather, the local or state political entity de termines the operational and 
management requirements for the airport. For privately owned airports, the private owner makes 
those decisions.  
The policies of the airport system is principally based in Title 49 of the United States Code, 
supporting regulati ons, and published guidance of the FAA.  
Passenger Facility Charges are derived from a fee charged on a passenger ticket. The Passenger 
Facility Charge (PFC) Program allows the collection of PFC fees up to $4.50 for every enplaned 
passenger at commercial a irports controlled by public agencies. PFCs are capped at $4.50 per 
flight segment with a maximum of two PFCs charged on a one -way trip or four PFCs on a round 
trip, for a maximum of $18 total. Airports use these fees to fund FAA -approved projects that 
enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition.  
The AIP funding comes from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is funded through a 
combination of domestic passenger ticket taxes, domestic passenger flight segmen t fee, passenger 
ticket tax at rural airports, international departure and arrival taxes, fees paid by domestic freight 
and mail, a general aviation fuel tax, commercial fuel tax, and a frequent flyer tax.  
Questions 176 -177 
Page 140, para 4.138  
"Congress e stablished the Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP) in 1997 through the Federal 
Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (49 U.S.C. 47134, PL 104 -264), with the aim of increasing 
private participation, especially private capital investment, in airport op erations and 
development… " 
176.  What are the fundamental reasons why the APPP is not very successful?  
RESPONSE: Since 1997, 11 airports have applied to the program. Of these 11, 2 airports were 
privatized, 7 airports withdrew from the program, and two airports are in process for review. The 
7 airports withdrew either due to changing market conditions or loss of political support to 
complete the privatization. Several reasons for lack of public and private interest can be attributed 
to a number of factors: local government 's interest in maintaining full control of their airport, WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 132 - 
 
  higher financing costs for privatized airports, lack of state and local tax exemptions, and the time 
and cost it takes to navigate through local and federal approval process. In some cases  it can take 
a number of years depending on the complexity of the transaction.  
177.  Can privatized airports receive AIP funds? If so, do they need to comply with restrictions on 
the use of airport incomes?  
RESPONSE: Yes, privatized airports can receive AIP fun ds. Private companies may own, manage, 
lease and develop public airports. The FAA is permitted by statute to allow up to 10 public airport 
sponsors to sell or lease an airport with certain restrictions. The private operator of an air carrier 
airport may re ceive Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, collect Passenger Facility Charges, 
and charge reasonable fees. Increases to airport rates and charges that exceed the Consumer 
Price Index require approval of 65 percent of air carriers. Private operators of  general aviation 
airports can receive AIP discretionary grants.  
Question 178  
Page 141, para 4.139  
 "The operation and the management of airports may be fully carried out by the airport's owners 
or partly or wholly by a third party through outsourcing and management contracts… " 
178.  Apart from management and service outsourcing, is the PPP mode adopted by American 
airports? If yes, does the Federal government have any relevant policy and regulations?  
RESPONSE: Note that the outsourcing of operation and managemen t services as noted in 
paragraph 4.139 may or may not involve public private partnerships.  Moreover,  there is no federal 
policy or regulations governing the use of public private partnerships. The Federal Aviation 
Administration will permit these arrangeme nts as long as the airport owner retains authority over 
the operation and management of the airport, and complies with its federal obligations. There are 
best practices for public -private partnerships including leasing and developing airport property and 
these are outlined in Airport Cooperative Research Program studies which can be found on the 
Transportation Research Board's website : http://www.trb.org . 
Question 179  
Page 141, 4.2.3.2.1 Maritime transport  
179.  As an important global maritime transport market, the U.S. has not made any commitment 
on maritime transport services in its multilateral schedules of concessions, which is no match to its 
role as an advocate of global trade openness. Are there any plans to revise "the Jo nes Act and the 
Passenger Vessel Service Act of 1886 ", so as to expand market access for overseas maritime 
transport service providers?  
RESPONSE: We refrain from speculating on possible future actions or policies given the 
retrospective orientation of trad e policy reviews.  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 180  
Page 5, para 2.3  
In 2015, U.S. goods and services exports supported an estimated 11.5 million jobs in the 
United  States alone, including more than one in four jobs in the manufactur ing sector.  
180.  Compared with previous years, have more or less job opportunities been created in the 
manufacturing sector? How well has the initiative of bringing back manufacturing put forward two 
years ago been implemented?  
RESPONSE: Since March 2010, U.S.  manufacturing has added over 800,000 direct jobs. Although 
manufacturing has faced headwinds over the past two years (jobs are down 54,000 over the past 
12 months), these headwinds are temporary and will likely subside. The weak global economy, WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 133 - 
 
  combined w ith the decline in energy -related capital expenditures has been a drag on 
manufacturing given that the sector relies heavily on exports.  
The United States has focused on manufacturing capabilities, assets, and business environment 
which are critical for it s success in the United States. This policy has four pillars to encourage U.S. 
manufacturing production, investment, and competitiveness: (1) Spurring innovation through next 
generation technologies; (2) Strengthening skills, communities, and supply chains  to attract 
investment; (3) Making the United States more competitive for production; and (4) Expanding 
market access and leveling the playing field. These pillars are discussed in the National Economic 
Council 's October 2016 report "Revitalizing American Manufacturing : 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/NEC_Manufacturing_Report_Octob
er_2016.pdf . 
Question 181  
Page 6, para 2.8  
While these rates were below the post -recession peak of 7.6% in 2012, they were more than 
double the low of 2.5% reached in 2005. U.S. gross investment increased by U.S.$371 billion 
between 2013 and 2015, 93% the increase in U.S. gross saving.  
181.  In which industries are the increased foreign investment concentrated?  
RESPONSE: The reference to investment from the U.S. report, is for nominal U.S. gross 
investment which includes both domestic and foreign investment in the United States. This 
informat ion can be found in Table 5.1 under National Accounts from the U.S. Bureau of Economic 
Analysis website : http://www.bea.gov .  
Concerning foreign investment, the stock of FDI in the United States increased $406 billion, fr om 
$2.7 trillion in 2013 to $3.1 trillion in 2015 (on a historic cost basis). U.S. manufacturing received 
roughly 69% of this increase – mostly in the chemical sector (primarily pharmaceuticals). This 
information can also be found at the U.S. Bureau of Eco nomic Analysis website : 
http://www.bea.gov . 
Question 182  
Page 6, para 3.7  
3.7. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 marked a 
watershed not only in the ambitious negotiating objectiv es it set for the United States, but in the 
reforms it brings to the American trade policymaking process. U.S.TR has encouraged public 
participation and broadened opportunities for input, created new institutional guarantees of public 
access including the milestone appointment of a Chief Transparency Officer and the formalization 
of comprehensive Guidelines for Consultation and Engagement, and increased the transparency of 
trade policy through initiatives carried out by the Office of Intergovernmental Affai rs and Public 
Engagement.  
182.  Please explain what systems are included in the major reforms on trade policy -making 
procedures introduced by the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Prior ities and Accountability Act 
of 2015, and how well were they implemented. What i mplications will they have on the foreign 
trade negotiations of the U.S.?  
RESPONSE: The reforms under the  Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability 
Act of 2015 include the appointment of a Chief Transparency Officer and the creation of w ritten 
guidelines for consultations with Congress, the public, and advisory committees regarding 
negotiations conducted under the Trade Priorities Act. The Guidelines for Consultation and 
Engagement were made available on the USTR website.  
Question 183  
Page 8, Para 2.17  
"While the United States has seen recent gains in employment and wages, business fixed 
investment (BFI) has been weak. This weak investment has itself contributed to the productivity 
slowdown as capital services per worker have declined in the last five years. The United States is WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 134 - 
 
  not unique in this experience, as investment has fallen across the world as global demand 
weakened."  
183.  How does the U.S. view the role of foreign direct investment in reinvigorating domestic 
investment given the curr ent depressing situation? Would the U.S. adopt new measures to further 
facilitate FDI or maintain the status quo of the domestic FDI regulation framework?  
RESPONSE: Foreign direct investment plays an essential role in ensuring U.S. economic growth 
and pros perity – creating high paying jobs, spurring innovation, and driving exports. The 
United  States is the largest recipient of FDI in the world in 2015 (at a stock of $3.1 trillion – on a 
historic cost basis), and had the largest FDI inflow in the world in 20 15 ($348 billion).  
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that  in 2013 12 million people 
(8.5 percent of the labor force) have jobs in the United States due to either direct employment at 
foreign firms (6.1 million), indirect and ind uced employment from foreign firms (2.4 million), or 
indirect and induced employment form productivity spillovers (3.5 million)  
(http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_0054
96.pdf ).  
With regard to the second qu estion, we remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We 
look forward to keeping the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Questions 184 -185 
Page 10, para 3.10  
USTR has hosted stakeholder forums during the U.S. -hosted rou nds of the T -TIP negotiations. 
These events included over 250 global stakeholders at each forum. Stakeholders were invited to 
give presentations, engage with negotiators, and attend briefings hosted by the U.S. and EU Chief 
Negotiators.  
184.  Which stakeholders  may participate? And how can they take part?  
RESPONSE: The stakeholder forum registration is open to the public. Those who register are 
invited to give presentations, engage with negotiators, and attend briefings hosted by the U.S. and 
EU Chief Negotiator s. 
185.  Are there any precedents of stakeholders taking part in the negotiations involving net 
security review?  
RESPONSE: Stakeholders do not take part in negotiations.  
Question 186  
Page 14, Para 4.16  
"TPP has been designed as a regional platform, and followin g the conclusion of the TPP 
negotiations, a number of other Asia -Pacific economies expressed interest in potentially seeking to 
join TPP in the future. The 12 TPP partners have welcomed this interest, while noting that their 
current focus is on completing their respective domestic approval processes and having the 
agreement enter into force." " 
186.  With the president -elect Donald Trump vowing to withdraw from TPP, what would be the lost 
long term economic dividend for the U.S. and the other TPP member states? An d how does the 
U.S. plan to address the situation and make up for it if the drop -out became the case?  
RESPONSE: With respect to the incoming Administration that will take office in January 2017, we 
remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We lo ok forward to keeping the Membership 
informed as the new Administration comes into place.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 135 - 
 
  Questions 187 -188 
Page 15, Paragraph 4.18  
"…In connection with NAFTA, the United States and Mexico also agreed to fund a development 
bank to address environmental inf rastructure needs along the U.S. -Mexico border.… " 
187.  What projects have the development banks conducted unde r NAFTA? Please provide a list of 
projects.  
RESPONSE: A list of the North American Development Bank's current projects can be found at the 
following li nk: http://www.nadb.org/projects/currentprojects.asp . 
188.  What effects have these projects had on the settlement of border issues? Have any 
assessments been conducted?  
RESPONSE:  Information can b e found on the website of the Border Environment Cooperation 
Commission: http://www.becc.org/ . A list of the North American Development Bank's current 
projects and completed projects can also be found at the following l ink: 
http://www.nadb.org/projects/currentprojects.asp . 
Annual and quarterly reports can also be found here: http://www.nadb.org/public ations/main.asp . 
Question 189  
Page 15, Paragraph 4.19  
…"The United States, together with Mexico and Canada, have continued efforts to ensure that 
trade liberalization and environmental policies are mutually supportive, including by having trade 
and enviro nment officials participate in the development of the CEC's work plans. " 
189.  Please introduce CEC 's work plans in detail?  
RESPONSE: Information about the CEC's work can be found at the following link: 
http://www .cec.org/about -us/NAAEC . 
Question 190  
Page 15, Paragraph 4.25  
The United States joined with other APEC economies to advance capacity building actions to help 
developing APEC economies improve the efficiency of supply chains, as measured by reductions in 
time, cost, and uncertainty of shipments. The projects in the plan match closely with the 
provisions of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
190.  Does the U.S. ' aid to APEC economies in supply chains capacity building cover the network 
security sector? If yes , what measures has the U.S. taken to ensure the safety of communications 
supply chains in recipient countries or to avoid security risks to these supply chains?  
RESPONSE: No. 
Question 191  
Page 23, Para 5.2  
"Twenty -three economies are participating in TiS A negotiations: Australia; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; the European Union; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; 
Liechtenstein; Mauritius; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Peru; the Republic of 
Korea; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei;  Turkey; and the United States. TiSA participants represented 
nearly 70% of the world's U.S.  $55 trillion services market in 2014."  
191.  As the main initiator of TISA negotiation, what is the U.S. 's plan to realize the guiding 
principle of "transparency and inc lusiveness "? And what is the US expectation on the prospect of 
future multilateralization of TISA?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 136 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States remains willing to meet with any Member to discuss our objectives 
for TiSA, as we have done in the past. We hope that in the fut ure the full membership will be 
receptive to the adoption of new disciplines and approaches to achieving services trade 
liberalization, as reflected in TiSA negotiations and other bilateral and regional initiatives.  
Question 192  
Page 29, Para 9.2  
"U.S. sm all businesses are key engines for U.S. economic growth, jobs, and innovation. SMEs that 
export tend to grow faster, add jobs faster, and pay higher wages than SMEs that serve purely 
domestic markets. Studies by the U.S. International Trade Commission, req uested by U.S.TR, 
reveal that SMEs play a larger role in the export economy than is suggested by traditional trade 
statistics, with direct and indirect exports by U.S. SMEs supporting about four million jobs in the 
United States while accounting for over 4 0% of the total value of U.S. exports of goods and 
services. But currently, fewer than 5% of American SMEs export goods, and most of those who do, 
export only one product to one foreign country."  
192.  Based on China 's E-Commerce development experience, compared  with traditional trade 
modes, transactions enabled through widely acknowledged online platforms could substantially 
help SMEs around the world integrate into global trade. Please evaluate the role E -Commerce is 
currently playing in boosting US exports of both goods and services, and describe the 
considerations of the U.S. on the future development of global E -Commerce regulations.  
RESPONSE: In the past five years, the number of Internet users  worldwide has ballooned from 
2 to 3 billion and will continue to  grow. The increase in Internet use creates significant economic 
potential, particularly for small businesses. Private sector studies have found that internet -enabled 
SMEs are much more likely to export to multiple markets and earn more revenue from foreig n 
sales than SMEs which do not use ecommerce platforms. The U.S. is working to promote digital 
trade and e -commerce — the avenue by which many small businesses access the global 
marketplace — by prohibiting tariffs on digital products (software, music, video , e-books), ensuring 
the free flow of data, and ensuring access to competitive online payment services. The US is also 
working to establish rules against localization requirements that force businesses to place 
computer infrastructure in each market in whi ch they seek to operate, which can be especially 
costly to small businesses with fewer resources.  
The U.S. has also established an e -commerce export resource center, to help SMEs explore digital 
commerce and learn how to sell products internationally via the internet. Information may be 
found at : https://www.export.gov/ecommerce .  
Questions 193 -194 
Page 27, Paragraph 7.1  
"Since the last U.S. Trade Policy Review, the United States has achieved significant res ults on trade 
and environment matters in multiple fora, including through regional and bilateral trade 
initiatives. " 
193.  What are the reasons for the U.S. to achieve significant progress on trade and environment 
issues during the review period?  
RESPONSE: Recen t measures and efforts include working with other U.S. Government agencies to 
prioritize anti -wildlife trafficking and related conservation objectives in environmental cooperation 
projects and support implementation of CITES obligations in the environment chapters of existing 
free trade agreements. For example, U.S. capacity building efforts supported wildlife trafficking 
efforts in Peru and in Central America and the Dominican Republic through free trade agreement 
work plans. The United States has engaged extensively with partner countries, most recently key 
demand and transit countries in the Asia -Pacific region, to coordinate cooperation and prioritize 
activities to combat and cooperate to prevent wildlife trafficking. Through the Forest Annex of the 
U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the United States has engaged extensively with Peru to 
promote sustainable management of natural resources, strengthen forest sector governance, and 
combat illegal logging and associated trade, including through capacity bu ilding activities.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 137 - 
 
  Highlights of recent actions taken on trade and environment matters include an agreement by the 
United States and China to implement nearly complete bans on ivory imports and exports, 
implementation of environmental cooperation programs  related to U.S. free trade agreements that 
supported wildlife conservation and anti -poaching efforts, training by U.S. agencies for over 2,000 
enforcement officials in 40 countries to help combat wildlife trafficking, and the launch of a 
significant deman d reduction campaign aimed at reducing the purchases of rhino horn. A Progress 
Assessment that provides a comprehensive review of relevant actions taken by U.S. Government 
agencies is available at the following link: 
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/254013.pdf . Key accomplishments to date in 2016 
include implementation of a near -total domestic ban on the trade in African elephant ivory and the 
first burn of illegal rhino hor n in the United States. Additional details can be found at the following 
link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/11/264594.htm . 
194.  Will the U.S. maintain such momentum in environment and trade in the next review period?  
RESPONSE: We note that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the WTO 
Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 195  
Page 28, Paragraph 7.5  
"In APEC, the United States cont inued to work closely with other economies to ensure full 
implementation of APEC Leaders' 2011 commitment to reduce tariffs on environmental goods to 
5% or less by the end of 2015. "… 
195.  Has the U.S. implemented the commitment on APEC list of environmental go ods? How many 
tariff lines are included in the relevant reduction of duties? What are the approximate import and 
export volumes of the products under these tariff lines? Will the U.S. take corresponding measures 
against the countries and regions that have not implemented tariff reduction as scheduled?  
RESPONSE: The United States reduced six tariff lines, which cover bamboo flooring, condensers 
for steam/vapor power units and steam turbine parts, to 5% on December 31, 2015 as part of the 
APEC Environmental G oods commitment. US exports of these six lines totaled $441 million in 
2015, while US imports totaled $357 million that same year. We note that nearly all APEC 
economies have now implemented this Leader -level commitment.  
Question 196  
Page 30, Para 9.5  
The United States also continues to develop the FTA Tariff Tool, a free online tool launched 
in 2011, which helps small businesses take better advantage of tariff reduction and elimination 
under U.S. trade agreements. The FTA Tariff Tool was expanded to inclu de tariff information on 
textiles and apparel products as well as rules of origin under U.S. FTAs, and to include new 
regional free trade agreements such as TPP. U.S.TR and other agencies also created an SME 
Exporter's Toolkit guide to U.S. Government expo rting resources.  
196.  Please introduce  the contents of this Toolkit guide and how it provides guidance in detail?  
RESPONSE:  The online FTA Tariff Tool incorporates agricultural and non -agricultural goods and 
includes information on product -specific rules of ori gin to determine the eligibility of the reduced 
tariff rates under with any US FTA Partner. The Tariff Tool not only provides information on current 
tariff lines, but also provides transparency on future tariffs and the year in which those products 
become duty free. Smaller firms in particular can use the free tool to determine how tariffs will be 
lowered or eliminated for their products with FTAs. The tool may be found online at : 
https://www.export.gov/ FTA-Tariff-Tool. 
A Basic Guide to Exporting provides an overview of the fundamentals in exporting, designed for 
small to medium -sized companies who are considering finding new market segments overseas. 
Topics covered include export strategies, export plan  development, marketing plan development, 
market research, regional and country information, statistics, industry information, export 
counseling, financing, finding buyers, trade events and trade missions, export regulations, WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 138 - 
 
  packaging and labeling, docume ntation, intellectual property considerations, services exports, 
e-commerce tools, and additional information. The guide may be found online at : 
https://www.export.gov/export -education . 
PART III. OTHE R QUESTIONS  
197.  What are the standards for reviewing the creativity for some design, especially that of GUI in 
the U.S.? How are the relevant infringement damages determined?  
RESPONSE: With regard to United States design patents, like utility patent applicatio ns, design 
applications are examined to ensure the claimed design is "novel" pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 
"nonobvious" pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103. All design patent applications (including graphical user 
interface and icon designs), regardless of the parti cular article of manufacture for which the design 
is intended for, are examined for compliance with sections 102 and 103 of Title 35 among other 
provisions. See also MPEP 1504.02 Novelty and 1504.03 Nonobviousness.  
A design patent owner may seek damages un der the standard patent damages statute 35 U.S.C. 
284 that are "adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no even less than a reasonable 
royalty for the use made of the invention [design] by the infringer " including interest and costs as 
fixed by  the court. As an alternative unique to design patent cases, the owner can collect damages 
under the additional remedy for design patent infringement codified in 35 U.S.C. 289, which 
entitles the patent owner to the infringer 's "total profit " made from art icles of manufacture to 
which the infringing design has been applied.  
198.  It is known that U.S.PTO is optimizing the existing technology, including incorporating 
existing citing documents and technology and audit logs into files, so that auditors can acquire 
relevant materials quickly. Will this measure mitigate the obligation and legal responsibility of 
applicants in the IDS of patents?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO is committed to ensuring optimal information technology service delivery 
to both internal and external us ers. The USPTO has also begun the replacement of legacy tools 
with new tools. The entire patent examining corps has received training on the Docket and 
Application Viewer (DAV), which replaces the electronic Desktop Application Navigator (eDAN) tool. 
DAV i s a customizable, searchable tool to help examiners manage their workload and prioritize 
tasks. This new tool, like others to come, will help the agency in the drive to increase patent 
quality. Once fully deployed, the USPTO 's patent end -to-end (PE2E) syst em will provide examiners 
with an improved way of processing patent applications, integrating activities currently managed 
across separate systems into a central place, and leveraging modern technology.  
The USPTO expects to launch more releases that are c ritical to examiners, including office action 
and search tools. Office action capabilities will allow the patent -examination corps to write their 
office action and to fill out the appropriate forms and workflow for having that office action type 
approved f or communication with the applicant. Search will be a high -performance tool that will 
find prior art supporting complex Boolean searches, reviewing results, hit terms, and documents. 
The USPTO also deployed public access to One Portal Dossier (OPD), which is an IP5 initiative to 
provide "secure, one -stop access and management to global patent applications. "  
Under 37 CFR 1.56, each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent 
application has a duty to disclose to the office information material to the patentability of the 
claimed invention.  
199.  How many cases of intellectual property rights involving foreign interests did the U.S. have 
annually during the review period? And how many of these cases applied for the recognition and 
enforcement of foreign IPR by U.S. courts and how many were recognized and enforced?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not collect such statistics or information.  
200.  Is the U.S. considering joining BTAP soon?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not understand what is meant b y the acronym "BTAP. " 
201.  According to Section 72, Title 12 of the United States Code , every director of national banks 
must, during his whole term of service, be a citizen of the US, except that the Comptroller of the WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 139 - 
 
  Currency waive the requirement of residen cy, and waive the requirement of citizenship in the case 
of not more than a minority of the total number of directors.  
1). Please explain the legal background, purpose and reasons of the above stipulation.  
2). The above stipulation of the U.S. has serious ly restricted the development of  foreign banks in 
the U.S. Does the U.S. have any plans to revise it?  
3). Has the U.S. signed any agreement with other countries to exempt their banks investing in the 
US from the restriction of directors ' residency?  
RESPON SE: In contrast to some of our trading partners, the United States imposes no 
requirements on banks related to the citizenship of senior management or key personnel.  Thus, 
foreign banks have full flexibility in appointing the executives and other personnel  who are 
responsible for day -to-day operations and decisions about how the business is run.  The 
United  States does maintain some federal and state citizenship requirements for banks relating to 
composition of boards of directors.  However, in the case of na tional banks, the legal requirement 
that all members of the board of directors be U.S. citizens permits the Office of the Comptroller of 
the Currency (OCC) to waive the requirement for a minority of the total number of such directors.  
202.  As recorded, the Unit ed States submitted an increasing numb er of TBT notifications to the 
WTO, and TBT have generally replaced trade remedies and become the main restriction on Chinese 
exportation. Please shed light on the trend of TBT notifications in the coming years and exp lain 
what impact this may have on Chinese companies.  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. With regard to past 
notifications, there are numerous conceivable factors that may affect the increase in notifications, 
and therefore the  United States cannot identify a single factor that explains the change. The 
United States is not in a position to fully address whether and how exports from other Members 
are impacted by measures subject to the TBT Agreement. Indeed, a fundamental purpose  of the 
notification system is to alert other Members to measures that may have a significant impact on 
trade -- and allow them to determine if and how they might be impacted. Through the notification 
process, Members can bring to the attention of the Memb er developing the measure any potential 
impacts on trade and potential actions that might minimize or eliminate such impacts.  
203.  Article 1640 of the American economic stimulus plan regulates that the project supported by 
economic stimulus plan must use the d omestic iron and steel and other manufactured goods, 
which restricts related Chinese products to enter the US markets. Please share the US view on the 
compliance of such practice with the WTO rules and whether it has any plans to abolish it.  
RESPONSE: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, including section 1605 
regarding use of domestic iron, steel, and manufactured goods, was implemented in a manner 
consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.  
204.  The U.S. has been restricting  the export of high -tech products to China for "national security 
reasons ". Please offer an overview of the high -tech products that were rejected to be exported to 
China as national security exceptions since 2014 (including categories of products and 
appro ximate amounts).  
RESPONSE: The US does not restrict the export of high -tech products to China. The United States 
has committed to facilitate trade in high technology goods to civil end users for civil end use.  
205.  Does the U.S. have any strict restriction on t he multinational transfer of technology by its 
domestic enterprises, colleges and universities or research institutions? If yes, please provide 
information on the responsible authorities, scope, procedure and enforcement of these restrictions 
after 2014.  
RESPONSE: We do not understand the meaning of "strict restrictio ns" in the question. The 
United  States annual reports pursuant to Article 66.2 and Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement to the 
WTO TRIPS Council provide detailed descriptions of U.S. technology tr ansfer and technical 
cooperation activities globally. The United States submitted reports most recently to the TRIPS 
Council on October 18, 2016 regarding technical cooperation activities (IP/C/W/617/Add.5) and 
implementation of article 66.2 of the TRIPS A greement (IP/C/W/616/Add.5). These reports are 
available to all WTO members.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 140 - 
 
  206.  Please introduce the enforcement of rulings in the case United States -Measures Affecting 
Trade in Large Civil Aircraft — Second Complaint, WT/DS353  under the dispute settlement 
mechanism of WTO.  
RESPONSE: On September 23, 2012, the United States announced that it had come into 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations. The matter is currently being examined by a 
compliance panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
207.  Please introduc e the enforcement of the rulings in the case United States -Countervailing 
Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS437  under the dispute settlement 
mechanism of WTO.  
RESPONSE: On June 22, 2016, the United States notified the DSB that it had compl eted 
implementation of the DSB recommendations in this dispute. The matter is currently being 
examined by a compliance panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
208.  According to the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act, 2013  approved by 
the 1 13th Congress, funds allocated to NASA cannot be used for bilateral cooperation with the 
government or state -owned enterprises of China in any form, nor can the funds be used for 
receiving Chinese official visitors in its self -owned facilities. Please expl ain the reasons for such 
stipulation and indicate the development direction of U.S. space policy in future international 
cooperation.  
RESPONSE:  This issue raised in this question is not trade -related or WTO -related.  
209.  Which authorities of the U.S. are respon sible for the negotiation, signing and approval of 
bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements respectively? What are its domestic legal 
procedures?  
RESPONSE: There have been no major changes in the general institutional and legal framework 
affecting trade policy formulation and implementation in the United States since its last Trade 
Policy Review in 2014. Full details of the U.S. trade and investment regime can be found in Section 
2 of the Trade Policy Review.  
210.  What are the US requirements for a  letter of guarantee from a construction project 
contractor and the management of its issuing institution? Which US agencies are responsible for 
the management of insurance companies and guarantee companies?  
RESPONSE : In private construction projects, for ms of guarantee are a matter of private contract 
and are not subject to federal requirements. As per the McCarran -Ferguson Act of 1945 (U.S. Code 
Title 15, Chapter 20), U.S. regulation of the insurance services sector takes place primarily at the 
state lev el. The Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd -Frank Act) 
gave the Federal Reserve consolidated regulatory authority both for insurance holding companies 
that own a federally insured bank or thrift and for insurance companies desig nated as systemically 
important by the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The Dodd -Frank Act also 
established the U.S. Department of Treasury's Federal Insurance Office (FIO). FIO does not have 
regulatory authority, but monitors all aspects  of the insurance sector, and represents the United 
States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International 
Association of Insurance Supervisors.  
211.  Please specify the requirements for LGs for the public engineering pr ojects invested by the 
federal and states respectively. Are there any other way of guarantee apart from the LG in public 
projects contracting?  
RESPONSE: The Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 28 specifies the bond and insurance 
requirements for federal pr ocurements, including of construction services. The federal government 
does not collect information on the specific procurement requirements maintained by the states.  
212.  Does US have any plans to establish a unified, simple, reasonable and clear due diligenc e 
investigation process for the trade and finance sector businesses?  
RESPONSE: The nature of the information requested in this question is unclear.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 141 - 
 
  FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS  
PART I. QUESTIONS BASED ON REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Page 45, para 3.40  
The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 (PL 114 -159) provides a new process for 
the consideration of temporary tariff suspensions. Enterprises seeking tariff relief are to petition 
the USITC, which will examine such petitions, rece ive comments, and issue a report to Congress 
providing specified findings on the requested duty suspensions and reductions. Based on such a 
report, Congress will consider a miscellaneous tariff bill that could authorize tariff relief.  
1. According to the A merican Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016, which products 
(commodity names and tariff lines) are subject to temporary tariff suspensions? When and how 
was the information released?  
RESPONSE:  Currently, no such temporary measures are in effect. As n oted, the American 
Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 (the Act) establishes a new procedure for the filing of 
requests for duty suspensions or reductions. Under the new procedure, likely beneficiaries of such 
suspensions or reductions had an opportu nity to file a petition directly with the U.S. International 
Trade Commission between October 14, 2016, and December 12, 2016. In January 2017, the 
Commission is scheduled to issue a Federal Register notice soliciting public comments on accepted 
petitions.  In August 2017, the Commission is scheduled to submit its final report on temporary 
tariff suspensions to Congress. Additional information about temporary tariff suspensions can be 
found on the Commission ''s website at http://usitc.gov.  
Question 2  
Page 88 , para 3.211  
2. The BAA is not applicable to services. Are all the enterprises registered in the United States 
(local legal persons) regarded as domestic service providers and enjoy national treatment in 
government procurement activities?  
RESPONSE:  Subpart  25.402(a)(b) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations notes that a federal 
government "contracting officer shall determine the origin of services by the country in which the 
firm providing the service is established."  
 
Question 3  
Page 105, para 4.1&4.2  
Page 108, para 4.7&Tabe 4.4  
3. Since the United States already enjoys the most competitive agriculture in the world, what is 
the consideration of the government in applying to many agricultural products the Price Loss 
Coverage programme, the Agricultural Risk  Coverage programme, the Marketing Loan Programme 
and other price support programmes that are linked to current prices of agricultural products? Has 
the Federal Government evaluated how these agricultural product price support programmes have 
distorted the  prices and markets of agricultural products in the United States and the world? If 
yes, what are the evaluation results?  
RESPONSE:  Price Loss Coverage (PLC), and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) were authorized by 
the 2014 Farm Bill.  They have been appropr iately notified to the WTO COA in the 2014 DS:1 
notification.   
Question 4  
Page 111, para  4.1.2.4  
The USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides marketing assistance loans to eligible 
producers of the covered commodities.  Marketing loans allow produc ers to delay sales from normal 
harvest time (or shearing, for wool) until market conditions are favourable. Loan rates have been 
set well below current market prices and current production costs in recent years, and the WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 142 - 
 
  marketing loan programme is thus des igned to provide income support at times of low commodity 
prices.  
4. Has the ultra -low loan rates provided by the Government of the United States to domestic 
agricultural production constituted a relative policy advantage compared to  the relatively high 
interest rates provided by other developing countries to their agricultural production? Since the 
marketing loan programme offers a loan rate which has a proportional relationship with the market 
prices of agricultural products, does it mean that the marketi ng loan programme is a minimum 
purchase price policy? The marketing loan programme has been in existence since the 1930s, and 
the United States already realized the whole process mechanization in the farming and harvesting 
of staple agricultural products b y and large in 1968. What was the role played by this policy in 
raising the incomes of American farmers and enabling them to purchase large -scale agricultural 
machinery and other inputs to realize agricultural modernization?  
RESPONSE:  The interest rate cha rged on a marketing loan is set at one percentage point above 
the Commodity Credit Corporation ''s cost of borrowing from the U.S. Treasury at the time the loan 
is made.  The marketing loan program does not operate as a minimum purchase price policy, as 
producers retain ownership of their commodities and repay loans after commodities are sold.  The 
program's objective is to provide a marketing tool to farmers and provide interim financing at 
harvest time.  It is unrelated to the purchases of agricultural machin ery and other inputs.  
Question 5  
Page 111, para  4.15 
Today, the federal crop insurance programme allows participants to insure against losses on some 
130 crops, including the five major crops (maize, cotton, grain/sorghum, soybeans, and wheat), 
minor crops , and specialty crops (fruit, vegetables, nursery crops, and tree nuts). Premium rates 
and other contract provisions are determined by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), but 
sold to farmers by private insurance companies and private insurance agents.  
5. The United States is a market economy. As a measure for farmers to prevent natural and 
price risks, crop insurance is supposed to be provided through the market. The Government of the 
United States let one of its institutions the USDA Risk Management Age ncy to determine premium 
rates and other contract provisions. Is this against market rules? And Should adjustments be made 
according to market situations?  
RESPONSE:  The Risk Management Agency (RMA) manages the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation (FCIC) to p rovide crop insurance products that are actuarially sound and reflect 
market conditions.  The crop insurance program also allows for private parties to develop new crop 
insurance products to be offered through the program.  
Question 6  
Page 111, para  4.16 
In general, farmers may choose between catastrophic coverage, insuring 50% of the normal yield 
and 55% of the estimated market price of the crop, and additional ("buy -up") coverage (50% -85% 
of normal yield and up to 100% of the estimated market price of the c rop). 
6. According to the stipulations of the Federal Government, , participants under the 
catastrophic coverage pay an annual US$300 administrative fee for each crop insured in each 
county, while the Federal Government pays the entire premium for catastro phic coverage. Will 
ultra-large-scale farmers benefit more from such a policy design than small -scale farmers? Why 
did not the Federal Government ask participants under catastrophic coverage to pay premiums 
that are linked to current areas or outputs, or a reas or outputs in base periods?  
RESPONSE:  The crop insurance program provides the same coverage per acre, regardless of the 
size of the producer.   
The premium for catastrophic coverage is based on the expected production for the acres a farmer 
actually pl ants.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 143 - 
 
  Question 7  
Page 112, table 4.5  
Table 4.5 Crop insurance fiscal costs, by crop year, 2008 -14 show s that, during the 7 years 
from 2008 to 2014, the total government cost of crop insurance amounted to US$57.7 billion, and 
the a&o costs paid by the gove rnment to insurance companies during the same period reached 
US$10.5 billion. A&o costs accounted for 18% of the total government cost. The a&o costs paid by 
the Federal Government of the United States to subsidize crop premiums dropped from 
US$2  billion i n 2008 to US$1.6 billion in 2009, and maintained at US$1.4 billion from 2010 to 
2014. However, it is not hard to see that the US$1.4 billion of a&o costs in 2010 accounted for 
30% of the US$4.7 billion of total government cost in the same year, and the pro portion in 2014 
still reached 20%.  
7. Why did the proportion of a&o costs in total government cost stay at a high level during the 
implementation of the Federal Government ''s crop insurance subsidy policy? Since the total 
government cost of crop insurance was different in each year, why did the Federal Government 
provide a fixed sum of US$1.4 billion of financial support to insurance companies from 2010 to 
2014 instead of offering financial support to insurance companies in light of the actual a&o costs of 
each year?  
RESPONSE:  Administration and operating (A&O) expenditures reimburse private insurance 
companies for certain administrative and operating expenses for the delivery of Federal crop 
insurance policies.  Before 2011, the A&O paid to insurance compani es was based on a percent of 
total premium.  For 2011 and later, RMA renegotiated the Standard Reinsurance agreement to limit 
the A&O such that is does not exceed a maximum level of around $1.4 billion.  It is not practical for 
RMA to monitor the insurance c ompanies '' actual costs each year. Instead, A&O is based on a 
percent of premium, subject to a limit, as negotiated between RMA and the insurance companies.  
Question 8  
Page 112, para 4.18  
Moreover, the GAO released a study in March 2015, concluding that a reduction in premium 
subsidies for the highest income participants could lead to significant savings while leaving 99% of 
the participants unaffected.  Earlier studies have argued that the crop insurance programme is 
inefficient compared with other forms of  government support, such as decoupled payments.  
8. Does the Federal Government have any plans on reforming and perfecting the policy on 
premium subsidies to agricultural products in order to improve the efficiency of the policy and 
reduce unnecessary wast e of financial funds?  
RESPONSE:  Current U.S. farm programs are governed by the 2014 Farm Act for the period 
2014-18. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping the 
Membership informed of any changes that may occur in a future Farm Bill.  
Question 9  
Page 113, para 4.19  
Instead, a new Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) provides coverage for losses of up to 20% 
of the expected county revenue…In addition, the grower may increase (or decrease) the effective 
coverage under  STAX by choosing a multiplier (protection factor) that may range from 80% to 
120%. The premium subsidy rate, i.e. the share paid by the Federal Government, is 80%.  
Page 113, para 4.21  
U.S. sugar prices have been above world market levels since the early 1980s.  
Page 113, para 4.22  
The overall allotments equal at least 85% of estimated domestic demand for human consumption. 
Excess sugar may not be sold in the market for human consumption and must thus be stored at WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 144 - 
 
  the owner's expense. Depending on market co nditions, USDA may adjust allotments upwards in 
the course of the marketing year to release more sugar into the market.  
9. Since the Unites States has already realized scale management and mechanized production 
and harvest of cotton and sugar, why more spe cial protective policies are provided by the 
government to cotton and sugar? Research reports in the United States called on the government 
to reduce the overprotection of sugar and requested to cut down on the high tariff rates on and 
subsidies to sugar. What is the US government ''s view on this issue? What are future policy 
considerations on improving the market competitiveness of sugar?  
RESPONSE:  Current U.S. farm programs are governed by the 2014 Farm Act for the period 
2014-18. We remind Members that T PRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping the 
Membership informed of any changes that may occur in a future Farm Bill.  
Question 10  
Page 113, 4.1.2.9 Other programs  
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the dominant program me, in terms of 
expenditures, under the 2014 Farm Act (Title IV), accounting for US$756.4 billion or nearly 80% of 
all projected outlays over FY2014 -FY2023…At present, around 22 million households representing 
some 45 million individuals participate in SNA P. The average monthly benefit is about US$125 per 
person.  
10. During the current implementation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the 
United States, the aid received by each resident is linked to the number of people in the 
household, in comes and expenditures. The programme also stimulates the production activities of 
local farms and increases farmers '' incomes and distorted the production of and the trade in 
agricultural products, therefore bearing the characteristics of "amber box" subs idy policies. In its 
domestic  support notification to the WTO, the US Government listed the expenditure as "domestic 
food aid " in the "green box" not confined by reduction commitments. Please explain the reason 
why the US government listed the policy in th e "green box " rather than "amber box ".  
RESPONSE:  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fully meets the green box 
criteria for exemption in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture.  It is a 
publicly funded program that e nables eligible recipients to buy food at market prices through 
financial assistance.  
PART II. OTHER QUESTIONS  
Question 11  
According to the 2014 Farm Act of the United States, the ""reference prices "" of wheat, corn and 
soybeans were US$5.50, US$3.70 and U S$8.40 per bushel respectively. While in the 2008 Farm 
Act, the target prices of wheat, corn and soybeans were US$4.17, US$2.63 and US$6.00 per 
bushel respectively. Compared with the target prices of wheat, corn and soybeans in 2008, the 
""reference prices "" of 2014 respectively rose by 32%, 、41%、40%.  
11. Since American agricultural products are highly competitive in the international market with 
a very big share in the world ''s total exports, why has the Federal Government raised the reference 
prices or tar get prices of agricultural products? The United States has adopted target or reference 
prices policies for the agricultural products for a long period of time. Will they distort the market 
prices of agricultural products and result in the malfunctioning of  the market in resource 
allocation? Will it put other developing countries in a disadvantageous market position in the 
international trade of agricultural products?  
RESPONSE:  Both the 2008 Farm Bill programs and the 2014 Farm Bill programs have been 
notified to the WTO. Both programs were designed and implemented consistent with WTO 
obligations and market conditions.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 145 - 
 
  Question 12  
Page 13 of the Statement by Thomas Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture before the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture on September 21, 2 016, ""As for MPP -Dairy, USDA recently amended 
regulations to allow producers that add adult children, grandchildren or spouses to their operation 
to increase the established milk production history eligible for coverage under MPP -Diary "", thus 
the subsidy  on milk was raised.  
12. By amending policies, the United States increased the established milk production history of 
dairy farmers applying for MPP -Dairy, thus raising the subsidy on milk. How much has the subsidy 
increased after the amendment of the poli cy compared with before? In addition to the provisions 
on milk, has the Federal Government amended any other provisions concerning the production 
history of other agricultural products? If so, please give a detailed introduction to the 
amendments. Which ag ricultural products have experienced what amendments ？ 
RESPONSE:  MPP-Dairy is a margin insurance program that requires participating producers to pay 
a premium for coverage.  The program will be notified in the appropriate U.S. domestic support 
notification.  
Question 13  
A Saudi Prince May Be Racing Away with Farm Subsidies, an article published through the website 
of Environmental Working Group on October 11, 2016. According to the article, ""Billionaire Saudi 
Prince Khalid bin Abdullah could be raking in hun dreds of thousands of dollars in crop insurance 
subsidies through farms he owns in Kentucky – but we have no way of knowing for sure as the 
government has not disclosed the database on all the crop insurance subsidies "", ""a farm owned 
by the Prince in the  UK received £406,826 in European Union farm subsidies in 2015 "", ""while 
foreign persons are generally prohibited from collecting commodity subsidies if they own more 
than a 10 percent stake in the farm business, the federal crop insurance program has no strict 
prohibition on eligibility for premium subsidies "", ""a 2015 report by the Government 
Accountability Office found that more than 20 crop insurance participants in the highest income 
category had foreign residences "". 
13. Can farms invested by foreig ners in the United States apply for crop premium subsidies? If 
so, what are the conditions and requirements?  
RESPONSE:  Persons who operate farms invested by foreigners in the United States may only 
apply for crop premium subsidies under certain conditions.  To be eligible for crop premium 
subsidies for a crop or livestock policy reinsured under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, you must 
be a person who has an insurable interest in an agricultural commodity, who has not been 
determined ineligible to participate  in the Federal crop insurance program, and who possesses a 
United States issued Social Security Number (SSN) or Employer Identification Number (EIN).   
Persons who do not possess a United States issued SSN or EIN may still be eligible to participate in 
policies reinsured under the Federal Crop Insurance Act if they can demonstrate that they are 
entitled to Federal benefits in accordance with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Act of 1996 (PRWORA).  The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) may issu e a RMA Assigned 
Number (RAN) allowing participation for its programs to an individual who is considered a qualified 
alien as determined by the PRWORA, 8 U.S.C. §1611; or, to a trust administered by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, and Indian Tribal Ventures that does not have an EIN.  
Question 14  
On December 19, 2015, the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and 9 ministerial decisions were 
adopted at the 10th Ministerial Conference of the WTO. The 162 member states promised for the 
first time to eliminate all expo rt subsidies to agricultural products and export credits on agricultural 
products will be brought under control. As stipulated, developed countries must immediately 
eliminate policies on the export subsidies to agricultural products.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 146 - 
 
  14. As an advocator of  free trade and a major founder of the WTO, why has the United States 
maintained export credit guarantees in its 2014 Farm Act, which is in violation of the WTO 's 
requirements for "eliminating export subsidies of agricultural products? "  
RESPONSE:  The Farm  Act of 2014 does not affect the ability of the United States to comply with 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision dealing with export competition such as export credits (i.e. the 
GSM-102 program). The United States has followed the elements of the Nairobi deci sion since 
prior to December 2015 and will continue to do so.  
Questions 15 -17 
Information from the Farm Subsidy Database of the website  of Environmental Working Group  
(1) About the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). From 2011 to 2014, the Federal 
Government of the United States invested US$7.666 billion, US$7.090, US$7.426 billion and US$ 
6.208 billion in the programme respectively every year. A significant part of the money was used 
to support the production of corn. Many international researches show  that this American subsidy 
policy has distorted the prices in the corn markets.  
(2) C rop premium subsidy. From 2008 to 2014, the annual crop premium subsidy on wheat in the 
United States amounted to US$0.937 billion, US$1.093 billion, US$0.686 billion, US $1.125 billion, 
US$1.121 billion, US$ 1.253 billion and US$0.918 billion respectively. During the same periods, the 
annual output values of wheat in the United States were US$16.701 billion, US$10.607 billion, 
US$12.579 billion, US$14.269 billion, US$17.38 3 billion, US$14.604 billion and US$11.924 billion 
respectively. Thus, the proportions of the premium subsidies on wheat of the Federal Government 
of the United States in annual outputs from 2008 to 2014 were 5.61%, 10.30%, 5.45%, 7.88%, 
6.45%, 8.58% and 7 .70% respectively. All of them were beyond the upper limit of 5% promised 
by the United States for the proportions of specific agricultural products in their annual outputs. In 
addition to wheat, other agricultural products with crop premium subsidies prov ided by the Federal 
Government in 2014 accounting for more than 5% of their annual outputs included sorghum 
(5.72%), cotton (9.51%), sunflower seed (7.39%), camellia seed (8.82%) and flax seed (5.51%).  
(3) The livestock disaster/emergency payment subsidy. In 2014, the livestock disaster/emergency 
payment subsidy in the United States reached US$4.432 billion. In addition to 2014, the highest 
amount of this subsidy during the period from 1995 to 2014 was US$ 0.434 billion in 2001. In 
2011 and 2012, the subsid y only amounted to US$ 0.267 billion and US$44.92 million respectively. 
The subsidy in 2013 was even a minus. According to the information from the website of USDA, 
"livestock compensation " is a major item of the current disaster subsidy in the United Stat es, and 
the livestock enjoying the highest subsidy is adult Buffalo/Beefalo. On average, each head of 
Buffalo/Beefalo that has died of disaster may receive a compensation of US$2,523.82. Even if 
calculating based on this data, the disaster subsidy of the U nited States in 2014 was equivalent to 
compensation for 175,610 heads of Buffalo/Beefalo.  
15. Has the US government notified the Biomass Crop Assistance Program in its domestic 
support notification. Was this program notified as the amber box measure for a specific agricultural 
product? If not, why?  
RESPONSE:  The United States notifies the Biomass Crop Assistance Program as non -product 
specific support in years during which there are expenditures.  BCAP assistance is provided only to 
non-commodity biomass cr ops, including agricultural or crop residues, woody agriculture residues 
like orchard waste and residues removed directly that are byproducts of preventative treatments 
to reduce the threat of forest fires, disease, or insect infestation.  
16. According to the 2014 Farm Act, in the next 10 years, the Government of the United States 
will continue to strengthen the implementation of policies on crop insurance subsidy. Since the 
subsidy already accounts for such a high proportion in the outputs of agricultural products, will 
agricultural production and agricultural market be seriously distorted by higher subsidies?  
RESPONSE:  Current U.S. farm programs are governed by the 2014 Farm Act for the period 
2014-18. Any changes to the programs will be considered as part  of a new Farm Bill.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 147 - 
 
  17. Why was the US livestock disaster subsidy in 2014 so high? Which specific livestock suffered 
from disasters? What were the death tolls of specific varieties?  
RESPONSE:  Payments in fiscal year 2014 for livestock assistance included retroactive payments 
for disasters back to October 2011, which included the effects of widespread drought in 2012 and 
blizzard conditions in some regions in 2013.  Most of the assistance was for forage loss for which 
species -specific data are not available.  Livestock indemnity payments for death loss are reported 
by species as product -specific support in our DS:1 notifications.  
Questions 18 -20 
Due to institutional reasons, there is a relatively big difference in the administration of the 
accounting sector b etween China and the United States. Registered public accountants in China 
share a unified standard on practicing qualifications across the whole country and are not subject 
to geographical restrictions in operations, while the management measures of the a ccounting 
industry in the United States are mainly formulated by state governments. Registered accountants 
need to obtain practicing qualifications by state, and the qualifications examinations and 
registrations for practice in a number of states have rest rictions in terms of citizenship, right of 
residence and border control. According to the latest developments in the negotiations between 
China and the United States on the bilateral investment treaty, accounting and auditing has been 
deleted from China 's negative list, but the negative list of the United States has maintained 
relevant restrictions on accounting and auditing services by complete exclusion of state -level 
restrictive measures, leading to imbalance in the opening -up of accounting services betw een China 
and the United States.  
18. Some American states (e.g. Arizona, Arkansas and North Carolina) require the right of 
residence in respective states as the condition for obtaining practitioner 's license of registered 
public accountant. Please provide the main considerations for the provisions on the right of 
residence, and explain the conditions for obtaining the right of residence and relevant laws and 
regulations.  
RESPONSE:  Residency requirements may differ among the states that maintain them, and i t is 
recommended that each applicant consult the rules of a particular state. Links to all state -board 
websites may be found at https://nasba.org/stateboards.  As a practical matter, such requirements 
are not the obstacle to serving the national market that  China suggests; because of mobility rules, 
most every U.S. state and territory allows licensed CPAs from other states to practice outside of 
his or her principal place of business without obtaining another license. Information on mobility 
may be found at:  https://www.cpamobility.org/ .  
19. What conditions need the foreigners who are registered public accountants in the United 
States to meet to become partners of American accounting firms? Are there any restricti ons on the 
shareholding ratio or partner proportion? Please provide the common practices and provisions of 
the main states.  
RESPONSE:  A foreign national with a CPA license from a U.S. state enjoys all the practice rights of 
a U.S. national CPA, including t he ability to become a partner of a firm registered in that state.  
Accounting firms in the United States are private enterprises that may set their own conditions for 
partnership, consistent with the business laws of the relevant state.   
20. When issuing b onds in the American capital market, which accounting standards do foreign 
enterprises need to follow to compile their financial statements? What are the requirements for 
their auditors? May foreign accounting firms act as auditors of the foreign enterpris es issuing 
bonds in the United States? Is examination, approval or filing for records by relevant competent 
departments required?  
RESPONSE:  The relevant accounting standard for foreign issuers depends on several factors, 
including previous filings with the  SEC, home -country accounting standards, and company 
ownership.  Details are found in Topic 6 (Foreign Private Issuers and Foreign Business) of the 
Financial Reporting Manual: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cffinancialreportingmanual.pdf . 
Requirements for foreign accounting firms are found in Section 6800 (Foreign Audit Matters) of the 
Manual.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 148 - 
 
  COLOMBIA  
INFORME DE GOBIERNO - Documento WT/TPR/G/350  
6. 6. INICIATIVAS D E CREACIÓN DE CAPACIDAD RELACIONADA CON EL COMERCIO  
6.4. La Alianza para las Normas  
Los párrafos 6.16, 6.17 y 6 -18 del informe de Gobierno señalan que… "En noviembre de 2012, los 
Estados Unidos iniciaron y patrocinaron un mecanismo de asistencia denominado  "Alianza para la 
aplicación de normas" con el objetivo de crear capacidad en los países en desarrollo para que 
cumplan el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio (Acuerdo OTC) de la OMC..."  
"En mayo de 2013, la USAID y el Instituto Nacional de Norma s de los Estados Unidos (ANSI) 
concertaron una asociación público -privada que se encarga de coordinar a los expertos en temas 
del sector privado de las organizaciones miembros del Instituto para impartir formación y otros 
intercambios técnicos con países d e la Alianza para la aplicación de normas y mejores prácticas 
internacionales."  
"Entre 2014 y 2016, la Alianza para las Normas llevó a cabo más de 35 actividades de formación, 
talleres y visitas de delegaciones relacionadas con los OTC y destinadas a más d e 
1.500  participantes de 65 países. Esas actividades de creación de capacidad han consolidado el 
entendimiento y la aplicación de mecanismos relacionados con los OTC en los países de la Alianza 
para las Normas".  
1. Tiene pensado el Gobierno de los Estados Uni dos adelantar una segunda fase del programa 
Standard Alliance que permita a las contrapartes conocer procesos de normalización que se 
relacionan con requerimientos técnicos del mercado?  
El Gobierno de Colombia tiene interés en conocer si una segunda fase d e este proceso podría 
enfocarse a sectores específicos como la manufactura, ya que son dichos exportadores quienes 
deben enfrentar barreras de mercado en destino relacionadas con este tipo de procesos de 
normalización.  
RESPONSE: Specific activities conduct ed under the Standards Alliance are developed with the 
input from U.S. and partner country officials and stakeholders. They address one or more of the 
main objectives of the program: increased understanding of WTO TBT principles; implementation 
of the Code  of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards; improved 
transparency in the development and/or modification of technical regulations; and more robust 
and transparent engagement with the private sector in standards development  and use. In 
Colombia, the Standards Alliance has addressed specific issues pertaining to the automotive 
sector, and other sectors with counterparts in other markets. The United States would welcome 
input from Colombia for potential Standards Alliance acti vities, noting the project's scope, and be 
pleased to discuss further.  
INFORME DE LA SECRETARIA - Documento WT/TPR/S/350  
3.1.8 Normas y otras prescripciones técnicas  
El párrafo 3.101, plantea la Secretaría que "En los Estados Unidos, las actividades de 
normalización están descentralizadas y se basan en la demanda de los destinatarios. Las 
organizaciones de normalización del sector privado elaboran normas consensuales voluntarias en 
respuesta a preocupaciones y necesidades específicas expresadas por los dis tintos sectores 
económicos, las autoridades y los consumidores"  
A su vez, en el párrafo 3.111 se manifiesta que "las atribuciones legales del USTR en materia de 
política comercial quedan fuera del alcance de la Orden Ejecutiva 13609, ya que se ejercen en e l 
APEC, en el Comité OTC de la OMC y en el marco de los acuerdos bilaterales de libre comercio, 
entre otros ámbitos. Muchos de los acuerdos bilaterales de libre comercio suscritos por los Estados 
Unidos contienen disposiciones comunes en las que se reafirm an las obligaciones contraídas por WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 149 - 
 
  las partes en virtud del Acuerdo OTC; la adhesión a los principios de la Decisión del Comité OTC 
del 13 de noviembre de  2000; el reconocimiento mutuo de los procedimientos de evaluación de la 
conformidad; la transparencia ; la colaboración en lo que respecta a las normas, los reglamentos 
técnicos y los procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad; y el intercambio de información".  
Dado que el Reporte de la Secretaría no contiene información precisa sobre reglamentos técni cos, 
agradecemos responder las siguientes preguntas sobre este tema:  
2. ¿Existe algún listado de laboratorios de ensayo avalados o designados? El Gobierno de 
Estados Unidos a través de sus agencias de vigilancia y control de reglamentos técnicos 
actualmente a cepta o aceptaría los certificados de evaluación de la conformidad del país de origen 
de la mercancía, emitidos por organismos de certificación de tercera parte acreditados por los 
organismos de acreditación que hacen parte del Foro Internacional de Acredi tación –IAF-? 
RESPONSE: There is no centralized list of designated or endorsed conformity assessment bodies 
that covers all regulatory agencies. Agencies maintain their own lists w here applicable. The 
United  States relies on a broad range of approaches to conformity assessment, depending on the 
sector (supplier's declaration of conformity, third -party testing or certification, etc.). Accreditation 
programs are operated by all levels of the private sector and the government, and regulators 
frequently rely on  private -sector conformity assessment bodies. The procedures for accreditation 
of conformity assessment bodies vary depending on the particular standard or technical regulation.  
3. ¿Dónde se pueden consultar los procedimientos oficiales de evaluación de confo rmidad 
(inspección y métodos de ensayo) que adopta el gobierno de Estados Unidos para la validación y 
aceptación de los resultados de pruebas de laboratorios realizados en puerto de ingreso a los 
alimentos procesados de origen extranjero?  
RESPONSE: FDA pub lishes laboratory methods on FDA 's website at:  
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/default.htm .  
4. ¿Dónde se pueden consultar los procedimi entos oficiales (también tiempos estipulados) que 
realiza la FDA para levantar las no conformidades de un producto alimenticio por fallas en los 
resultados de laboratorio?  
RESPONSE: It is not clear what is meant by "lift nonconformities of a food product d ue to failures 
found in lab results. " 
Information about Import Alerts and Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE) can be found 
on FDA 's website at : 
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ImportProgram/ActionsEnforcement/ImportAlerts/default.htm#d
wpe. 
Depending on the type of issue resulting in detention of a product without physical examination, 
an importer may submit private laboratory reports f or use as evidence to overcome the 
appearance of a violation.  An importer with questions about submitting a private laboratory report 
under the particular circumstances may contact the compliance officer listed on the FDA Notice of 
Action.   
5. Existe algún li stado de laboratorios de ensayo avalados o designados por la FDA para la 
realización de las pruebas de laboratorios en alimentos, para que las importadores de alimentos 
puedan enviar sus muestras y sean analizadas para demostrarle a la FDA el cumplimiento de los 
requisitos exigidos en la reglamentación estadounidense?  
RESPONSE: No. FDA currently does not maintain such a list. We note that the FDA Food Safety 
Modernization Act (FSMA) directs FDA to establish a program for laboratory accreditation for 
laborat ories to conduct certain required food testing.  
En el párrafo 3.112 se plantea que "Los Estados Unidos han firmado acuerdos de reconocimiento 
mutuo (ARM) con numerosos interlocutores comerciales. En la esfera de las pruebas y la 
certificación del equipo de  telecomunicaciones, se firmaron acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo con 
el Japón, México e Israel en 2007, 2011 y 2012, respectivamente. El Acuerdo de Reconocimiento WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 150 - 
 
  Mutuo del APEC relativo a la Evaluación de la Conformidad del Equipo de Telecomunicaciones ( ARM 
APEC-TEL), firmado el 8  de mayo de  1998, faculta a 21 economías miembros para participar en un 
mecanismo que abarca la aceptación mutua de los informes de pruebas (fase I) y la certificación 
de productos (fase II). Los Estados Unidos han aplicado las f ases I y II del ARM APEC -TEL con el 
Canadá; Hong  Kong, China; y Singapur; y solo la fase I con Australia, la República de Corea, 
Malasia, el Taipei Chino, y Viet Nam. El Acuerdo Interamericano de Reconocimiento Mutuo para la 
Evaluación de la Conformidad de l Equipo de Telecomunicaciones no ha entrado aún en vigor. En 
1998, los Estados  Unidos y la UE firmaron un ARM que abarcaba seis sectores; el ARM con el 
EEE/AELC (2005) refleja las disposiciones del ARM Estados Unidos/UE en lo que respecta a tres 
sectores.  Además, los Estados Unidos han firmado ARM separados con la UE (2004) y los Estados 
de la AELC (2006) en relación con el equipo de seguridad marítima"  
6. Cuáles son los criterios y procedimientos –técnicos y jurídicos - del Gobierno de Estados 
Unidos para la celebración de "Acuerdos de Reconocimiento Mutuo" con terceros países para la 
validez, reconocimiento y homologación de los Certificados de Evaluación de la Conformidad 
emitidos por organismos de inspección y de certificación, laboratorios de ensayo y de c alibración 
acreditados  por los organismos de acreditación que hacen parte del Foro Internacional de 
Acreditación –IAF-? 
RESPONSE: USTR is authorized by section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and section 
141 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1974, as amended, to negotiate mutual recognition 
agreements on behalf of the United States. Such agreements provide, for example, a mechanism 
whereby the United States and a trading partner agree to accept conformity assessment results 
from testing laboratories or  certification bodies located in each other's respective territories that 
both trading partners recognize as competent. Most U.S. MRAs are in the telecommunications 
sector. MRAs are not needed for foreign bodies to test and certify products for the U.S. ma rket; 
the United States allows foreign bodies to test and certify products for the U.S. market according 
to terms and conditions that are no less favorable than those it applies to U.S. testing and 
certification bodies. With respect to reliance on ILAC and  IAF accreditation, the choice of whether 
to rely on such accreditation is at the discretion of each regulator; however, as appropriate, USTR 
encourages regulators to consider ILAC and IAF accreditation as they develop and implement their 
conformity assess ment programs. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, for example, uses 
ILAC accreditation in its third -party testing requirements for toys.  
3.1.9 Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias  
3.1.9.1 Marco jurídico e institucional básico  
El párrafo 3.113 se ñala que "Los Estados Unidos mantienen numerosas leyes y reglamentos 
relativos a la inocuidad de los alimentos y la sanidad animal y vegetal, entre ellas, Ley Federal de 
Productos Alimenticios, Medicamentos y Cosméticos, la Ley Federal de Inspección de la Carne, la 
Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria, y la Ley Federal sobre Insecticidas, Fungicidas y Rodenticidas. La 
más amplia actualización de la legislación sobre inocuidad de los alimentos de los Estados Unidos 
de los últimos decenios tuvo lugar en enero de 2 011 con la promulgación de la Ley de 
Modernización de las Normas sobre Inocuidad de los Alimentos de la Administración de Productos 
Alimenticios y Farmacéuticos (PL 111 -353).  
El párrafo 3.127 indica que "La misión general del APHIS en el Departamento de Ag ricultura es 
promover y proteger la sanidad agropecuaria en los Estados Unidos, incluida la protección 
fitosanitaria y zoosanitaria.. " 
7. Ha considerado el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos tomar alguna medida que agilice el 
análisis de los procesos de admisibil idad sanitaria de productos agrícolas y agropecuarios a su 
territorio ¿? Porque los países que tienen un TLC firmado y en ejecución con los Estados Unidos no 
tienen ninguna preferencia en el proceso de acceso a mercado en términos de mayor agilidad en el 
análisis y menos tiempos de espera en el proceso?  
RESPONSE: APHIS prioritizes import requests by consulting with the authorities in each country.  
Responding to requests, which first requires conducting a risk assessment, depends not only on 
APHIS informatio n gathering but also depend on information the requesting country provides.  The 
United States encourages Colombia to work with APHIS to address any concerns with respect to 
specific requests.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 151 - 
 
  8. Recientemente el APHIS tomó la decisión de actualizar una Evalua ción de Riesgos de Plagas 
para Cítricos dulces procedentes de Colombia debido a que habían pasado muchos años sin que se 
presentara una exportación. Si bien esa medida está dentro de la autonomía que maneja el 
Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, queremos indag ar porque dichas medidas se tomaron 
restringiendo el comercio de ese tipo de productos, particularmente cuando no habían pruebas 
suficientes para determinar que había riesgo inminente para la salud humana en esos productos?  
RESPONSE: On December 30, 2015, APHIS informed Colombia of the suspension order, effective 
January 7, 2016, impacting citrus shipments of sweet oranges, tangerines, grapefruits, 
clementine, and mandarins. At the U.S. port of entry inspectors intercepted live insect pests in the 
wood pack aging material and the importer chose to re -export the shipment. In order to mitigate 
disruption to the entry of Colombian shipments of these five citrus varieties, APHIS developed a 
pest risk assessment (PRA) and shared it with Colombian plant pr otection authorities on 
May 17, 2016. The new PRA evaluates the current phytosanitary status of these fruits in Colombia 
and updates the phytosanitary import requirements. APHIS awaits Colombian authorities ' response 
to the draft Operational Workplan, which APHI S provided in November 2016.  The United States 
encourages Colombia to work with APHIS to address any specific concerns.  
3.1.9.2. Administración de Productos Alimenticios y Farmacéuticos (FDA)  
En el párrafo 3.115 se indica que "Entre las responsabilidades de l a FDA figuran la reglamentación 
de los productos alimenticios (excepto la carne, las aves de corral, el bagre y los productos 
elaborados a base de huevo, de cuya reglamentación se encarga el USDA); los aditivos 
alimentarios; los suplementos dietéticos; los  medicamentos para uso humano y veterinario; los 
dispositivos médicos; los  productos biológicos de origen humano; el tabaco; y los cosméticos. La 
aplicación de la Ley de Modernización de las Normas sobre Inocuidad de los Alimentos de la FDA 
(FSMA) de  2011,  cuyo objetivo es modificar la estrategia en materia de reglamentación, para 
pasar de la respuesta a la prevención de los riesgos alimentarios, ha sido una actividad 
fundamental de la FDA en los últimos años. La ley establece nuevas competencias para 
respo nsabilizar de la inocuidad de los alimentos a las empresas del sector."  
9. ¿Para efectos del cumplimiento e implementación de la "Regla sobre Acreditación de 
Terceros Certificadores", el Gobierno de Estados Unidos aceptará los esquemas de acreditación y 
certificación utilizados por los países bajo las normas internacionales ISO -IEC 17021 -1 (Requisitos 
para los organismos que realizan la auditoría y la certificación de sistemas de gestión) y la ISO -IEC 
17065 (Requisitos para los organismos certificadores de pr oductos)?  
RESPONSE: Accredited bodies need to demonstrate capabilities to meet specific FDA requirements 
for reporting and notification. Accreditation bodies and certification bodies will be allowed to use 
documentation of their conformance with ISO/IEC st andards, supplemented as necessary, to meet 
program requirements under the Rule on Accredited Third -Party Certification. ISO standards have 
not been directly incorporated into FDA regulations because ISO 17021 and 17065 standards 
contain provisions that ar e inconsistent with FSMA and impractical for the Accredited Third -Party 
Certification program.  
10. Con el fin de implementar la "Regla sobre Acreditación de Terceros Certificadores" emitida 
en el marco de la Ley de Modernización de Inocuidad Alimentaria (FSMA ), Colombia desea conocer 
¿Cuáles son y donde puede encontrar los requisitos técnicos exigidos por la FDA que deberán 
cumplir los organismos de certificación para poder acreditarse bajo la mencionada regla? 
Igualmente ¿Cuáles son y donde se pueden consulta r los requisitos técnicos que deberán cumplir 
los organismos de acreditación para lograr ser autorizados o reconocidos por la FDA?  
RESPONSE: For accreditation body requirements to be recognized by FDA under the rule, please 
see final regulations 21 CFR 1.6 10-1.615 and for certification body requirements to be accredited 
under the rule, please see final regulations 21 CFR 1.640 -1.645. For FDA recommendations on 
certification body competency in areas such as, education and experience please see FDA 's 
guidance  Model Accreditation Standards at:  
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformati
on/UCM45533 1.pdf. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 152 - 
 
  3.1.3 Normas de origen  
3.1.3.3 Marcado del país de origen  
3.1.3.4 Certificaciones de origen  
En el párrafo 3.33 se plantea que "Los Estados Unidos tienen desde hace mucho tiempo leyes y 
reglamentos que exigen que los artículos manufacturados en el e xtranjero lleven una marca o 
etiqueta que indique al consumidor final el país en que se fabricó el producto. La Ley Arancelaria 
de 1930 establece las principales disposiciones sobre el marcado. Además, el TLCAN y las leyes 
federales y estatales contienen p rescripciones de etiquetado o normas de marcado específicas para 
determinados productos. Las normas sobre la marca del país de origen son distintas e 
independientes de las decisiones en materia de admisibilidad a efectos aduaneros.  
Y en el 3.34, se mencion a que: "Los importadores que solicitan acogerse a un trato arancelario 
preferencial están obligados a certificar el origen del producto. Aunque el TLCAN establece un 
formato específico para los certificados de origen, la mayoría de los demás acuerdos de li bre 
comercio o acuerdos preferenciales no lo hacen. El importador debe presentar el certificado de 
origen u otros documentos probatorios para justificar el trato preferencial cuando así lo solicite el 
CBP".  
11. Qué medidas está tomando el Servicio de Aduanas y  Protección Fronteriza de los Estados 
Unidos, para monitorear el cumplimiento de las normas de origen de sus exportadores en sectores 
como el de prendas de vestir?  
RESPONSE : Rules of origin compliance is monitored by CBP on a number of different levels.  For 
example, the annual Textile Free Trade Agreement Tasking is created and disseminated by the 
Textiles & Trade Agreements Division within the Office of Trade and distributed to the 
Field/Centers of Excellence & Expertise (CEE).  Other methods include Trade  Compliance 
Measurement (TCM) reviews, which are a random selection based on percentage of all imports to 
determine compliance rates.  The Textile Production Verification Team (TPVT) program is another 
layer of verifying compliance with rules of origin; the  TPVT program consists of a group of 
specialized CBP staff that travel to foreign manufacturers to verify origin and preferential tariff 
treatment.  Lastly, CBP employs a risk management approach through a data -driven decision 
making model to identify poten tial rules of origin risks, generally through the Natio nal Targeting & 
Analysis Group.  
12. Tiene el CBP algún plan puntual para realizar capacitaciones preventivas a sus exportadores 
sobre el cumplimiento de las normas de origen?  
RESPONSE : CBP may provide tra ining opportunities to U.S. exporters within the framework of our 
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) if requested by our FTA partners. CBP also provides an informed 
compliance publication on U.S. rules of origin as well as a variety of publications, directives, and 
handbooks , which offer guidance to importer and exporters on a variety of trade -related matters. 
These can be found at the following links:  
https://www.cbp.go v/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016 -Apr/icp026_3.pdf  and 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic -import -export . 
13. Existe algún plan específico para sancionar exportadores que no cumplan con los 
requerimientos de origen pactados en un TLC?  
RESPONSE : The  United States maintains measures imposing penalties for violations of U.S. laws 
and customs procedures, including those relating to U.S. FTAs.  
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importacion es 
3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros  
El párrafo 3.2 señala que "El Servicio de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras (CBP) de los Estados 
Unidos, adscrito al Departamento de Seguridad Interior (DHS), se creó en 2003 mediante la fusión 
de los organism os que habían formado parte del Servicio de Aduanas de los Estados Unidos con 
otros servicios dedicados a supervisar el movimiento transfronterizo de mercancías y viajeros. Sin 
embargo, pese a que el CBP se ha ampliado, sigue habiendo unos 30 organismos fe derales con 
competencias en el ámbito de la observancia de las normas comerciales. Así pues, en febrero WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 153 - 
 
  de 2014 se estableció formalmente el Consejo Ejecutivo Interinstitucional para las Operaciones en 
Frontera (BIEC) con el cometido de imprimir una direcc ión estratégica y dar orientaciones de 
política, dado que el plazo para completar el Sistema de Datos sobre el Comercio Internacional 
(ITDS) como servicio de ventanilla única se estaba aproximando (31 de diciembre de 2016)  
14. Qué tipo de mecanismo tiene pensa do implementar el servicio de aduanas y protección 
fronteriza de los Estados Unidos para reportar demoras en procesos de inspección aduanera ¿? En 
el caso concreto del TLC entre Colombia y Estados Unidos se tiene previsto que las mercancías 
sean inspeccion adas en puertos de destino rápidamente en menos de 72 horas, recurrentemente 
exportadores Colombianos se quejan de demoras que superan ese límite de tiempo, sin explicación 
alguna de la causa de las demoras. Agradeceríamos de parte del Gobierno de Estados Unidos una 
consideración especial a este tipo de situaciones que no contribuyen a la facilitación del comercio.  
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to facilitating the import and export of legitimate 
trade, and concentrating enforcement efforts on goo ds that present a risk of non -compliance with 
U.S. laws and regulations, or cause a security risk. CBP provides fast and simple release of goods, 
wherever possible, while reserving the right to ensure that any particular shipment is in 
compliance with U.S.  laws and regulations.  
4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.1 Agricultura  
4.1.2 Ley de Agricultura de 2014  
4.1.2.8 Sector lácteo  
El párrafo 4.26 del informe de la Secretaría indica que… "El Programa MPP -Dairy ofrece a los 
productores de leche seguros c ontra la disminución de los márgenes de utilidad, calculados como 
la diferencia entre el precio nacional "de todas las clases de leche" y los costos medios de los 
piensos. El margen de utilidad de la producción se calcula para períodos de dos meses 
consecu tivos (enero/febrero, marzo/abril, y así sucesivamente). Si el margen permanece por 
debajo de los niveles asegurados (4 -8 dólares EE.UU. por quintal) durante cualquiera de esos 
períodos de dos meses, los productores inscritos reciben un pago basado en la c obertura que 
hayan elegido. Para inscribirse en este Programa, los fabricantes de productos lácteos precisan la 
producción anterior de la explotación lechera y el alcance de la protección de los márgenes de 
utilidad elegida. El nivel de la producción anter ior equivale al mayor volumen de ventas anuales de 
leche en uno de los años civiles de 2011, 2012 y 2013 para los productores establecidos. Se 
aplican disposiciones especiales en el caso de las transferencias intergeneracionales y en el de las 
nuevas explo taciones lecheras. El USDA puede ajustar los niveles de la producción anterior de 
cada productor para reflejar los aumentos de la producción nacional global de leche en los 
siguientes años. Por lo demás, no se permite ninguna variación de la producción ant erior."  
15. ¿Dentro de la Ley de Agricultura se estableció el programa de protección de los márgenes de 
utilidad de los fabricantes de productos lácteos. Podría Estados Unidos explicar este programa con 
mayor detalle que el que aparece en la información públic amente disponible?  
RESPONSE: Additional detail on the Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP -Dairy) is available 
publicly on USDA 's website at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-Public/usdafiles/Price -
Support/pdf/2016/mpp -dairy_fact_sheet_august_2016.pdf . 
The Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP -Dairy) is a voluntary risk management program for 
dairy producers au thorized by the 2014 Farm Bill through Dec. 31, 2018. The MPP -Dairy offers 
protection to dairy producers when the difference between the all milk price and the average feed 
cost (the margin) falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer. The  MPP-Dairy 
program uses historical production, not current production, as the basis for calculating payments.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 154 - 
 
  COSTA  RICA  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.2.1 Trade policy objectives (2.8)  
The 2015 TPA updates other specific negotiating objectives from earlier TPAs. Electronic commerce 
becomes digital trade in goods and services and cross -border data flows. On trade in goods, new 
language was added to take into account and encourage the utilization of global value chains. 
Regarding trade in services, the specific negotiating objective calls for liberalization through all 
means, including a plurilateral agreement. In the agriculture sector, the United States aims at 
establishing additional disciplines on the use of SPS measures and geographical indications (GIs). 
The 2015 TPA also covers transparency in the use of tariff -rate quotas (TRQs).  
1. Was there a substantial change between the negotiation objectives in early TPAs regarding 
electronic commerce, and the current TPAs now t hat electronic commerce became "digital trade in 
goods and services and cross -border data flows "? If so, what does it entail?  
RESPONSE: The 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) reflects the current negotiating objectives 
of the United States.  
The principa l negotiating objectives of the United States with respect to digital trade in goods and 
services, as well as cross -border data flows, are five -fold, name: (1) to ensure that current 
obligations, rules, disciplines, and commitments under the World Trade Or ganization and bilateral 
and regional trade agreements apply to digital trade in goods and services and to cross -border 
data flows; (2) to ensure that electronically delivered goods and services receive no less favorable 
treatment under trade rules and com mitments than like products delivered in physical form, and 
that the classification of such goods and services ensures the most liberal trade treatment 
possible, fully encompassing both existing and new trade; (3) to ensure that governments refrain 
from im plementing trade -related measures that impede digital trade in goods and services, restrict 
cross-border data flows or require local storage or processing of data; (4) where legitimate policy 
objectives require domestic regulations that affect digital trad e in goods and services or 
cross-border data flows, to obtain commitments that any such regulations are the least 
trade -restrictive, non -discriminatory, and transparent; and, (5) to extend the moratorium of the 
World Trade Organization on duties on electro nic transmissions.  
These objectives do not reflect a substantial change in the negot iating objectives of the 
United  States. There has been, however, an evolution of the approach of the U.S. to issues 
associated with electronic commerce and digital trade th at reflects the increased integration of 
information and communications technology (ICT) into the entire economy and the importance of 
ICT to trade in general.  
Question 2  
Section 3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance (3.175)  
Like other WTO Member s, the United States notifies subsidy programmes to the WTO without 
prejudice to their legal status regarding specificity, or being actionable (or otherwise) under the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The latest subsidy notification cove red fiscal 
years 2013 and 2014. Outside of agriculture, federal -level subsidies are overwhelmingly directed 
towards the energy sector (Table 3.15). In addition, a number of energy -related support measures 
are implemented at the sub -federal level, particula rly in relation to renewable energy (Table A3.4).  
2. Can the United States give further details on the approach and measures they are giving to 
address renewable energy options? Can the United States please explain if there have been 
actions taken to addr ess fossil fuel subsidies?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 155 - 
 
  RESPONSE: For information on the renewable energy measures of the United States, see 
G/SCM/N/284/USA. For information on US actions to address fossil fuel subsidies, see the recent 
report entitled, "The United States' efforts to phase out and rationalise its inefficient fossil -fuel 
subsidies" issued on September 5, 2016 ( http://webiva -
downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/21/7/9092/P0201609194184 66525465.pdf ). WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 156 - 
 
   
CUBA  
Informe de los Estados Unidos ( WT/TPR/G/350 de 14 de noviembre de 2016):  
El Gobierno de la República de Cuba  desea hacer notar que en varios acápites y párrafos del 
Informe presentado por los Estados Unidos se hace referencia a los o bjetivos y prioridades de este 
Miembro para " promover un sistema internacional de comercio basado en normas" y "para crear 
un sistema mundial de comercio en el que los mercados estén abiertos, se proteja la propiedad 
intelectual,", entre otros aspectos rel acionados con la liberalización del comercio y la protección de 
la propiedad intelectual . Sin embargo, por más de 50 años este país ha mantenido un bloqueo 
económico, comercial y financiero contra Cuba, en violación de las normas más elementales de la 
OMC que supuestamente está concebida para la promoción de un comercio justo entre sus 
Miembros que posibilite el desarrollo económico de estos.  
Asimismo, los Estados Unidos mencionan su compromiso con la observancia y el cumplimiento de 
las normas de la OMC, d estacando además la relevancia del mecanismo de solución de diferencias 
de la OMC. Contrario a ello, los Estados Unidos se mantiene como incumplidor ante el Órgano de 
Solución de Diferencias (OSD) en el diferendo "Sección 211 de la Ley Ómnibus de Asignacio nes de 
1998", el cual es uno de los casos de solución de diferencias pendientes de cumplimiento en la 
OMC de más larga data. Desde febrero de 2002, el OSD solicitó a los Estados Unidos modificar su 
legislación interna para adecuarla a las reglas sobre prop iedad intelectual de la OMC y hasta la 
fecha, este país no ha procedido a cumplimentar las resoluciones y recomendaciones del OSD para 
este caso.  
Se relacionan a continuación las referencias del Informe relacionadas con los comentarios y las 
preguntas a p resentar por Cuba:  
Acápite I . LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN EL SISTEMA MUNDIAL DE COMERCIO:  
En el párrafo 1.3  de este acápite se menciona que "los Estados Unidos seguirán promoviendo y 
fortaleciendo las funciones básicas existentes de la OMC, que incluyen las acti vidades cotidianas de 
los comités, grupos de trabajo y consejos de la Organización (incluida la supervisión por el 
OSD del mecanismo de solución de diferencias ). Esas estructuras institucionales son 
fundamentales para promover la transparencia en las polít icas comerciales de los Miembros de la 
OMC y constituyen foros esenciales para vigilar y resistir las presiones proteccionistas."  
En el párrafo 1.5  de este acápite se plasma que "La observancia estricta de las normas 
comerciales en todo el abanico de merc ancías y servicios sigue siendo un pilar central de la política 
comercial de los Estados Unidos. Durante más de dos decenios, el mecanismo de solución 
de diferencias de la OMC ha resultado útil para los Miembros como foro importante para 
el examen y la adj udicación de diferencias con los interlocutores comerciales del país.  Al 
fijar sus prioridades en materia de cumplimiento,  los Estados Unidos tratan de centrarse en 
los problemas de mayor importancia comercial y sistémica a que se enfrentan los trabajadore s y 
las empresas estadounidenses, con inclusión de cuestiones emergentes que tienen consecuencias 
para el sistema mundial de comercio basado en normas.  
En el párrafo 1.6  de este acápite se expresa que "Los Estados Unidos seguirán vigilando las 
actividades en la OMC para hacer cumplir las normas comerciales  y al mismo tiempo 
vigilarán y harán cumplir los compromisos asumidos en los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales, 
plurilaterales y regionales que han suscrito, a fin de mantener la igualdad de condiciones y 
promover un sistema internacional de comercio basado en normas.  Los Estados Unidos 
siguen comprometidos a colaborar con sus interlocutores comerciales para crear un 
sistema mundial de comercio en el que los mercados estén abiertos, se proteja la 
propiedad i ntelectual, "… 
Acápite II.  EL ENTORNO ECONÓMICO Y COMERCIAL DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS  
En el párrafo 2.1  de este acápite se expresa que "La OMC sigue siendo el foro fundamental para 
liberalizar el comercio multilateral, fortalecer el sistema multilateral de come rcio basado en 
normas y hacer cumplir las normas comerciales mundiales ,"… WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 157 - 
 
  En el párrafo 2.2  de este acápite se afirma que " La liberalización del comercio ha beneficiado a los 
Estados Unidos y al resto del mundo al permitir que se pueda disponer de bienes y  servicios más 
asequibles, elevar el nivel de vida, impulsar el crecimiento económico y apoyar la creación de 
buenos puestos de trabajo. La reducción de los obstáculos al comercio mundial también 
brinda una mayor variedad de productos, mejora su calidad y aumenta la innovación. 
Todos los países pueden beneficiarse del comercio si todos concentran su empeño en 
abrir los mercados y cumplir las normas del sistema multilateral de comercio basado en 
las normas de la OMC".  
En el párrafo 2.4  de este acápite se ref renda que  "Los Estados Unidos mantienen uno de los 
regímenes comerciales más abiertos del mundo;"…  
En el párrafo 2.21  de este acápite se concluye  que "El sistema de la OMC basado en normas 
ha demostrado su valía estableciendo un marco de normas, derechos y  obligaciones y 
los Estados Unidos siguen firmemente comprometidos con esta institución.  Los Estados 
Unidos colaborarán con los demás Miembros para lograr una mayor liberalización y expansión del 
comercio mundial a través de la OMC, que beneficiará tanto a  los países en desarrollo como a los 
desarrollados."  
Acápite IV.  EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2014  
En el párrafo 4.8 de este acápite se afirma que "Desde la entrada en vigor de los Acuerdos de la 
Ronda Uruguay en 1995, un aspecto central de la política comercial de los Estados Unidos ha sido 
promover la aplicación efectiva y a su debido tiempo de los compromisos contraídos en 
el marco de la OMC . Los Estados Unidos creen que es importante, no solo para los 
intereses comerciales estadounidenses si no para todo el sistema de la  OMC, lograr que 
todos los Miembros cumplan sus compromisos . Las diversas manifestaciones de esta política 
van desde una participación activa y constructiva en las deliberaciones de los comités de la OMC 
hasta la utilización de  los distintos procedimientos de que se dispone en el marco del 
mecanismo de solución de diferencias de la Organización . La política comercial de los 
Estados Unidos trata de respaldar y promover el cumplimiento de las normas de la OMC en que se 
basa el sis tema internacional de comercio.  
En el párrafo 4.10 de este acápite se mantiene que "Para asegurar el cumplimiento de los 
Acuerdos de la OMC, los Estados Unidos han sido uno de los países del mundo que ha 
recurrido con más frecuencia a los procedimientos de  solución de diferencias de la OMC.  
Desde la creación de la Organización en 1994, los Estados Unidos han presentado 117 
reclamaciones en la OMC, y hasta ahora han obtenido decisiones favorables en  78 de ellas, de las 
que 31 se resolvieron favorablemente de  manera amistosa y otras  47 mediante procedimientos de 
los grupos especiales y el Órgano de Apelación de la OMC. Los Estados Unidos han obtenido 
soluciones y decisiones favorables prácticamente en todos los sectores, con inclusión de las 
manufacturas, la p ropiedad intelectual, la agricultura y los servicios. " 
Por consiguiente , el Gobierno de la República de Cuba considera  que las políticas y medidas 
anteriormente citadas del Informe de los Estados Unidos, resultan incongruentes con la política de 
bloqueo ec onómico, comercial y financiero que desde hace más de 50 años ha aplicado los Estados 
Unidos contra Cuba.  
Asimismo, con el estado de incumplimiento de larga data de los Estados Unidos con respecto al 
diferendo "Sección 211". En los más de 14 años transcur ridos desde que el OSD dictaminara la 
incompatibilidad de la Sección 211 con el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y con el Convenio de París, este 
Miembro no ha realizado una acción efectiva para cumplimentar las resoluciones y 
recomendaciones del OSD.  
Más recientem ente, durante la reunión ordinaria del OSD del 25 de enero de 2016 la Unión 
Europea solicitó retirar el punto de la agenda de esta reunión mensual, basado en el otorgamiento 
por la Oficina para el Control de Activos Extranjeros (OFAC) de una licencia que a utoriza a la 
Oficina de Patentes y Marcas (USTPO) a renovar el registro de la marca Havana Club a nombre de 
la empresa CUBAEXPORT y argumentando que si bien el tema no estaba resuelto completamente, 
no era necesario continuar debatiendo este asunto todos l os meses en tanto se ha encaminado a 
una solución.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 158 - 
 
  Si bien Cuba reconoce que el otorgamiento en marzo de 2016 de la licencia que autorizó el 
registro de la marca Havana Club a nombre de la empresa CUBAEXPORT constituye un paso 
positivo desde el punto de v ista político, desea reiterar la profunda preocupación del Gobierno 
cubano por la vigencia en los Estados Unidos de las leyes que conforman el entramado legal del 
bloqueo y, en particular, de la Sección 211, la cual afecta el reconocimiento de los derechos  
marcarios de empresas y entidades cubanas, afectando a marcas notorias como Havana Club y 
Cohíba.  
Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/350 de 14 de noviembre de 2016):  
El Gobierno de la República de Cuba  desea resaltar que el informe presentado por la Secr etaría 
reconoce que " aunque ha tenido lugar cierta apertura, los embargos económicos impuestos por los 
Estados Unidos contra Cuba siguen en vigor ". Asimismo, que " los embargos específicos por países 
u otras medidas especiales de control afectan principalme nte al comercio con Cuba ". 
Al referirse a la participación de este Miembro en el sistema de solución de diferencias la 
Secretaría se limita a enumerar los diferendos en los que ha participado este Miembro como 
demandado y como reclamante, sin identificar l os casos pendientes de cumplimiento ante  el OSD 
por los Estados Unidos.  
La Secretaría describe además los esfuerzos y acciones que desarrolla Estados Unidos en aras de 
la protección y la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, entre los que s e enmarcan 
la lucha con tra la falsificación de marcas.  
El Gobierno de la República de Cuba  desea reafirmar que las políticas y medidas de bloqueo 
económico, comercial y financiero que durante más de 50 años han sido mantenidas por los 
Estados Unidos contra  Cuba, resultan incongruentes con las normas jurídicas de la OMC y con las 
políticas de liberalización comercial propugnadas por esta Organización. La condición de este 
Miembro de gran potencia económica mundial, engrandece negativamente la ilegitimidad de l 
bloqueo contra Cuba, al tiempo que demuestra que no existe justificación para mantener un 
incumplimiento de larga data en el diferendo "Sección 211 de la Ley Ómnibus de Asignaciones de 
1998". 
Cuba reconoce la adopción por el Gobierno de los Estados Unido s de un grupo de medidas para 
modificar la aplicación de algunos aspectos del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero. Estas 
medidas si bien resultan positivas, son insuficientes. Las leyes del bloqueo permanecen en vigor.  
Se relacionan a continuación l os acápites y párrafos del Informe de la Secretaría, relevantes en la 
elaboración de las preguntas a presentar por Cuba a los Estados Unidos:  
RESUMEN  
En el párrafo 1  del Resumen de la Secretaría se afirma que "Durante el período objeto de examen, 
la econom ía de los Estados Unidos, que es la mayor del mundo, siguió creciendo " 
En el párrafo 4  se especifica que " Los Estados Unidos son el mayor importador mundial y el 
segundo mayor exportador mundial de bienes y servicios ". 
En el párrafo 11  se detalla que "La m ayoría de las importaciones de mercancías en los Estados 
Unidos reciben trato NMF. En  2015 se solicitó trato arancelario en el marco de programas de 
preferencias recíprocas o unilaterales de los Estados Unidos con respecto a menos del 20% del 
valor de las importaciones. Aunque ha tenido lugar cierta apertura, los embargos 
económicos impuestos por los Estados Unidos contra Cuba y el Irán siguen en vigor".  
Acápite 2.3.  ACUERDOS Y ARREGLOS COMERCIALES  
2.3.1.  OMC 
En el párrafo 2.15  se especifica que "Los Estado s Unidos están firmemente comprometidos con el 
sistema multilateral de comercio y se esfuerzan por "seguir ejerciendo una función de liderazgo en 
la OMC, trabajando para que el comercio contribuya poderosamente a la expansión de la economía 
mundial".  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 159 - 
 
  En el párrafo 2.1 8 la Secretaría se limita a expresar que "Durante el período objeto de examen, los 
Estados Unidos participaron como demandado en cinco asuntos nuevos y como reclamante en dos 
asuntos nuevos planteados en el marco del Mecanismo de Solución de Di ferencias de la OMC 
(cuadro  A2.3). Además, intervinieron en calidad de tercero en siete casos nuevos.  
ACÁPITE 3.1.6.3  CONTROLES, PROCEDIMI ENTOS ESPECIALES O M EDIDAS DIPLOMÁTICAS  
En el párrafo 3.61 se confirma que "La Oficina de Control de Activos Extranje ros (OFAC) del 
Departamento del Tesoro de los Estados Unidos administra varios programas que entrañan el 
bloqueo de activos de nacionales y otras personas específicamente designados .2 Algunos 
de esos programas guardan relación con medidas adoptadas para lu char contra el tráfico de 
estupefacientes, las organizaciones criminales transnacionales y los delitos relacionados con la 
cibernética, controles del comercio de diamantes en bruto, medidas contra el terrorismo, y la no 
proliferación de armas de destrucció n masiva. Entre las medidas adoptadas contra países 
específicos, se aplican diversas restricciones económicas, comerciales y de otro tipo con 
respecto a determinados países, entre ellos Cuba,  el Irán, la República Popular Democrática 
de Corea (RPDC), Siria  y el Sudán ". 
En el párrafo 3.62  se afirma que  "El 17 de diciembre de  2014, los Presidentes de los Estados 
Unidos y Cuba anunciaron su intención de restablecer relaciones diplomáticas entre los dos 
países.3 En el caso de los Estados Unidos, el anuncio fue acompañado de una modificación de las 
medidas vigentes que incluyó la autorización de determinados viajes e intercambios comerciales, y 
la flexibilización de las restricciones respecto de ciertos aspectos financieros, la expedición y la 
importación de prog ramas informáticos de origen cubano. No obstante, aunque modificado, el 
embargo económico, comercial y financiero contra Cuba sigue en vigor ". 
Acápite 3.2.3  PROHIBICIONES, RESTRICCIONES Y LICENCIAS DE EXPORTACIÓN  
En el párrafo 3.142 se afirma que  "Los emba rgos específicos por países u otras medidas 
especiales de control afectan principalmente al comercio con Cuba , el Iraq, la República 
Popular Democrática de Corea, la Federación de Rusia, el Irán y Siria".  
Acápite 3.3.6.8  OBSERVANCIA DE LOS DERECHOS DE PROP IEDAD INTELECTUAL  
En el párrafo 3.273  se expresa que "La protección y la observancia de los derechos de propiedad 
intelectual son una prioridad nacional y la legislación estadounidense de observancia lidera los 
esfuerzos al respecto.4" 
En el párrafo 3.274  se plantea que "La Oficina del Representante de los Estados Unidos para 
Cuestiones Comerciales Internacionales (USTR) realiza exámenes anuales del estado de la 
protección y la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual por los 
interlocutores come rciales de los Estados Unidos en todo el mundo, que se reúnen en el 
llamado informe en el marco del artículo 301 especial .5 En 2016, fueron objeto de examen 
73 interlocutores comerciales. En  el informe del USTR 2016, se enumeraban 34 interlocutores 
comerci ales, de los cuales 11 figuraban en la Lista de vigilancia prioritaria y 23 en la Lista de 
vigilancia.6". 
En el párrafo 3.278  se afirma que "La Ley de Lucha contra la Falsificación de Mercancías 
Manufacturadas de  2006 (PL  109-181) modificó las disposicione s del Código Penal Federal que 
                                                
2 Información en línea del Departamento del Tesoro de los Estados Unidos. Consultado en: 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource -center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx . 
3 La declaración del Presidente de los Estados Unidos puede consultarse en: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -office/2014/12/17/statement -president -cuba-policy -changes  
4 Para una descripción detallada de las iniciativas, programas, costo s y resultados de la Administración 
en relación con la observancia de la propiedad industrial véase: USPTO (2016), Performance and Accountability 
Report FY2015 . Consultado en: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf . 
5 El informe es preparado de conformidad con el artículo 182 de la Ley de Comercio Exterior de  1974, 
modificada por la Ley General de Comercio y Competencia de  1988, la Ley de los Acu erdos de la Ronda 
Uruguay y la Ley de Facilitación del Comercio y Aplicación de las Normas Comerciales de  2015 (19 U.S.C. 
artículo 2242).  
6 USTR (2016), 2016 Special 301 Report , abril de 2016. Consultado en: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR -2016-Special -301-Report.pdf . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 160 - 
 
  prohíben el tráfico de mercancías y servicios falsificados, a fin de incluir el tráfico de 
etiquetas o embalajes similares de cualquier tipo o naturaleza que lleven una marca 
falsificada y que se pretenda utilizar en las merc ancías o servicios para los cuales se ha 
registrado la marca auténtica o en relación con ellos . La Ley prevé el decomiso de todo 
artículo que lleve una marca falsificada o consista en ella, así como de cualquier otro 
bien utilizado para infringir la prohib ición de las marcas falsificadas ". 
Por consiguiente, el Gobierno de la República de Cuba  solicita recibir respuestas concretas de 
los Estados Unidos sobre las siguientes interrogantes:  
1. ¿Cómo podría el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos sustentar que es un Mie mbro respetuoso de 
los compromisos y normas de la OMC cuando mantiene un bloqueo económico, comercial y 
financiero contra Cuba?  
RESPONSE: The United States ' embargo on trade with Cuba is fully compliant with our relevant 
obligations under our internationa l trade agreements. The embargo is not a blockade; the 
embargo regulations apply only to persons or property subject t o U.S. jurisdiction. The 
United  States considers the embargo a bilateral issue that has no place being discussed in 
multilateral fora.  
2. ¿Puede explicar el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos la compatibilidad del alcance 
extraterritorial de su política de bloqueo contra Cuba, con las disposiciones de la OMC? ¿Cómo 
explica que se continúen aplicando sanciones millonarias a bancos y empresas comerci ales de 
terceros países?  
RESPONSE: The United States ' embargo on trade with Cuba is fully compliant with our relevant 
obligations under our international trade agreements. The embargo regulations apply only to 
persons or property subject to U.S. jurisdicti on. The United States considers the embargo a 
bilateral issue that has no place being discussed in multilateral fora.  
3. ¿Cuáles acciones concretas se propone realizar Estados Unidos para adoptar una solución 
satisfactoria sobre el diferendo "Sección 211 de l a Ley Ómnibus de Asignaciones de 1998", en 
correspondencia con las resoluciones y recomendaciones ad optadas por el OSD desde el 
año 2002?  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that the WTO Appellate Body found that Section 211(a)(1) 
was not inconsistent with t he WTO obligations of the United States. Furthermore, 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, para. 362.  
The United States refers to its statements on this matter in the Dispute Settlement Body.  
4. ¿Cómo puede argumentar Estados Un idos ante el Órgano de Examen de las Políticas 
Comerciales y ante los Miembros, la justeza de sus actuaciones y su compromiso con el sistema de 
normas que conforman la OMC, cuando el incumplimiento de larga data con respecto a la Sección 
211 pone en tela d e juicio la credibilidad del sistema de solución de diferencias de la OMC?   
RESPONSE: Please see response to question 3 above.  
5. En virtud de la Ley de Lucha contra la Falsificación de Mercancías Manufacturadas de  2006 
(PL 109-181), ¿cómo se justifica el uso  por la Empresa Bacardí de la marca de ron Havana Club en 
los Estados Unidos?  
RESPONSE: Please see response to question 3 above.  
6. A partir de lo ocurrido con relación al caso Sección 211, ¿qué garantía de los derechos de 
propiedad industrial los Estados Un idos ofrecen en su territorio a Cuba como Miembro de la OMC?  
RESPONSE: Please see response to question 3 above.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 161 - 
 
   
DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/S/350)  
1. Pág. 10; Párrafo 5.  
Como se señala en el Programa de Política Comercial del Pre sidente para 2016, el objetivo de la 
política comercial de los Estados Unidos es "promover el crecimiento, fomentar los empleos bien 
remunerados y fortalecer la clase media". Con ese fin, los Estados Unidos participan activamente 
en las negociaciones en el  marco de la OMC, así como en un contexto regional o plurilateral. Los 
Estados Unidos han sido un firme defensor del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio, que han 
ratificado, y del Acuerdo sobre Tecnología de la Información (ATI) ampliado, que se puso e n 
aplicación el 1º de julio de 2016. En octubre de 2015 se concluyeron las negociaciones sobre el 
Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico (TPP), que se firmó en febrero de 2016, pero sigue pendiente 
de ratificación. Los Estados Unidos participan activamente en  negociaciones encaminadas a una 
mayor liberalización del comercio, en particular mediante el Acuerdo sobre Bienes Ambientales 
(ABA) y el Acuerdo sobre el Comercio de Servicios.  
Pregunta: ¿Pueden confirmarnos las autoridades de Estados Unidos para que fec ha tiene previsto 
la ratificación del TPP?  
RESPONSE:  With respect to the incoming Administration and Congress that will take office in 
January 2017, we remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to 
keeping the Membership informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into place.  
2. Página 13; Párrafo 21.  
Se indica que se eliminaron los pagos directos a la producción agrícola y se introdujeron varios 
cambios en otros programas de ayuda. Entre las novedades de la Ley de Agricultura de 2 014 cabe 
citar las siguientes: el Programa de Cobertura de Pérdidas relacionadas con los Precios (Programa 
PLC), en cuyo marco efectúan pagos vinculados a un porcentaje de la superficie de base histórica y 
los rendimientos de períodos anteriores cuando los  precios caen por debajo de los precios de 
referencia de los cultivos abarcados; el Programa de Cobertura de Riesgos Agrícolas (Programa 
ARC), en cuyo marco se efectúan pagos vinculados a un porcentaje de la superficie de base 
histórica y los rendimientos de períodos anteriores, cuando a nivel de condado o de la explotación 
agrícola, los ingresos derivados de los productos básicos abarcados son inferiores a las garantías 
de referencia a nivel de condado o individual; la Opción de Cobertura Complementaria (S CO), una 
póliza de seguro complementaria a nivel de zona; el Plan de protección de ingresos por niveles de 
cobertura (STAX), plan de seguro para los productores de algodón americano (upland) que puede 
suscribirse por sí solo o conjuntamente con otros segur os de las cosechas; y el Programa de 
protección de los márgenes de utilidad de los fabricantes de productos lácteos (MPP -Dairy). Los 
datos iniciales parecen indicar que el nivel de los pagos totales realizados en el marco de los 
programas PLC y ARC no es m uy diferente al de los gastos en que se incurría anteriormente en el 
marco de los programas suspendidos.  
Pregunta: ¿Podría los Estados Unidos detallar los cambios en otros programas, en qué consisten 
esos cambios, y su compatibilidad con el Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura?  
RESPONSE: The question is unduly broad to permit a comprehensive answer in the context of this 
TPR. The Farm Bill eliminated, modified, updated, and established a variety of programs related to 
agriculture, nutrition, conservation, forestry , trade, energy, an d rural development. The 
United  States has offered briefings through the WTO Committee on Agriculture, and all of the 
changes are consistent with WTO obligations.  
3. Pág. 101; Párrafo 3.182.  
En el ámbito de la atención sanitaria, la Comisi ón Federal de Comercio (FTC) impugnó las 
transacciones alegando que la concentración en los mercados de proveedores tiende a elevar los 
precios y reducir la calidad de la atención que reciben los pacientes. Por ejemplo, la FTC obtuvo WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 162 - 
 
  una importante victori a cuando el Tribunal de Apelación del Noveno Circuito ratificó la sentencia 
dictada por el tribunal de distrito en el caso St. Luke's Health System versus St. Alphonsus Medical 
Center, conforme a la cual la adquisición vulneraba la legislación antimonopoli o. En el caso de la 
FTC contra Sysco Corporation y US Foods, las partes descartaron la transacción después de que la 
FTC solicitase a un tribunal federal un mandamiento judicial para impedir que la adquisición 
siguiese adelante. En el caso Staples/Office D epot, las partes descartaron su proyecto de fusión 
cuando el tribunal de distrito aceptó la solicitud presentada por la FTC para que se dictase un 
mandamiento judicial preliminar.  
Pregunta: ¿Las autoridades pueden aclarar el tema de la reforma de la atenc ión sanitaria desde la 
perspectiva del comercio?  
RESPONSE: A basic purpose of the recent reforms of the U.S. health care system was to ensure 
increased access to health care services by providing insurance coverage to previously uninsured 
individuals. With  respect to trade, the U.S. private health services sector is open to foreign 
participation, and cross -border trade in health services continues to grow in the United States, 
with total trade exceeding $5.4 billion in 2105, and imports more than doubling s ince 2009.  
4. Pág. 136  
4.13. La Corporación de Crédito para Productos Básicos (CCC) del USDA otorga préstamos de 
ayuda a la comercialización a los productores de los productos básicos abarcados por el programa. 
Los préstamos de comercialización permiten a los  productores no realizar ventas en la temporada 
normal de recolección (o de esquila, en el caso de la lana) y demorarlas hasta que las condiciones 
del mercado sean favorables. Los préstamos se pueden amortizar mediante reembolso (del 
principal del préstamo  más los intereses y demás cargas) o mediante la entrega a la CCC del 
producto dado en garantía. En determinadas circunstancias, por ejemplo cuando los precios del 
mercado son inferiores a la tasa del préstamo, se puede aceptar una tasa de reembolso más ba ja, 
lo que se traduce en un beneficio por préstamo de comercialización. Como alternativa, los 
productores que no deseen obtener un préstamo sobre un producto cosechado pueden optar por 
recibir una prima de complemento del préstamo en lugar del beneficio po r préstamo de 
comercialización. Como ocurre en el caso de todos los programas estadounidenses relativos a los 
productos básicos o de seguro de las cosechas, los agricultores deben cumplir los requisitos de 
conservación y protección de los humedales y notif icar toda la superficie plantada para poder 
beneficiarse de primas de complemento del préstamo o de préstamos de comercialización; 
también se aplican limitaciones en materia de ingresos brutos y pagos. El apoyo en forma de 
préstamos de comercialización est á plenamente vinculado a los precios y la producción corrientes.  
Pregunta: ¿Las autoridades contemplan controles para que las primas de complemento de los 
programas no causen los efectos desfavorables y perjuicio grave por subvaloración de precios a 
que ha cen referencia los artículos 5.c, 6.3.c del Acuerdo de Subvenciones y Medidas 
Compensatorias de la OMC?  
RESPONSE: There are no supplemental premiums associated with this program . 
5. Pág. 140; Párrafo 4.23.  
En promedio, los Estados Unidos importan anualmente unos 3 millones de toneladas cortas de 
azúcar en bruto y refinado (valor bruto). Los principales proveedores son el Brasil (18%), la 
República Dominicana (17%) y Australia (10%). Las importaciones se regulan mediante el 
contingente arancelario anual establ ecido en el marco de la OMC de 1.117.200 toneladas métricas 
de azúcar en bruto y 22.000 toneladas métricas de azúcar refinado. Las importaciones por encima 
del contingente no suelen ser ni prácticas ni económicas debido a la aplicación de aranceles NMF 
relativamente elevados. El Tratado de Libre Comercio con Centroamérica y la República 
Dominicana (DR -CAFTA) incluye la concesión a esos países de un mayor acceso al mercado 
estadounidense del azúcar. Los ALC concluidos con Colombia, Chile, Marruecos, Panamá y  el Perú 
también contienen disposiciones encaminadas a aumentar el acceso al mercado del azúcar de los 
Estados Unidos. Además, en el marco del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte 
(TLCAN), desde el 1º de enero de 2008 se permiten las importacione s de azúcar procedentes de 
México libres de derechos y de contingentes. Ahora bien, las exportaciones de azúcar de ese país 
están actualmente limitadas en virtud de un acuerdo de suspensión establecido en 2015 a raíz de WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 163 - 
 
  la iniciación por los Estados Unidos  de procedimientos en materia de derechos antidumping y 
compensatorios en 2014.  
Pregunta: ¿Las autoridades de Estados Unidos tienen previsto algún cambio al respecto de los 
compromisos asumidos en el marco del DR -CAFTA en los próximos años?  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed of changes relevant to DR -CAFTA as the new Administration and 
Congress come into place.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 164 - 
 
   
ECUADOR  
Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC. - 
Question 1  
Page 48,  Para 3.15  
1. De conformidad con la página 48, párrafo 3.15, se menciona que a fin de respaldar el Marco 
Normativo para Asegurar y Facilitar el Comercio Mundial de la Organización Mundial de Aduanas 
(OMA), el CBP ha firmado acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo c on otras administraciones 
aduaneras que tienen programas comparables plenamente operativos.  
¿Podría Estados Unidos informarnos cuáles son los requisitos que los países deben cumplir para 
firmar un Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo (ARM)? ¿Estos ARM se basan en los programas de 
Operadores Económicos Autorizados de la OMA? ¿En qué temas de seguridad se centran los 
acuerdos y cómo se vinculan los proyectos de asistencia técnica en el marco de dichos acuerdos?  
RESPONSE: Many factors are taken into account before the United States engages with a foreign 
customs administration towards a Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), including the risk 
associated with the supply lines originating in a specific country. The following four pre -requisites 
must be met before the United States will formally discuss Mutual Recognition with a foreign 
customs administration: (1) the foreign customs administration must have a full -fledged 
operational partnership program in place; (2) the foreign partnership program must have a strong 
validation process built into its program; (3) the foreign partnership program must have a strong 
security component built into its program; and (4) the foreign partnership program must have a 
Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAA) in place and in force  with the United States. For 
more information on MRAs, please see the following link: 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Mutua l%20Recognition%20FAQs%20February
%202016.pdf . 
Question 2  
Page 49, Para 3.20  
2. De conformidad con la página 49, párrafo 3.20, en vi rtud de la Ley SAFE de 2006 
(PL 109-347), la CSI se aplica en 60 puertos de todo el mundo y permite que aproximadamente el 
80% de toda la carga marítima con destino a los Estados Unidos sea a un examen previo y, si se 
considera necesario, sea escaneada o inspeccionada antes de la expedición.  
¿Podría Estados Unidos indicarnos cuáles son los criterios para calificar una mercancía c omo de 
alto riesgo? ¿Cuáles son los 60 puertos a los que se les aplica la Ley SAFE de 2006? ¿Cómo se 
aplica ese control en puertos no ubicados en los Estados Unidos, existe algún convenio entre 
países, o autoridades aduaneras, para ese control?  
RESPONSE: The United States uses a variety of tools to determine whether cargo is high -risk, 
including advanced manifest data, an Automated Targeting System, and information and 
intelligence received from the host country counterparts. For further information concern ing CSI 
and the list of ports at which CSI is operational, please see the following link:  
https://www.cbp.gov/border -security/ports -entry/cargo -security/csi/csi -brief. 
In each of the 60 CSI ports, CBP and the host country have signed a Declaration of Principle, a 
foundation document to identify and examine high risk cargo at a foreign port.  
Questions 3 -4  
Page 50, Para 3.24  
De conformidad con la página 50 párrafo 3.24: "En el caso de las mercancías extranjeras sujetas a 
operaciones de elaboración antes de su entrada en el territorio aduanero de los Estados Unidos, WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 165 - 
 
  los usuarios pueden optar por pagar los derechos de importación sobre el producto final o sobre 
los ma teriales extranjeros originales".  
3. ¿Podría Estados Unidos informarnos bajo qué criterios se determina el pago de los derechos 
de importación sobre el producto final o materiales extranjeros? Considerando que los productos 
son resultado de un proceso de elab oración en una zona franca ¿podría indicarnos los Estados 
Unidos cómo se justifica esa posibilidad de elegir entre un pago y otro bajo las disposiciones del 
Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias?  
RESPONSE: Complete information about foreign t rade zones, including how zones operate and 
the payment of duties, can be found at the following link: https://www.cbp.gov/border -
security /ports -entry/cargo -security/cargo -control/foreign -trade -zones/about . U.S. foreign trade 
zones are fully compliant with U.S. WTO obligations.  
4. ¿Existe alguna vinculación entre esas opciones de pago y la disposición contenida en el 
anexo II del Acuerdo sobre  Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias (devolución de derechos de 
aduana por la importación de artículos posteriormente exportados, párrafo 3.153)?  
RESPONSE: Please see the response to Question 3 above. Foreign trade zones do not convey a 
subsidy, nor are they countervailing measures.  
Question 5  
Page 56, Para 3.45  
5. De conformidad con la página 56, párrafo 3.45, en relación a que las importaciones en el 
marco de ALC o acuerdos o arreglos preferenciales pueden estar exentas del gravamen por 
tramitación de mer cancías (MPF). Partiendo del criterio de que el MPF se trataría de una carga a 
las importaciones y no de un derecho de aduana ni un tipo de reglamentación comercial restrictiva 
¿Podría Estados Unidos indicarnos cómo esta medida se ajusta a las disposicione s del trato general 
de la nación más favorecida?  
RESPONSE: The United States in some free trade agreements has agreed not to apply the MPF on 
imports of originating goods under those agreements.  
Question 6  
Page 63, Para 3.58  
De conformidad con la página 6 3, párrafo 3.58, en relación a lo siguiente: "La norma propuesta 
establecería prescripciones en materia de notificación (a través de la Plataforma Comercial 
Automatizada (ACE)), aplicables a los importadores estadounidenses, con respecto a las 
importacione s de una serie de especies prioritarias. Esa norma se centra en las importaciones 
porque, por lo que se refiere a las especies prioritarias seleccionadas para la fase inicial del 
programa, ya se está recopilando información equivalente sobre los productos nacionales a través 
de programas existentes. El importador tendrá que mantener registros de la cadena de custodia 
del producto hasta el punto de entrada en el mercado estadounidense y ponerlos a disposición del 
Servicio de Pesca de la NOAA previa solicitud ". 
Esa prescripción obliga a que los exportadores proporcionen información desde el lugar de la 
captura y a los productores estadounidenses sólo desde el puerto de llegada (puerto de entrada); 
es decir, parecería que se otorga un trato menos favorable que el concedido a los productos 
similares de origen nacional al requerir mayor información de la cadena de custodia a los 
exportadores.  
6. ¿Podría Estados Unidos indicarnos cómo esta norma se ajusta a las disposiciones de no 
discriminación, trato nacional?  
RESPO NSE: The Seafood Traceability Program as a whole applies to both domestically harvested 
and imported seafood.  Comparable requirements already exist in pre -existing domestic law with 
regard to catch and chain of custody for domestically caught seafood enter ing U.S. commerce.  This 
Final Rule raises the requirements for foreign produced seafood to the level that is already 
required of domestically caught seafood.  Where comparable domestic requirements did not already WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 166 - 
 
  exist, NOAA has stayed the requirements of the Final Rule (e.g., shrimp and abalone).  The 
Program, as a whole, seeks to prevent IUU seafood or fraudulently marketed seafood from 
entering the U.S. market, regardless of where the seafood was produced. In this regard, seafood 
initially harvested in th e United States U.S., but subsequently sent to a foreign country for 
processing, reprocessing, and/or storage prior to being sold in the U.S. are also subject to 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this Final Rule.  
Question 7  
Page 80, table 3.9  
De conformidad con la página 80, cuadro 3.9 Reglamentos de aplicación de la FSMA, en relación al 
programa de verificación de proveedores extranjeros, para los importadores de productos 
destinados a la alimentación humana o animal ("Norma FSVP", por sus sigla s en inglés).  
7. ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicarnos qué medidas ha tomado para que esta prescripción se 
ajuste al principio de no discriminación, trato nacional? ¿Quién certifica a los proveedores 
nacionales de productos destinados a la alimentación humana y animal?  
RESPONSE: Supplier verification of imported food is needed to ensure a consistent level of 
oversight and protection for domestic and imported food. Requiring importers to share 
responsibility for ensuring that imported food is safe is consistent wi th industry practice, principles 
of Codex, and the approaches of U.S. trading partners. U.S. programs are consistent with 
international obligations.  
The FSVP regulation contains requirements to ensure that imported foods are produced in 
compliance with pr ocesses and procedures that provide the same level of public health protection 
as those required under the preventive controls and produce safety regulations, and in compliance 
with sections 402 (regarding adulteration) and 403(w) (regarding misbranding wi th respect to 
labeling for the presence of major food allergens) of the FD&C Act. U.S. supplier verification 
requirements under the FSVP regulation are no more burdensome, and imports are accorded no 
less favorable treatment, than oversight and control mea sures applied to domestic foods.  
Questions 8 -11 
Page 81, Para. 3.118  
8. ¿Podría Estados Unidos indicarnos qué métodos, que garanticen el mismo nivel de 
protección de la salud pública que los controles preventivos y los reglamentos sobre inocuidad de 
los produ ctos de los Estados Unidos, se refiere cuando se habla de la norma FSVP y la verificación 
de los importadores de sus proveedores extranjeros?  
RESPONSE: FSMA (section 805(c)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act) directs FDA to establish regulations that 
require importers to obtain assurances that their foreign suppliers are using processes and 
procedures that provide the same level of public health protection as those required under the 
preventive controls or produce safety regulations, as appropriate. Importers must deter mine 
whether particular processes and procedures used by foreign suppliers that differ from those 
required under the preventive controls or produce safety regulations nevertheless provide the 
same level of public health protection. FDA may review such dete rminations to ensure importers ' 
compliance with the FSVP requirements.   
Respecto a que "los importadores pueden llevar a cabo programas de verificación de proveedores 
basados en riesgos por varios medios, por ejemplo, mediante auditorías in situ anuales de  las 
instalaciones del proveedor, procedimientos de muestreo y prueba o exámenes del historial del 
proveedor en materia de inocuidad alimentaria. La verificación puede llevarse a cabo a través de 
terceros independientes, siempre que el importador examine y  evalúe la documentación 
pertinente":  
9. ¿Qué entidad nacional avala la verificación del importador o de terceros independientes?  
RESPONSE: The importer is required to examine and evaluate the pertinent documentation of 
verification provided by the independen t third party as part of the importer 's Foreign Supplier WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 167 - 
 
  Verification Program (FSVP). Specifically, the FSVP final rule provides importers  flexibility in 
meeting key FSVP obligations by allowing them to rely on analyses, evaluations and activities 
performe d by other entities in certain circumstances, as long as the importers review and assess 
the corresponding documentation provided by the other entities. Under 21 CFR 1.504(d), if 
another entity (including the foreign supplier) has, using a qualified indivi dual, analyzed the known 
or reasonably foreseeable hazards for a food to determine whether there are any hazards requiring 
a control, the importer may meet its requirement for hazard analysis by reviewing and assessing 
the hazard analysis conducted by that  entity. The importer must document its review and 
assessment of the other entity 's hazard analysis, including documenting that the hazard analysis 
was conducted by a qualified individual.  
Under 21 CFR 1.510, FDA may evaluate the importer 's Foreign Suppli er Verification Program 
through onsite or remote records inspection.  
10. ¿Son suficientes los resultados presentados por el importador para autorizar las 
importaciones de productos destinados a la alimentación humana o animal?  
RESPONSE: To clarify, the FSVP r egulation only requires importers to submit records to FDA upon 
request.  
Question 11  
Page 132, Para. 4.6  
De conformidad con la página 132, párrafo 4.6, en el que se menciona que "En virtud de la Ley de 
Agricultura de 2014 se introdujeron importantes modif icaciones en el sistema de ayuda a los 
productores agrícolas. Se eliminaron los pagos directos [ …] También se puso fin al Programa de 
Pagos Anticíclicos y al Programa opcional basado en el promedio de los ingresos obtenidos de los 
cultivos (ACRE). Además, con arreglo a la Ley, se sustituyó el sostenimiento de los precios del 
mercado de los productos lácteos por un Programa de protección de los márgenes de utilidad de 
los fabricantes de productos lácteos".  
11. ¿Podría Estados Unidos indicarnos en qué se diferenc ia un programa de protección de los 
márgenes de utilidad de una subvención para el sostenimiento de los precios, si ambas medidas en 
la práctica podrían utilizar los pagos directos a los agricultores? ¿Bajo qué disposiciones de la OMC 
se motifican los prog ramas de protección de márgenes de utilidad?  
RESPONSE: The Margin Protection Program (MPP) is not a market price support program. The 
MPP is a voluntary, risk management program that offers dairy producers the opportunity to 
purchase margin protection. The  margin is the difference between the all -milk price and the 
average feed cost. If the margin falls below the coverage level chosen, the producer will receive a 
payment. However, the producer must pay a premium based on the level of coverage elected.  
Ques tion 12  
Page 137, Para. 4.16  
De conformidad con la página 137, párrafo 4.16, en relación a: "En general, los agricultores 
pueden elegir entre los seguros para casos de desastres, que cubren el 50% del rendimiento 
normal y el 55% del precio de mercado esti mado de la cosecha, y la cobertura adicional 
("complementaria") (el 50% -85% del rendimiento normal y hasta el 100% del precio de mercado 
estimado de la cosecha). [
 ]Los participantes que reúnen las condiciones necesarias han tenido 
asimismo la posibilidad de trasladar una parte de la cobertura de una explotación agrícola de un 
plan individual a un plan a nivel de zona en el marco de la Opción de Cobertura Complement aria 
(SCO).  
Como su nombre indica, la SCO es complementaria, lo que significa que el productor está obligado 
a tener una póliza de base. Posteriormente la SCO incorpora las características de esa póliza de 
base". [ …] El Gobierno Federal subvenciona el 65% de la prima de seguro de la SCO".  
El Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura de la OMC establece que el total de tales pagos (planes de seguro 
de las cosechas) será inferior al 100 por ciento de la pérdida total del productor.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 168 - 
 
  12. ¿Podría Estados Unidos indicarnos cómo s e asegura que la cobertura adicional por pérdidas 
de las cosechas no provoque que el agricultor se beneficie por un valor superior al 100% de los 
ingresos que hubiera obtenido por su producción que se afectó por un desastre natural? ¿Cuál 
sería el aporte d el agricultor (en porcentaje) respecto del monto total del valor de la prima de 
estos sistemas de seguros?  
RESPONSE: The SCO is triggered when county -level yields (or revenue) are less than 86 percent 
of their expected, or normal, level.  SCO covers the dif ference between 86 percent and the 
coverage level specified in the base policy.  Therefore, a producer cannot receive a total payment 
(SCO plus the base policy) that exceeds 86 percent of the expected value of the crop.  The Federal 
Government subsidizes 65 percent of the SCO insurance premium, which means that the producer 
pays 35 percent of the SCO insurance premium.  
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS   
1. The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has maintained a longstanding policy of treating 
export restrictions like subsi dies subject to countervailing measures. The DOC has enforced this 
policy on a regular basis during countervailing duty investigations for imports originating from 
several countries. Moreover, this practice could only be justified if the DOC were to treat an export 
restriction as a situation where there is an "order" made to producers of the good subject to the 
export restriction investigation.Could the U.S. explain the rationale – as applied during 
investigations carried out by DOC – for treating this supp osed export limitation like a 
countervailable subsidy?  
RESPONSE:  Under U.S. law, the Department of Commerce (DOC) will countervail measures, 
including export restraints, where DOC determines that such measures satisfy the statutory 
criteria for a counterva ilable subsidy. Determinations involving export restraints are, like all of 
DOC's determinations, based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The basis for 
DOC's findings in any particular determination, including those pertaining to alle ged export 
restraints, can be viewed at : https://access.trade.gov/ .  
2. Does this enforced policy conform with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, taking into account the interpretations for the Appellate 
Body regarding the meaning of the word "order" found in article 1.1 (a) (1) (iv) of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures?  
RESPONSE:  Commerce conducts its countervailing duty proceedings in accordance with U.S. law, 
which is consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  
3. According to page 146, paragraph 4.44, in relation to direct payments in the frameworks of 
suspended programs. Could the United St ates explain to us what difference exists between the 
suspended and the new PLC and ACR programs, in terms of the amounts allocated, their goals, 
and their justification under multilateral provisions of the WTO?  
RESPONSE:  The Direct Payment program was rep ealed by the 2014 Farm Bill. The Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programs are new programs under the 2014 
Farm Bill. PLC and ARC payments are not guaranteed each year. ARC and PLC do not require 
production in order to receive a payment; if a payment is triggered, it is made on historical base 
acres and yields, not current production.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 169 - 
 
   
EL SALVADOR  
Informe de Gobierno  (S/350)  
Párrafo 4.15  
4.15. El Acuerdo TPP abrirá los mercados y elevará el nivel de las normas en la región que crece 
con más rapidez en el mundo, con lo que impulsará el crecimiento económico, promoverá la 
innovación y apoyará la creación de puestos de trabajo en los Estados Unidos y en sus 
interlocutores del Acuerdo, como demuestran estudios económicos independien tes. Además de 
incluir ambiciosos compromisos de acceso a los mercados, el Acuerdo aborda los obstáculos no 
arancelarios y contiene compromisos que permitirán establecer normas comunes de alto nivel en 
toda la región en esferas como la propiedad intelectua l, el trabajo, el medio ambiente, y la 
transparencia y la lucha contra la corrupción. Se ocupa asimismo de cuestiones nuevas y 
emergentes -por ejemplo, el comercio digital, la coherencia en asuntos de reglamentación y 
disciplinas sobre la conducta competit iva de las empresas de propiedad estatal - que afectan a la 
capacidad de las empresas y los trabajadores para competir.  
Pregunta : Según el Informe de Gobierno, en el Acuerdo TPP se abordan cuestiones nuevas y 
emergentes, y brinda el ejemplo del comercio di gital. ¿Podría los Estados Unidos indicar cuáles son 
las disposiciones más innovadoras en este tema, en comparación con otros acuerdos comerciales 
regionales previamente firmados?  
RESPONSE: Among the many provisions negotiated in TPP that are relevant to digital commerce 
the following stand out as significant advances over previous trade agreements negotiated by the 
United States:  
 Annex 8 -B, regarding technical barriers to trade with respect to encryption products .  
 Article 9.10, barring performance requir ements based on local technology . 
 Article 14.11, ensuring the ability of investors and services suppliers to transfer information 
cross-border when such transfer is related to their business . 
 Article 14.13, prohibiting the mandatory use of local computing facilities ( e.g. for cloud 
computing applications).  
 Article 14.17, preventing the forced disclosure of computer source code, the protection of 
which is at the heart of competitive advantage for many businesses.  
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS   
Question 1  
1. Could the  United States indicate the reasons that prompted the amendment to the rule on 
the "Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish," 
which transferred jurisdiction to FSIS?  
RESPONSE:  The U.S. Department of Agric ulture, Food Safety and inspection Service (FSIS) was 
mandated by Congress in the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills to assume jurisdictional responsibility for 
the for fish of the Order Siluriformes. Specifically, The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113 -79, 
Sec. 12106) ("2014 Farm Bill"), amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), Section 601(w) 
(2), and the Agricultural Marketing Act, Section 1622 (n), to provide that FSIS is responsible for 
the inspection of fish and fish products of the order Siluriform es. 
Question 2  
2. Additionally, El Salvador would like to know whether the rule 's scope of application provides 
an exception for those products caught on the high seas.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 170 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  Relative to an exemption for products caught on the "high seas" or "wild caug ht" 
Siluriformes fish and fish products, USDA explained in the preamble of the final rule issued on 
December 2, 2015, that FSIS will inspect wild -caught and farm -raised fish processed in official 
establishments. The final rule outlining FSIS requirements f or inspecting Siluriformes fish and fish 
products can be found in the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 231, page 75591+).  The final rule can 
be accessed on -line at : https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/878aa316 -a70a-4297-b352-
2d41becc8f73/2008 -0031F.pdf?MOD=AJPERES . FSIS is taking steps to implement all provisions of 
the final rule, including those related to wild caught products. Fur ther information and guidance on 
the implementation of this new rule is available on the FSIS webpage at : 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/inspection/si luriformes .  
Question 3  
3. With regard to the rule, El Salvador is particularly interested in learning about mechanisms 
the U.S. has created to provide technical consulting to countries exporting said products to the 
U.S. with a view to ensuring their eff ective compliance with the provisions developed under the 
new rule.  
RESPONSE:  The United States, working through FSIS, is firmly committed to working with all 
trading partners during the implementation period to ensure that Siluriformes trade in safe 
produ cts is not interrupted. FSIS continues to conduct outreach to all potentially affected 
international trading partners, U.S. establishments, and importers. FSIS has held several bilateral 
technical meetings, shared information on the margins of the WTO/SPS Committee meeting, and 
conducted a regional implementation seminar in April 2016 for interested countries.  Any Member 
interested in hosting similar educational meetings in its own country for its national inspection 
team should contact FSIS. FSIS looks for ward to continuing to work with affected countries to 
ensure a smooth transition to the new requirements set forth by this rule.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 171 - 
 
   
EUROPEAN  UNION  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 1  
Page 26 "Outlook " and Government Report Section 2.2 "Economic Growth, " page 5  
The EU notes the forecasts mentioned in the WTO Secretariat and in the Government report. 
These were prepared under the current Administration.  
1. What is the likely impact on US trade deficit, interest rates and appreciation of the US Dollar 
deriving from macroeconomic policies and infrastructure plans announced by the upcoming 
administration during the election campaign?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed  as the new Administration comes into place.  
Questions 2 -3 
Single Window ( Page 37, Para 3.6)  
In February 2014, the President's Executive Order 13659 on " Streamlining the Export/Import 
Process for America's Businesses mandated the completion of the single -window International 
Trade Data System (ITDS) by 31 December 2016".  (…) 
2. The finalisation of the implementation of the system of single window is foreseen by end of 
2016. Does the US consider that this deadline will be met? If not, what is the current situa tion? 
RESPONSE: The United States expects to implement the single window by the end of 2016.  
3. Has the US government any estimates of the savings (time as well as costs) made through 
the digitalization of the customs procedures so far?  
RESPONSE: Yes, the Un ited States has estimated the following benefits and s avings for the single 
window: (1) a gencies receive shipment data earlier and have greater visibility into the data both 
prior to and at the time of entry and export; (2) the single window expedites impo rt and export 
clearance assessments at the border and speeds the flow of legitimate trade (for example, wait 
times at the land border truck processing ports have decreased by 33 percent) ; (3) the single 
window ensures security, health and safety of cargo  and promote overall trade compliance; (4) the 
single window eliminates the need to submit Partner Government Agency (PGA) paper forms (a 
total of 300 PGA forms have been automated); (5) estimated savings for the trade community and 
CBP, respectively, are gr eater than $40M and $20M for FY16 ; (6) 135,000 hours have been saved  
by participating in the Periodic Monthly Statement Program ; and (7) under single window, the 
United States has experienced 68 times faster processing  of single and continuous bonds.  
Quest ion 4  
Single Window ( Page 39, Para 3.10)  
The report states that under the Beyond the Border Action Plan, the United States and Canada 
have conducted a comparison of entry, release, and PGA data requirements and agreed to 
common advance data elements for t heir respective single -window systems. With Mexico, the 
United States has been elaborating harmonized rail manifest data elements to arrive at a single 
message set compatible with the filing requirements of both countries.  
4. Does the US plan to cooperate an d align with other trade partners on single -window systems 
outside of the scope of current FTA negotiations?  
RESPONSE: The United States continues to work closely with the Canada Border Services Agency 
(CBSA) and Mexico 's Tax Administration Service ( Servic io de Administración Tributaria, or SAT) to 
explore opportunities for streamlining the regional flow of trade, and implementing WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 172 - 
 
  mutually -agreed upon solutions. The United States intends to continue working with the World 
Customs Organization (WCO) and othe r initiatives that promote standardization.  
Question 5  
Page 49-51  
The report deals with excise taxes that can be levied at all levels of government. Excise taxes at 
federal level are listed in table 3.5.  
5. Does the US intend to make any changes to the excis e tax regime and for example, revise 
its system of excise tax credits for small domestic brewers to include excise credits for foreign 
small brewers also?   
RESPONSE: There is a bill in the current Congress that would provide a reduced rate of tax for 
small er producers and would apply to both domestic and imported products. Any pending 
legislation that does not pass before the end of the current Congress would need to be 
reintroduced to be considered in the next Congress.  
Question 6  
Page 46-47, Para 3.46  
Refers to the current development by CBP of a new structure for the Merchandise Processing Fee 
(MPF).  
6. Could the US provide more detailed information about the current state of play regarding 
the development of a new structure for the MPF (Merchandise Processi ng Fee)? When is this work 
expected to be finalized and to enter into force?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not have more detailed information available concerning the 
development and deployment of a new structure for the MPF at this time. Discussions ar e ongoing.  
Question 7  
"Particular Market Situation" ( Page 56, Para 3.80)  
The WTO Secretariat refers to these questions that have been raised to the US in the ASCM 
committee and the replies provided by the US. However this concept remains unclear.  
7. What bod y is entitled to assess that a "particular market situation" is in place? What does 
this concept cover and what are the criteria for application?  
RESPONSE: In the United States, the U.S. Department of Commerce assesses in a proceeding 
whether a particular market situation exists. The term "particular market situation" in 19 U.S.C. 
sec. 1677 and 1677b is also referenced in Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Any analysis 
of whether a particular market situation exists will depend on the facts and circ umstances the 
administering authority has before it on the administrative record and will be consistent with 
Article 2.2.  
Questions 8 -10 
Standards and other technical Requirements ( Page 61-63)  
The EU notes that State -level regulations in the US have beco me a barrier to many exporting 
companies, because of lack of information about their existence. A Single Point of Information for 
all new regulations, both federal and sub -federal, would be welcome.  
8. Have the US authorities considered setting up a Single Po int of Information for all new 
regulations, both federal and sub -federal given the priority attached to transparency which is 
mentioned in the Secretariat report?  
RESPONSE : The United States is not aware of any effort to establish a single point of informa tion 
for both federal and sub -federal regulations. However, for suppliers of domestic or imported WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 173 - 
 
  products alike, the Internet has greatly facilitated research on state level building codes and other 
local regulations.  
Question 9  
Page 62, Para 3.104 and 3 .105  
The report explains the obligations of federal agencies towards use of standards and 
standardization activities. One source of rules for agencies is circular A -119. The responsible Office 
for Management and Budget has issued a Revision of A -119 circu lar to reflect and to take account 
of the changes of regulatory actions (increasing of transparency and online availability).  
9. Has the revision of A -119 circular had any impact on the process of "selection of the 
voluntary consensus standards included into  technical regulations"?  
RESPONSE: The revised Circular A -119 was released in January 2016. The revised circular did not 
change the established preference for Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in 
lieu of developing their own standards . Certain clarifications were made to other parts of the 
circular, but did not change the basic process by which Federal agencies determine which standard 
is appropriate.  
Question 10  
TBT Notifications, (P. 63, Para 3.109)  
"The USA submitted 180 TBT notifica tions in 2014 and 283 notifications in 2015 ". The EU notes 
that there seems to be a lack of notifications of measures at state level for the years 2014 and 
2015, since only one notification was received in 2014 and none in 2015. Even though notification 
activities by states seem to have picked up in 2016 (the report notes 39 measures), it would be 
highly desirable, if the US would provide for a comprehensive notification of TBT measures taken 
at state level.  
10. What are the respective procedures that are in p lace within the US to ensure that 
notification obligations which stem from the TBT agreement – that are also applicable to US states 
– are fulfilled?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. WTO Inquiry Point staff use a fee -based proprietary service to identify and 
locate sub -federal proposed technical regulations from the U.S. states. The Inquiry Point and the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative work together in close collaboration to review and notify 
relevant proposed state technical regulations to the WTO. As of 30 Nove mber 2016, the U.S. has 
notified 49 sub -central measures to the WTO in calendar year 2016, not including addenda and 
corrigenda.  
Question 11  
SPS issues (Page 65, Para 3.116)  
"The FDA published seven draft regulations to implement key elements of the FSMA for public 
comment between January 2013 and February 2014. The proposed regulations, addressing 
preventive controls for human and animal food, produce safety, foreign supplier verification 
programmes, accreditation of third -party auditors, protection again st intentional adulteration of 
human food, and sanitary transportation of food, were also notified to the WTO.119 The key 
implementing regulations were finalized between September 2015 and July 2016 (Table 3.9) ."  
11. Can the US explain how disruption to trade  for EU/foreign exporters will be avoided during 
the implementation of the FSMA (Food Safety Modernisation Act) regulations? Is FDA mandated or 
required to increase the number of foreign facilities inspected/registered under FSMA? If so, how is 
this risk -based and what will it mean in terms of inspections in EU Member States?  
RESPONSE: As FDA continues its implementation of FSMA, the agency has committed to "educate 
as we regulate " so both domestic and foreign stakeholders understand FSMA requirements. 
Foreign producers are required to produce safe food for export to the United States. FSMA 
regulations provide additional time for small businesses, both foreign and domestic, to comply with 
FSMA requirements. FDA is mandated to increase the number of foreign facility inspections under WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 174 - 
 
  Sec. 201 of FSMA. FDA will continue to implement our foreign facility inspection program on a 
risk-based basis and will apply the risk factors to make determinations about any future facility 
inspections within EU Member States.  
Question 12  
Page 66, Para 3.118  
"The regulation that addresses imported food requires U.S. -based importers to have Foreign 
Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for the human food and animal food they import. Under the 
FSVP Rule, importers are required to  verify that their foreign suppliers produce food in ways that 
provide the same level of public health protection as U.S. preventive controls and produce safety 
regulations, and that the food is not adulterated or misbranded with respect to allergen labell ing. 
Importers are obliged to identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each 
type of food, including biological, chemical, and physical hazards. A FSVP must be developed for 
each food and each foreign food supplier. Importers may ca rry out risk -based supplier verification 
through several means, for example, through annual on -site audits of supplier facilities, sampling 
and testing, or by reviewing of the supplier's relevant food safety records. The verification may be 
performed by an  independent third party, as long as the importer reviews and assesses the 
relevant documentation. "  
12. In relation to FSVP (Foreign Supplier Verification Programs), how will the US ensure 
consistent and non -discriminatory application of standards by differen t US importers and ensure 
that foreign suppliers are treated equally to domestic suppliers? How will duplication of verification 
demands on EU exporters by multiple US importers be avoided?  
RESPONSE: FSVP importers must have a program in place to verify th at their foreign suppliers 
are producing food in a manner that provides the same level of public health protection as FDA 's 
preventive controls or produce safety regulations, as appropriate, and to ensure that the supplier 's 
food is not adulterated and is not misbranded with respect to allergen labeling. The preventive 
controls and produce safety standards applied under FSVP are the requirements of the Food Drug 
and Cosmetic Act. These requirements apply equally to foreign producers and domestic suppliers. 
Under FSVP a qualified individual and qualified auditors may conduct the hazard analysis and 
on-site audit of foreign suppliers. Importers may use the results of these activities to meet the 
requirements of the FSVP rule.  
Question 13  
Page 66, Para 3.119  
13. Regarding the Third Party Certification rule, under what circumstances would the FDA (Food 
and Drug Administration) require certification of foreign facilities? What criteria would be applied 
and would the same criteria apply for domestic and foreign facili ties? 
RESPONSE: The FDA requires both domestic and foreign producers to produce food that is safe 
for consumption in the United States. Third -party certification is only required when FDA makes a 
risk-informed determination, pursuant to Section 801(q)(2) o f the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 
that import certification is necessary to ensure the safety of imported food.   
Questions 14 -15 
Page 67, para 3.125  
"The FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) maintains a list of those countries determined 
equivalent, which also identifies those establishments in each country certified and eligible to 
export meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States.128 Currently, there are some 
32 countries determined equivalent and actively exporting meat (beef and pork), po ultry, and 
processed egg products to the United States."   
14. Can the US provide a detailed update on the status of ongoing FSIS equivalence proceedings 
involving EU Member States (which EU Member States, for which products, at what stage is it in 
the process,  etc.).  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 175 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The EU Member States recognized as equivalent for meat (beef and pork), poultry, 
and processed egg products are listed on the FSIS website , along with the eligibility status for 
these products.  For EU Member States, FSIS has thirteen (13) pending applications for 
reinstatement of beef eligibility; four (4) pending applications for small rumin ants (sheep/goats); 
one (1) pending application for pork; two (2) pending application for poultry; and eight (8) 
pending applications for processed egg products.  The status of each EU Member States ' 
applications is summarized in the following table:  
15. What is the status of rulemakings on apples and pears and on small ruminants (ie lifting the 
TSE ban on sheep). When will the final rules be published?  
RESPONSE: In response to the rulemakings on apples and pears and on small ruminants, in all 
cases, the proposed rules have been published and the comment periods are closed. The apples 
and pears proposed rule was published on April 15, 2016 and the public comment period closed on 
May 15, 2016. The small ruminants proposed rule was published on July 18, 2016 and the public 
comment period closed on September 16, 2016. APHIS is reviewing and analyzing the comments 
prior to finalizing the rules.  
Questions 16 -17 
Page 68, Para 3.127  
Page 6 8, para 3.127 states that: " Once a disease or pest of concern is detected, APHIS will work 
with the affected States under emergency protocols to manage and eradicate the outbreak. To 
guard against imported pests and diseases, APHIS regulates imports of liv e plants; grain, oilseeds, 
and horticultural products; animals, including semen, embryos and ova; research and exhibition 
animals; and animal products. In cases where both APHIS and FSIS requirements apply to 
imported goods, APHIS has responsibility for ev aluating the disease and pest risks…"  In the 
phytosanitary  field, 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  for 
European  producers.  There  is a general  perception  that the plant health  field suffers  of a general  Count ry Product  Status  
Member States listed in 9 CFR 327.2 (b)   
Belgium  Beef/Veal  No self -reporting tool (SRT) submitted  
Croatia  Beef/Veal  SRT under review  
Poultry (Initial)  SRT under review  
Czech Republic  Beef/Veal  No SRT submitted  
Denmark  Egg Products (Initial)  SRT under review  
Finland  Beef/Veal  No SRT submitted  
France  Beef/Veal  Audit pending  
Germany  Beef/Veal  SRT under review  
Egg Products (Initial)  No SRT submitted  
Greece  Egg Products (Initial)  Incomplete SRT  
Lamb/Mutton/Goat (Initial)  No SRT s ubmitted  
Ireland  Lamb/Mutton/Goat  SRT under review  
Italy  Beef/Veal  No SRT submitted  
Egg Products (Initial)  SRT under review  
Lithuania  Egg Products (initial)  Audit completed  
Poland  Beef/Veal  SRT under review  
Poultry (initial)  Rulemaking  
Egg Produc ts (Initial)  SRT under review  
Romania  Pork SRT under review  
Egg Products (Initial)  SRT under review  
Spain  Beef/Veal  SRT under review  
United Kingdom (England, 
Northern Ireland, Scotland, 
Wales)  Beef/Veal  SRT under review  
Lamb/Mutton/Goat  SRT under re view 
Member States not eligible to export meat, poultry or processed egg products to the United States  
Bulgaria  Beef/Veal (Initial)  No SRT submitted  
Lamb/Mutton/Goat (Initial)  No SRT submitted  
Egg Products (Initial)  No SRT submitted  
Estonia  Beef/Vea l (Initial)  No SRT submitted  
Latvia  Beef/Veal (Initial)  No SRT submitted  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 176 - 
 
  lack of progress  on the broader  issues  of procedures  in APHIS.  According  to WTO commitments,  
parties  are obliged  to approve  phytosanitary  controls  and procedures  "without  undue  delays". " 
16. What is the policy of APHIS regarding the payment for audits or inspections carried out? 
Does flexibility exist, or are there situations where APHI S is obliged to recoup the costs of an audit 
or inspection?  
RESPONSE: APHIS currently does not conduct "audits ", but does conduct import inspections and 
may conduct site visits  in foreign countries to ensure appropriate implementation of any required 
mitigation measures in the foreign country.  APHIS does charge certain fees for import 
inspections.  In the case of audits and inspections carried out by other U.S. government agencies, 
the U.S. government may pay most, but not necessarily all costs, associated w ith such activities.   
17. What measures  does the US consider  to speed  up the process  of responding  to pending  
import  applications  as current  long delays  affect  a large number  of imports  (plants,  facilities  
processing  meat,  poultry  and eggs products).   
RESPONSE : The US works with host countries to prioritize work on pending import applications. 
Trading partners should work with APHIS to address the exporting country 's requests.  
Question 18  
Page 68, Para 3.129  
"EPA responsibilities cover, inter alia, the registra tion of pesticides, including herbicides and 
fungicides, and the establishment of tolerances (maximum residue limits – MRLs) for pesticides in 
food. EPA uses risk assessment to establish tolerances for each crop use of a pesticide. The list of 
tolerances ( and exemptions) is revised annually in the Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 40, 
Part 180) and daily in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e -CFR). As of August 2016, EPA 
had established approximately 277 new tolerances (permanent and temporary)  since the last TPR 
in 2014. The tolerances are enforced by USDA for meat, poultry and certain egg products, and by 
the FDA for other foods". "  
18. During the last TPR period in 2012 -2014, EPA established 897 tolerances. During the current 
TPR period in 2014 -2016 only 277 new tolerances were established. What are the reasons for the 
substantially lower number of new tolerances? How were Codex standards taken into account here 
and are risk assessments for these tolerances published?  
RESPONSE: Under the Pesticide  Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), the USEPA operates under 
a fee-for-service structure. PRIA requires USEPA to review all applications submitted under defined 
timelines. If there are fewer requests for tolerances in a given time period, then US EPA tol erance 
determinations will decrease for that time period.  
Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the USEPA is required to consider the levels of any 
existing CODEX MRL and try to harmonize domestic tolerances with those levels. In cases where 
USEPA  are unable to harmonize (typically due to a different use pattern), USEPA is required to 
explain the reasons why USEPA was unable to harmonize. Risk assessments for all tolerances are 
published in the Federal Register which can be found at: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR . 
Section 3.2.5 on Export Finance, insurance, guarantees  
Question 19  
P. 73, Para 3.152  
"Although exports have grown  significantly, the targets have not been met as the NEI encountered 
global economic headwinds and unfavourable macro economic factors."  
19. Could the US detail the types of measures offered to US business under the National Export 
Initiative to promote access  to finance? What are the amounts involved? What are the conditions? 
What are the lessons learnt from the past years if any?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 177 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The National Export Strategy (NES) Report will be  available this month 
(December  2016). It will be available at: http://www.trade.gov/publications . This Report covers 
the National Export Initiative (NEI) and its successor NEI/NEXT, including the evaluation of this 
U.S. policy initiative and an appendix providing metrics.  
Ques tion 20  
P. 75, Paras 3.161 to 3.162  
Refers to the " guarantee limit which has been increased from 75% to up to 90% of the approved 
loan under the Small Business Jobs Act".  
20. Could the US explain on which basis the guarantee fee paid by the lender in the fram ework 
of the SBA is calculated?  
RESPONSE: The fee is paid on the guaranteed portion of the loan. For a $1 million loan with 90% 
guaranty, the fee is calculated on $900,000.  
Section 8.3.5 Public Procurement  
Questions 21 -24  
P. 85, Para 3.193  
According to the report, procurement value by the Federal Government in 2015 was $439.3 Bn of 
which procurement by the department of defence (DoD) was $274.5 Bn. Furthermore, according 
to the report "there are no collected state or locality figures that are available t hat would allow 
comparison to these data".  
21. According to the report, DoD procurement represents 62% of the total value of US Federal 
procurement. However, according to the OECD and based on the analysis of the US national 
accounts, defence represented in 20 14 around 15% of the total central government expenditures. 
How can the US explain the discrepancies between the share of defence procurement in total 
federal procurement (62%) and the share of defence in the central government expenditures 
(15%)?  
RESPONSE : The question does not provide a citation for the OECD report, so it is not possible to 
explain the specifics of these two numbers. However, the United States does note that the 
Government procurement report includes only Federal expenditures through Fede ral executive 
branch procurements, not executive branch grants, loans, other mandatory spending for Federal 
programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or spending from the Legislative or 
Judicial branches of the Federal government.  
22. The report also states that there are no figures available on the value of sub -central level of 
procurement. Nevertheless the US GPA report for the year 2009 contains statistics on procurement 
at sub -central level. Could the US elaborate on this discrepancy?  
RESPONSE : Please see GPA/WPS/STAT/9 of 27 October 2015 regarding how the U.S. Government 
calculated the level of U.S. sub -central government procurement covered under the GPA.   
23. If there are no data on the value of sub -central procurement available, could the US 
elaborate on the methodology used to produce the data for sub -central level procurement in the 
US GPA statistical report and on the reliability of these data?  
RESPONSE: Please see GPA/WPS/STAT/9 of 27 October 2015 regarding how the U.S. Government 
calculated  the level of U.S. sub -central government procurement covered under the GPA.  
24. Does the US intend to develop a central register for PP that would enhance transparency 
including at sub federal (state level)?  
RESPONSE: No. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 178 - 
 
  Questions 25 -27  
P. 87, Paras 3.204, 3.205, and 2.306  
On access to public procurement organised by Federal government agencies  
25. Could the US spell which conditions must a foreign supplier fulfil in order to be registered for 
Multiple Award Schedules?  
RESPONSE: Each Multiple Award Schedule is  an independent contract. The conditions for 
participation for each contract are stated in the tender documents. The tender documents are 
available on www.fbo.gov . Please see the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule Desk Referenc e available 
at: https://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100755  for more information  
26. Could the US explain in which type of situations exhaustive lists of qualified suppliers are 
maintained and the websi te where to access such information that the WTO Secretariat reports as 
"public"?  
RESPONSE: Federal procuring entities covered by the FAR may use qualifications requirements 
when it is necessary for such requirements to be demonstr ated before contract awar d. 
FAR 9.202(a)(1). For Federal procurement, lists are published in accordance with agency 
procedures and furnished to the public upon request. FAR 9.204(c) and (d). Notices seeking 
additional sources or products for qualification are published periodicall y on : 
https://www.fbo.gov/ . FAR 9.204(a)(2).  
27. Could the US explain in more detail what information, apart from the CAGE code, are 
contractors required to supply in order to be registered as vendors under SAM. How does a 
contractor obtain a CAGE code?  
RESPONSE:  The information required for registration in the Federal System for Award 
Management can be found at www.sam.gov  under the "help" tab and "user guides ". Section 3 
contains all the requirements for registration. Entities are provided a CAGE code during the 
registration process and additional information on the CAGE codes is provided in Section 3.1.  
Question 28  
P. 88, Para 3.207  
According to the report, local governments have their own procurement policies but they must 
comply with certain Federal statutory requirements where procurement is funded with Federal 
money.  
28. Could the US specify which statutory requirements must be applied and for which funds 
(originating from the Federal l evel) they apply?  
RESPONSE: Requirements for grant recipients vary depending upon the legal requirements 
established in a specific law authorizing the Federal financial assistance. Requirements address the 
purposes for which funds may be used. Additional r equirements may vary and would be program 
specific.  
29. Could the US also clarify how the statutory requirements are applied if they conflict with 
local rules?  
RESPONSE: Recipients of federal assistance funds are required to comply with all applicable 
federal requirements as a condition for receiving the funds  
Questions 30 -31  
P. 88, Para 3.208  
According to the report there have been efforts to increase transparency in US Federal 
procurement and the Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID) has been introduced in order to be 
completed by 2018.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 179 - 
 
  30. Could the US detail this concept of PIID and what it involves concretely in practice? How will 
the PIID contribute to improve transparency, in particular from a foreign bidder's perspective?  
RESPONSE: The PIID is the iden tifier for each contract. The US procurement system has required 
a unique identifier (the PIID) for decades. The recent change to the Procurement Instrument 
Identifier is to require the PIID to be BOTH unique AND uniform. The uniformity will support easier  
identification of the office that awarded the Federal contract through inclusion of a new office code.  
31. Could the US elaborate on what other measures, if any, have been taken in order to 
increase transparency?  
RESPONSE: In 2007, The United States launched  USAspending.gov in response to the Federal 
Funding Accountability and Transparency of 2006 to make Federal spending information more 
transparent and easily understandable and accessible by the public. The site displays Federal 
contract, grant, loan, and o ther financial assistance awards in various forms including data 
displayed by agency to determine how much money an agency awarded as well as the states and 
cities receiving the most funds, and a spending map that displays information about Federal 
funding  down to the neighborhood level. USAspending.gov will continue updating to include 
additional data required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014.  
Questions 32  
P. 88, Para 3.211  
According to the report, Federal domestic preference req uirements are also sometimes included in 
annual appropriation and authorization bills.  
32. Could the US list the main appropriation and authorization bills for the past two years which 
have contained such requirements (such as the Fast Act)? The EU would welc ome details on their 
main features and implications of such appropriations on suppliers and services providers of other 
GPA parties?  
RESPONSE: Information on all Federal legislation, including appropriations and authorization acts, 
is publicly available a nd can be found at Thomas.gov.  
Question 33 -35 
P. 89, Para 3.216  
As explained in the report, each US State has its own procu rement access conditions and 
37 States participate in the GPA. Some US States restrict foreign participation in biddings or apply 
in-state preferences, while some States do not grant specific "state preferences".  
33. Could the US explain how the above mentioned GPA obligations are enforced and how 
compliance with them is monitored.  
RESPONSE: States have committed to the Federal government to ensure that their procurement 
systems are administered consistent with U.S. obligations under the GPA. States implement those 
obligations in their State procurement systems.  
34. Could the US clarify which US States do not grant specific "state preferences" but restrict, 
however, foreign participation in biddings and clarify what type of restrictions those states apply? 
Could the US explain also which states have SME set -asides in place.  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Federal government does not maintain a database of st ate procurement 
preferences.  
35. Could the US clarify which states have during the past year processed or passed a legislative 
bill increasing or imposing new domestic content restrictions affecting foreign bidders? If there are 
such bills, please explain thei r main features and implications to foreign bidders.  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Federal government does not maintain a database of state procurement 
legislation. The United States Federal government has no knowledge of any state enacting 
legislation over the past year that is inconsistent with U.S. GPA obligations.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 180 - 
 
  Questions 36 -39 
P. 90, Para 3.217  
The US has implemented on 18 August 2016 a law creating a federal excise tax of 2% to be 
applied to government purchases from foreign entities. According to the impleme nting regulations 
it appears that this law does not apply to a party of the WTO GPA. Could the US:  
36. elaborate on the criteria and/or rules applied when defining a foreign entity according to the 
implementing regulations of 18 August 2016?  
RESPONSE: The tax is imposed on "foreign persons " generally. However, no tax is applied to 
Federal procurement payments for goods manufactured or produced or services provided in a 
country that is a party to an international procurement agreement with the United States. 
Additionally, the law provides that the tax is to be applied in a manner consistent with 
United  States obligations under international agreements. Implementing regulations may be found 
at: https://w ww.irs.gov/irb/2016 -36_IRB/ar11.html . 
37. clarify also if this tax will apply in procurement from EU entities when the contract concerns 
goods and services not specifically covered by US GPA commitments or when the procuring entity 
is a Federal entity not cov ered by US GPA commitments.  
RESPONSE: Per the law, no tax is applied to Federal procurement payments for goods 
manufactured or produced or services provided in a country that is a party to an international 
procurement agreement with the United States. Addi tionally, the law provides that the tax is to be 
applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements. 
Implementing regulations can be found at: https://ww w.irs.gov/irb/2016 -36_IRB/ar11.html . 
38. clarify also how the tax applies above the simplified acquisition threshold but below the GPA 
thresholds?  
RESPONSE: The tax does not apply when the total contract price is under the simplified 
acquisition threshold. Ot herwise, the tax applies to the total contract price, i.e., the total cost to 
the U.S. government for the items procured under the contract and paid to the contracting party, 
unless there is an applicable exemption. To the extent there are applicable exemp tions, the total 
amount subject to the tax is adjusted appropriately. Implementing regulations can be found at:  
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2016 -36_IRB/ar11.html . 
39. explain also how the tax is applied  when the tender contains goods or services originating in 
the EU (e.g. when EU goods and services originating from the EU represents 40% of the total 
tender) but the bidder is established in a country not party to an international procurement 
agreement wi th the US such as the GPA?  
RESPONSE:  Per the law, no tax is applied to Federal procurement payments for goods 
manufactured or produced or services provided in a country that is a party to an international 
procurement agreement with the United States.  To th e extent that goods are manufactured or 
produced, or services are provided, in multiple countries, the rules apply on a proportionate basis. 
Implementing regulations can be found at : https://www. irs.gov/irb/2016 -36_IRB/ar11.html . 
Questions 40 -41 
P. 90, Paras 2.220 and 3.222  
The EU notes that in fiscal year 2015, the overall small -business procurement goal of 23% was 
exceeded as 25.7% of the value of all contracts was procured from "small business es", as defined 
by the US SBA.  
40. Could the US clarify which rule or guideline the "small -business goal" is based on? In 
particular can the US give more details regarding the situations in which contracts exceeding the 
value of $150.000 are set aside for US SMEs? If the so called "rule of two" is met, is there any 
value ceiling for setting aside contracts?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 181 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The small business goals are set forth in the Small Business Act, 15 USC 644(g). 
Contracts exceeding $150,000 are set aside for small business wh en there is a reasonable 
expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small businesses at a fair 
market price ( "the rule of two "). There is no ceiling or dollar limit on the value or price of a 
set-aside contract.  
41. US agencies are required to promote subcontracting with US small businesses by 
incorporating "subcontracting plans" in prime contracts. In particular all federal contracts in excess 
of $150,000 must provide maximum practicable opportunity for US small and small disadvanta ged 
business to participate. In this respect, could the US explain whether this sub -contracting plan 
requirement is considered to be a "small business set -aside" (as defined by US GPA commitments 
Annex 7 - General notes)?  
RESPONSE: Yes. The U.S. General No te reads: "This Agreement does not apply to any set aside 
on behalf of a small - or minority -owned business. A set -aside may include any form of preference, 
such as the exclusive right to provide to a good or service, or any price preference. " 
Question 42  
P. 92, Para 3.230  
According to the report, in July 2016, DoD, GSA and NASA issued a final rule amending FAR to 
implement regulatory changes on small business contracting.  
42. Could the US explain these changes, which according to the report are intended at 
facilitating the participation of small businesses? Do the amendments impact suppliers of other 
GPA-parties?  
RESPONSE: The Federal Acquisition Regulation finalized in July 2016 provides guidance on 
subcontracting. The final rule requires prime contractors to  make good faith efforts to use their 
proposed small business subcontractors during performance of a contract to the same degree the 
prime contractor relied on the small business in preparing and submitting its proposal. The final 
rule also requires prime contractors to prepare  a subcontracting plan when a modification causes 
the contract to exceed the plan threshold, assign NAICS codes to its subcontracts, and the rule 
restricts prime contractors from prohibiting a subcontractor from discussing payment mat ters with 
the contracting officer.  
Question 43  
IPR (P. 95, Para. 3.243)  
The report states that the Defend Trade Secrets Act was signed into law in 2016, amending the 
Economic Espionage Act to create a private civil cause of action for trade secret misappr opriation.  
43. Could the US further elaborate on the major changes that were introduced to the Economic 
Espionage Act by the adoption of the new law?  
RESPONSE: In addition to the creation of a new federal civil cause of action for trade secret 
misappropriation , the DTSA amended the Economic Espionage Act to provide expedited relief on 
an ex parte basis in these civil cases in extraordinary circumstances. This remedy ''enable[s] a 
trade secret owner under limited, controlled conditions, to proactively contain a theft before it 
progresses and the trade secret is lost. " Materials seized under this authority will be taken into the 
custody of the court.  
The DTSA also added provisions regarding "whistleblower " protections under certain 
circumstances. Specifically, the  DTSA provides for criminal and civil immunity for anyone who 
discloses a trade secret under two circumstances. The first provision addresses disclosures in 
confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, or to an attorney, for the purpose of  
reporting or investigating a suspected violation of the law. The second provision applies to 
disclosure in a complaint or other document filed under seal in a judicial proceeding. The DTSA 
also provides limited protection when disclosure is for use in a r etaliation lawsuit.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 182 - 
 
  Questions 44 -45 
Section 3.3.6.3 Patents (P. 97)  
Even though not specifically mentioned in the Report, it is understood that progress on a number 
of US patent reform proposals on state level (notably the Innovation Act) has stalled.  
44. Could the US explain if preparatory steps have been taken on new bill on state level 
covering similar topics as the Innovation Act?  
RESPONSE: We continue to monitor relevant developments at the state level. Discussions are 
expected to continue on this issue i n front of the U.S. Congress.  
45. Have there been major patent reform proposals on federal level, addressing similar issues?  
RESPONSE: Discussions are expected to continue on this issue in front of the U.S. Congress.  
Question 46  
Section 3.3.6.5.2 Geographica l Indications (p. 100)  
46. What are the current GIs protected/covered by the system of «  distinctive products »? How 
does the US trademark system provides adequate protection for EU GI products? On which ground 
do the US establish that the «  standards of ident ity » constitute a GI protection given that this 
system does not offer any guarantee in terms of geographical origin?  
RESPONSE: We do not agree with the characterization of "distinctive products " and "standards of 
identity " in the question.  
All food stuff s and agricultural products, including cheeses and meat, wines and spirits, and a 
variety of other products of interest can qualify for protection i n the United States. The 
United  States protects geographical indications through its trademark system as cer tification 
marks, collective marks and trademarks. The system recognizes prior -in-time trademark rights 
and requires that generic terms remain in the public domain for producers' and manufacturers' use 
to refer to their products. Geographic signs used on n on-originating goods/services that would 
mislead or deceive consumers are not eligible for registration as a trademark, or as part of a 
trademark, and their use can be enjoined. The overall trademark system is cost -effective, 
expeditious and user -friendly.  For example, under our system, unlike many other countries, 
USPTO has the administrative authority to act on its own initiative to review applications for mark 
protection and deny applications that would likely cause confusion with existing marks protecte d in 
our territory. The system is already used by a broad range of stakeholders, including SMEs as well 
as collective producer associations, large cooperatives, and geographic certification bodies. In fact, 
EU agricultural producers hold over 25,000 U.S. m ark registrations in the United States. 
Complementary protection is provided under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and its 
implementing regulations for wine and distilled spirits of both domestic and foreign origin. Further 
information can be found in the Lanham Act and Federal Alcohol Administration Act, among other 
measures.  
Question 47  
Section 3.3.6.8 IPR enforcement (P. 102, Para 3.273)  
The US has a number of successful Voluntary Stakeholder Initiatives designed to combat 
trademark infringement online. Nevertheless, online trademark infringements are becoming 
increasingly common, therefore a reliable and effective system similar to that provided in the 
DMCA for copyright would clearly be beneficial.  
47. What steps has the US taken or is planning to take to address this lacuna regarding 
trademark rights since IPR enforcement is a national priority – as indicated in paragraph 3.273 of 
the Report?  
RESPONSE: Without commenting on the characterization of the U.S. system in this question, the 
United States  continually strives to improve its protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights. Our extensive efforts to combat online trademark infringement are set out in the WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 183 - 
 
  Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) Joint Strategic Plan and i n the IPEC annual 
reports. For the annual reports of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator visit : 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/intellectualproperty/sir . 
Section 4. Agricu lture  
Question 48  
Credit to Agriculture (p. 107)  
48. Could the US explain how it intends to implement and comply with Nairobi decision on 
export competition with respect to export credit?  
RESPONSE: The United States operates the GSM -102 program in accordance  with the principles 
incorporated into the Nairobi decision on export competition.  
Questions 49 -51 
P. 115, Para 4.29  
P. 115, Para 4.29 refers to the 2014 Farm Act which also extends the " Dairy Forward Pricing 
Program, the Dairy Indemnity Program, and the D airy Promotion and Research Program through 
2018. The promotion and research programme authorizes the collec tion of a levy equal to 
US$0.15  per cwt on domestically -produced milk and US$0.075 per cwt (milk equivalent) on 
imported dairy products ". 
49. What was t he total amount of levies collected on the dairy promotion and research program 
and what was the share of levies on imported dairy products in it?  
RESPONSE: The annual dairy import assessments collected and the total dairy program 
assessments are presented  in this table.  
Dairy Import Assessments  2014  2015  
Annual Dairy Import Assessments Collected  $3,411,353  $4,175,783  
 
Annual Dairy Assessments  2014  2015  
Dairy Program Assessments  $311,862,225  $310,046,976  
50. What type of activities took place to promote d airy products that were financed with the 
proceeds from this levy? What is the share of promotion activities dedicated to liquid milk for the 
US internal market?  
RESPONSE: There are a broad range of activities that are funded with assessments collected 
through the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program. These activities include promotional 
campaigns, partnerships with quick service restaurants to develop and expand dairy consumption, 
nutrition education utilizing various types of media outlets, schoo l and community engagement 
activities, sustainability initiatives, and various dairy -related research partnerships.  
The purpose of the National Program is to expand the consumption of dairy products, whether 
produced domestically or imported.  
Importers ma y direct up to the equivalent of 2.5 -cents per hundredweight of milk to a qualified 
program that conducts promotion and research activities. Three programs receive import 
assessments – Cheese Importers Association of America (CIAA), Global Dairy Platform ( GDP), and 
the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. CIAA and GDP are primarily financed by and have a 
substantial interest in importing dairy products. The remaining 5 -cents per hundredweight are 
used to support National Program activities.  
51. Was butter subjected to price -based SSG in the period immediately preceding the imposition 
of the volume -based levy (in 2015)?  
RESPONSE: Yes. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 184 - 
 
  Questions 52 -53 
Page 117, Para 4.40  
On cash -based food assistance under an Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP)   
52. What was the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid (value and type of commodities) and 
what were the destinations of this kind of aid, at least in the last three years?  
RESPONSE: From 2014 through 2016, the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid was 
$538,971,823.80 and wa s shipped to the following countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, 
Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, 
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea -Bissau, Haiti, 
Honduras , Cote d 'Ivoire, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of South Sudan, 
Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.  
In 2014, th e level of non -emergency in -kind food aid was $225,262,511.66.  
Commodity  FY 2014  
Beans  $4,350,101.60  
Bulgur   $9,429,620.20  
Bulgur, soy -fortified  $284,126.90  
Cornmeal  $1,593,955.90  
Cornmeal, soy -fortified  $276,590.00  
Corn-soy blend  $4,900,624. 20  
Corn-soy blend plus  $13,093,348.20  
Crude degummed soybean oil  $17,177,717.50  
Flour, all purpose  $259,407.30  
Green split peas  $185,731.00  
Lentils  $784,429.30  
Potato flakes, dehydrated  $747,557.60  
Potato granules, dehydrated  $860,236.06  
Rice, milled  $12,060,132.50  
Sorghum  $2,185,696.70  
Soybean meal  $37,365,105.00  
Sunflowerseed oil  $157,713.23  
Vegetable oil  $20,843,682.67  
Wheat, hard red winter  $52,291,435.40  
Wheat, northern spring  $18,222,677.00  
Wheat, soft white  $17,646 ,915.90  
Yellow corn  $219,450.00  
Yellow split peas  $10,326,257.50  
Grand total  $225,262,511.66  
In 2015, the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid was $ 148,587,093.51.  
Commodity  FY 2015  
Beans  $3,186,237.60  
Bulgur   $2,173,162.10  
Bulgur, soy -fortified $1,601,893.00  
Cornmeal  $2,492,115.50  
Cornmeal, soy -fortified  $501,628.00  
Corn-soy blend  $3,493,097.10  
Corn-soy blend plus  $13,548,470.70  
Crude degummed soybean oil  $17,627,808.10  
Flour, all purpose  $211,870.80  
Green split peas  $189,068.20  
Lentils  $1,688,394.50  
Potato granules, dehydrated  $709,234.50  
Rice, milled  $8,079,308.30  
Sorghum  $3,664,509.00  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 185 - 
 
  Commodity  FY 2015  
Soybean meal  $4,676,560.00  
Sunflowerseed oil  $153,648.26  
Vegetable oil  $22,114,468.85  
Wheat, hard red spring bag  $65,4 40.00  
Wheat, hard red winter  $44,086,596.20  
Wheat, northern spring  $7,398,480.00  
Yellow corn  $2,032,400.00  
Yellow split peas  $8,892,702.80  
Grand total  $148,587,093.51  
In 2016, the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid was $165,122,218.63.  
Commodity  FY 2016  
Beans  $2,264,117.10  
Bulgur   $1,548,220.50  
Bulgur, soy -fortified  $1,139,742.30  
Yellow corn  $7,327,805.00  
Cornmeal  $212,415.20  
Cornmeal, soy -fortified  $125,418.00  
Corn-soy blend  $1,139,423.10  
Corn-soy blend plus  $9,703,633. 50  
Flour, all purpose  $199,953.00  
Lentils  $1,300,262.80  
Crude degummed soybean oil  $23,233,049.50  
Sunflowerseed oil  $66,736.91  
Vegetable oil  $8,268,653.42  
Green split peas  $90,720.00  
Green whole peas  $393,390.00  
Yellow split peas  $11,614, 385.00  
Rice, milled  $27,044,176.20  
Rice, fortified  $6,005,009.30  
Sorghum  $353,490.00  
Soybean meal  $15,833,270.00  
Tallow, technical  $861,300.00  
Tallow, yellow  $670,980.00  
Wheat, hard red winter  $30,536,707.80  
Wheat, northern spring  $11,868,480.00  
Wheat, soft white  $3,320,880.00  
Grand total  $165,122,218.63  
53. Could the US clarify what is the state of play of the reform process of its food aid policies?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as appropriate if there are changes in the future.  
Services  
Question 54  
P. 128, Para 4.74  
"Initial entry into the U.S. market through the establishment or acquisition of a nationally 
chartered bank subsidiary by a foreign person is permitted in all states but there are commercial 
presence limitations which vary according to the state. Initial entry or expansion by a foreign 
person (but not a domestic person) through acquisition or establishment of a state -chartered 
commerci al bank subsidiary is prohibited or limited in 22 states."  
54. Are there any measures  being  considered  to reduce  commercial  presence  limitations  by 
foreign  persons?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 186 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  As a general matter, foreign persons wishing to enter the U.S. market through 
establi shment or acquisition of a bank subsidiary have the option of choosing a national or state 
charter. A national bank, chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, may be 
established or acquired in any state. A state bank, chartered by the rel evant state banking 
authority, is limited or unavailable in some states. As noted, these limitations exist in a limited 
number of states, including Kansas and North Dakota, which are generally not of commercial 
interest to foreign banks. We note that the "limitations " are in addition to the prudential 
requirements for a foreign bank to open a branch or agency.  
Questions 55 -56 
P. 129, Para 4.80 -4.81 
The report in detail deals with the conditions of establishment of insurance companies, agents, and 
brokers - obligatory licensing under the law of the state for only this state territory and diverse 
conditions among the states.  
55. What efforts does the US undertake to ensure transparency, with regard to different 
authorisation and establishment conditions applied ac ross individual federal states?  
RESPONSE: The business of insurance in the United States is primarily regulated at the state 
level. Insurance laws are at the state level and are implemented and enforced by state regulators. 
Each U.S. state has an insurance  department that may be contacted regarding the licensing and 
other requirements for engaging in the business of insurance in that state.   
56. Are there any streamlined procedures for foreign insurance services providers, established in 
one US state, to be aut horized to provide insurance services in another US state?  
RESPONSE: The business of insurance in the United States is primarily regulated at the state 
level. Insurance laws are enacted by at the state level and are implemented and enforced by state 
regula tors. Each U.S. state has an insurance department that may be contacted regarding the 
licensing and other requirements for engaging in the business of insurance in that state. State 
laws require all insurers and insurance -related businesses to be licensed before selling products or 
services. Insurance agents and brokers, also known as producers, must be licensed as well. The 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a voluntary standard -setting and regulatory 
support organization governed by the chie f insurance regulatory officials of the 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, America Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern 
Mariana Islands, has developed a Uniform Certificate of Authority Application (UCAA), which is a 
compan y licensing system to help states expedite the review process of new company licenses. 
The UCAA process is designed to allow insurers to file copies of the same application for admission 
in numerous states. Certain U.S. states require a non -U.S. insurance company to be licensed in 
another state before obtaining a license to supply insurance services in that state. To facilitate an 
insurance broker or agent in providing insurance services in more than one U.S. state, the broker 
or agent may apply through the  National Insurance Producers Registry to operate in multiple 
states.  
Question 57  
P. 136, Para 4.118  
According to the report, wireline providers, as well as submarine cable landing licensees, and 
broadband internet access service are not generally subject to any foreign ownership restrictions 
beyond the FCC's general obligations and qualifications for ownership for such providers. However, 
there are restrictions for some other services: foreign ownership without prior FCC approval is 
limited to 20% direct i nvestment and 25% indirect investment for common carrier wireless 
licenses and the FCC must conduct a public interest analysis when evaluating applications to 
receive authorization to exceed the 25% foreign -ownership benchmark.   
57. Could the US clarify the cr iteria for assessment of applications to exceed the 25% 
foreign -ownership benchmark? What is the essence of the public interest considerations, 
conducted according to the footnote no. 115? What kind of circumstances could be a reason to 
deny such applicati on? WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 187 - 
 
  RESPONSE: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4) provides that the foreign ownership of a U.S. wireless licensee 
may not exceed the 25 percent statutory benchmark if the FCC finds that it would not be in the 
public interest to allow such foreign ownership.  
A licensee must request FCC approval of its foreign ownership under section 310(b)(4) by filing a 
petition for declaratory ruling and obtain FCC approval before t he foreign ownership exceeds 
25 percent. In evaluating the foreign ownership petition, the FCC will asses s, in each particular 
case, whether the foreign interests presented for approval by the licensee are in the public 
interest, consistent with the FCC's section 310(b)(4) policy framework. The FCC will consider 
whether the licensee or its proposed foreign ow ners have a history of violating FCC rules and 
policies or of anticompetitive actions. The public interest analysis under section 310(b)(4) also 
considers any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy concerns raised by 
the propos ed foreign investment.  
Since the inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has ever been denied a common carrier 
wireless license under the FCC's public interest analysis.  
Question 58  
P. 141, Para 4.143  
It is stated in the report that under the Fly Ame rica Act, any government -financed transportation, 
of passengers or cargo, must be provided by U.S. air carriers (or a U.S. carrier code -share on a 
foreign airline). In 2015, the Federal Government awarded an estimated US$520 million of 
business to U.S. air lines under the Fly America Act. Nonetheless, this restriction may be waived 
where the United States has entered into bilateral or multilateral agreements that allow the 
provision of such services by foreign air carriers.  
58. Do the limitations, arising from the Fly America Act (i.e. transportation need to be provided 
by US air carriers) apply to government procured transportations only, or they apply also to any 
transportation, purchased by a private entity, which has been granted public funds (e.g. to carry 
out a public project)?  
RESPONSE: The Fly America Act requirements apply to all U.S. Federal Government -funded 
transportation.  
Page 135 section 2.3.3. on Telecoms  
Question 59  
P. 138, Para 4.124  
"The FCC's Open Internet Order does not apply to enterprise services, virtual private network 
services, hosting, or data storage services (paragraph 4.124, WT/TPR/S/350)". The EU notes that 
FCC has also recently abandoned plans for a reform of the business data services market. This is 
an important market, for inst ance, for many foreign companies providing secure VPN services, who 
must rely on the local business data services offers to provide their own VPN service. Such foreign 
providers have often claimed to face discriminatory treatment from local providers of bu siness 
data services, who seek to offer their own secure VPN services or to drive up costs and extract 
monopoly rents".  
59. Is this potentially anti -competitive situation going to be addressed? Will there be a future 
regulatory focus on the business data servi ces market? How does the USA assess its commitments 
under the GATS regulatory reference paper in relation to the business data services market?  
RESPONSE: There is an ongoing proceeding by the FCC examining the business data services 
market in the United St ates. In the course of this proceeding, the FCC will assess the effectiveness 
of current regulation in light of changes in the market. On May 2, 2016, the FCC released a 
proposal for regulation, which is available at : https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -
16-54A1_Rcd.pdf . The proceeding remains open and under consideration by the FCC.  
Beyond this statement of the current situation, it is not clear what part of the  GATS Reference 
Paper on Basic Telecommunications the EU is concerned with in relationship to the business data WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 188 - 
 
  services market. The United States could provide more specific information if the EU provided 
additional information regarding the specific comm itments and related aspects of the business 
data services market that are of concern.  
Questions 60 -62 
Ship Subsidies (P. 145, Paras 4.162 to 4.164)  
60. Could the US clarify the legal framework authorising the Federal Ship Financing Program, 
the Capital Constr uction Fund and the Construction Reserve Funds?  
RESPONSE: Assistance to Small Shipyards was authorized by the National Defense Act of 2006 to 
provide grants for capital improvements, equipment and training programs to foster efficiency, 
competitive operat ions and quality ship construction, repair and reconfiguration. The 2016 
Consolidated Appropriations Act authorized $5M for the Assistance to Small Shipyards Grant 
Program.   
61. For how long have these schemes been in place and what are their deadlines for 
termination? What have been the amounts involved so far and in case the funding covers next 
years, what are the amounts considered? What were / will be the beneficiaries (if the scheme is 
foreseen to continue in the years to come)?  
RESPONSE: The legal framewo rk for the Federal Ship Financing Program, the Capital Construction 
Fund and the Construction Reserve Funds have been in place in various forms since the Merchant 
Marine Act of 1936. The amounts allocated in 2016 are specified in the 2016 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, as noted. The criteria for eligible beneficiaries is likewise specified in the Act. 
We refrain from speculating on the allocation or award of future funding in light of the 
retrospective orientation of trade policy reviews.  
62. What are the int entions of the US regarding its notification to the ASCM?  
RESPONSE: The Assistance to Small Shipyards program has been included in our past subsidy 
notifications (see, e.g., G/SCM/N/284/USA). The other programs will be considered for inclusion in 
our next subsidy notification.  
Questions 63 -64 
4.2.3.2.1 Maritime transport (CZ) (Para 4.145)  
Para 4.145 states "Under the laws on documentation of vessels in 46 U.S.C. 121 and the coastwise 
laws in 46 U.S.C. 551, restrictions on cabotage of goods and passengers r emain in place. Under 
the coastwise laws (such as the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Service Act of 1886), cargo 
and passenger services between two points in the United States, either directly or via a foreign 
port, are reserved for ships that are regi stered and built in the United States and owned by a U.S. 
corporation, and on which 100% of the officers and 75% of the cre w are U.S. citizens.155 As of 
2 August 2016, 93 vessels were eligible as Jones Act vessels.156 The Jones Act does not prevent 
foreign  companies from establishing shipping companies in the United States as long as they meet 
the requirements with respect to U.S. employees. Foreign -owned U.S. companies may also own 
and operate ships flying the U.S. flag in international service. "  
63. Are ther e any measures in place in order to diminish restrictions introduced by the Jones 
Act? 
RESPONSE: 46 U.S. Code § 501 permits waivers from the Jones Act when the waiver is necessary 
in the interest of national defense.  
64. Has the US Administration taken into ac count the possibility of granting waivers to foreign 
suppliers in the interest other than "national defense ", such as the transport of some specialized 
products? (Liquified Natural Gas, oil or shale gas)?  
RESPONSE: We refrain from speculating on possible future actions or policies given the 
retrospective orientation of trade policy reviews.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 189 - 
 
  Question 65  
Section 4.2.3.2.3 Shipbuilding and ship repairs (Para 4.161)  
Para 4.161 states that "Under the coastwise laws, only U.S. -built ships qualify for domestic 
service; the United States was granted an exemption from GATT rules for measures prohibiting the 
use, sale, or lease of foreign -built or foreign -reconstructed vessels in commercial applications 
between points in national waters or the waters of an exclusive  economic zone. There are no 
restrictions on foreign investment in U.S. shipyards or ship -repair facilities, but floating drydocks 
are eligible for loan guarantees under the Federal Ship Financing Program only if owned by U.S. 
citizens.164"  
65. This provision implies that US -flag vessels repaired in most foreign countries face a 50% ad 
valorem duty (although exemptions apply under certain circumstances). Could the US specify 
under which circumstances a vessel repaired in a foreign country could avoid this tax?  
RESPONSE: The circumstances under which vessel repairs tha t take place outside the 
United  States would incur or avoid duties is specified at 19 U.S.C section 1466.  
FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS  
Question 1  
EU initial Question N°12: Page 66, Para 3.118  
"The regulatio n that addresses imported food requires U.S. -based importers to have Foreign 
Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for the human food and animal food they import. Under the 
FSVP Rule, importers are required to verify that their foreign suppliers produce fo od in ways that 
provide the same level of public health protection as U.S. preventive controls and produce safety 
regulations, and that the food is not adulterated or misbranded with respect to allergen labelling. 
Importers are obliged to identify and eval uate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each 
type of food, including biological, chemical, and physical hazards. A FSVP must be developed for 
each food and each foreign food supplier. Importers may carry out risk -based supplier verification 
throug h several means, for example, through annual on -site audits of supplier facilities, sampling 
and testing, or by reviewing of the supplier's relevant food safety records. The verification may be 
performed by an independent third party, as long as the import er reviews and assesses the 
relevant documentation."  
EU initial question N°12:  In relation to FSVP (Foreign Supplier Verification Programs), how will 
the US ensure consistent and non -discriminatory application of standards by different US importers 
and en sure that foreign suppliers are treated equally to domestic suppliers? How will duplication of 
verification demands on EU exporters by multiple US importers be avoided?  
US RESPONSE:  FSVP importers must have a program in place to verify that their foreign s uppliers 
are producing food in a manner that provides the same level of public health protection as FDA's 
preventive controls or produce safety regulations, as appropriate, and to ensure that the supplier's 
food is not adulterated and is not misbranded wit h respect to allergen labeling. The preventive 
controls and produce safety standards applied under FSVP are the requirements of the Food Drug 
and Cosmetic Act. These requirements apply equally to foreign producers and domestic suppliers. 
Under FSVP a quali fied individual and qualified auditors may conduct the hazard analysis and on -
site audit of foreign suppliers. Importers may use the results of these activities to meet the 
requirements of the FSVP rule.  
EU follow up question to initial EU Question N°12:  
1. Could the US clarify how duplication of verification demands by multiple US importers on a 
single EU exporter will be avoided? For example, could the results of a verification by one importer 
be used by another and if so, what facility would exist for s haring this information? Or, does the 
FDA intend to leverage internationally -recognised standards e.g. GFSI and if so, can it provide 
information on the state of progress of this work? Furthermore, does the US FDA intend to publish 
guidance on the applicat ion of the FSVP and if so, when?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 190 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The hazard analysis and on -site audit activities can be performed by an independent, 
qualified individual, the results of which can be used by several different importers, as described 
below.  The Foreign Supplier  Verification Program (FSVP) final rule allows importers to rely on 
verification activities conducted by other importers for the same food imported from the same 
foreign supplier. This flexibility reduces the potential extent to which foreign suppliers mig ht be 
subject to different verification activities by different importers. We also note that, to the extent 
private food safety audit scheme owners and benchmarking organizations continue to develop 
tools to verify that foreign suppliers produce food consi stent with FDA food safety standards, 
importers could rely on such audit schemes to help meet FSVP requirements. If this were to occur, 
multiple importers of the same food from the same foreign supplier might choose to rely on the 
same supplier audit condu cted in accordance with such a scheme.  
Question 2  
EU initial Question N°13: Page 66, Para 3.119  
EU initial question N°13: Regarding the Third Party Certification rule, under what circumstances 
would the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) require certifica tion of foreign facilities? What 
criteria would be applied and would the same criteria apply for domestic and foreign facilities?  
US RESPONSE:  The FDA requires both domestic and foreign producers to produce food that is 
safe for consumption in the United S tates. Third -party certification is only required when FDA 
makes a risk -informed determination, pursuant to Section 801(q)(2) of the Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act, that import certification is necessary to ensure the safety of imported food.  
EU follow up qu estion to initial EU Question N°13:  
2. Could the US clarify that the possibility to require certification of facilities is applicable only 
to foreign facilities and not to their domestic equivalents?  
RESPONSE:  As stated in the response to the initial que stion, the FDA regulations require both 
domestic and foreign producers to meet standards applied to food for consumption. Section 801(q) 
applies to imported food.  
Question 3  
EU initial Questions N°16 -17: Page 68, Para 3.127  
Page 68, para 3.127 states that :" Once a disease or pest of concern is detected, APHIS will work 
with the affected States under emergency protocols to manage and eradicate the outbreak. To 
guard against imported pests and diseases, APHIS regulates imports of live plants; grain, oilseeds , 
and horticultural products; animals, including semen, embryos and ova; research and exhibition 
animals; and animal products. In cases where both APHIS and FSIS requirements apply to 
imported goods, APHIS has responsibility for evaluating the disease and pest risks…" In the 
phytosanitary field, 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 for 
European producers. There is a general perception that the plant health field suffers of a general 
lack of progress on the broader issues of procedures in APHIS. According to WTO commitments, 
parties ar e obliged to approve phytosanitary controls and procedures "without undue delays"."  
EU Initial questions N°16 -17: What is the policy of APHIS regarding the payment for audits or 
inspections carried out? Does flexibility exist, or are there situations where  APHIS is obliged to 
recoup the costs of an audit or inspection?  
RESPONSE:  APHIS currently does not conduct "audits", but does conduct import inspections and 
may conduct site visits in foreign countries to ensure appropriate implementation of any required 
mitigation measures in the foreign country. APHIS does charge certain fees for import inspections. 
In the case of audits and inspections carried out by other U.S. government agencies, the U.S. 
government may pay most, but not necessarily all costs, associa ted with such activities.  
EU follow up question to initial Questions 16 -17: 
3. Could the US clarify the situations where APHIS is legally obliged to recoup the costs of 
audits or inspections or site visits from the exporting country?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 191 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  APHIS recou ps its costs of inspections or site visits pursuant to 7 CFR §319.56 -6.  
APHIS services funded by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting 
country or a private export group, are funded in accordance with a trust fund agreement bet ween 
APHIS and the NPPO or private export group effective at the time of export. Under the agreement, 
the NPPO of the exporting country or the private export group pay in advance all estimated costs 
that APHIS expects to incur in providing inspection servi ces in the exporting country. These costs 
include administrative expenses incurred in conducting the services and all salaries (including 
overtime and the Federal share of employee benefits), travel expenses (including per diem 
expenses), and other inciden tal expenses incurred by the inspectors performing services. The 
agreement requires the NPPO of the exporting country or region or a private export group to 
deposit a certified or cashier's check with APHIS for the amount of those estimated costs. The 
agreement must further specify that, if the deposit is not sufficient to meet all costs incurred by 
APHIS, the NPPO of the exporting country or a private export group must deposit with APHIS, 
before the services will be completed, a certified or cashier's chec k for the amount of the 
remaining costs, as determined by APHIS. After a final audit at the conclusion of each shipping 
season, any overpayment of funds would be returned to the NPPO of the exporting country or 
region or a private export group, or held on account.  
APHIS Agriculture Quarantine Inspection User Fee Regulations.  A user fee is charged for a benefit 
received by individuals or firms from the government to compensate for the costs of the goods or 
services provided. User fees were authorized by sect ion 2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C.136a), as amended by the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Budget Reconciliation Act). This statute, known as the 1990 Farm Bill, 
authorized the Secretary of  Agriculture to prescribe and collect user fees sufficient to cover the 
costs of providing specific services. On April 4, 1996, the Farm Bill section 2509 was amended by 
section 504 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996. It w as 
amended again on May 13, 2002 by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, to 
prescribe and collect user fees sufficient to cover the costs of providing AQI services.  User fees are 
listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 7, part 354.3, User Fees For Certain 
International Services.  
Question 4  
EU initial Question N° 21 on Public procurement. Questions 21 -24: P. 85, Para 3.193  
According to the report, procurement value by the Federal Government in 2015 was $439.3 Bn of 
which  procurement by the department of defence (DoD) was $274.5 Bn. Furthermore, according 
to the report "there are no collected state or locality figures that are available that would allow 
comparison to these data".  
EU initial question N°21:  According to the report, DoD procurement represents 62% of the total 
value of US Federal procurement. However, according to the OECD and based on the analysis of 
the US national accounts, defence represented in 2014 around 15% of the total central 
government expenditures. How can the US explain the discrepancies between the share of defence 
procurement in total federal procurement (62%) and the share of defence in the central 
government expenditures (15%)?  
US response to EU initial question N° 21:  The question does not prov ide a citation for the 
OECD report, so it is not possible to explain the specifics of these two numbers. However, the 
United States does note that the Government procurement report includes only Federal 
expenditures through Federal executive branch procure ments, not executive branch grants, loans, 
other mandatory spending for Federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or 
spending from the Legislative or Judicial branches of the Federal government.  
EU follow up question to initial EU Que stion N°21:   
As part of the WTO GPA Work Program on the Collection and Reporting of Statistical Data, the 
United States submitted a robust explanation of how the U.S. procurement statistics at both the 
federal and sub -central level are collected and report ed. This document is available to all GPA 
parties (GPA/WPS/STAT/9).  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 192 - 
 
  4. Could the US elaborate on the methodology used to produce the date for the value of total 
Federal procurement? Could the US furthermore elaborate on the methodology used to produce 
the data for sub -central level procurement in the US GPA statistical report?  
RESPONSE:  As part of the WTO GPA Work Program on the Collection and Reporting of Statistical 
Data, the United States submitted a robust explanation of how the U.S. procurement statist ics at 
both the federal and sub -central level are collected and reported. This document is available to all 
GPA parties (GPA/WPS/STAT/9).  
Question 5  
EU follow up question to EU initial question N° 42 and US Renumbered EU Questions 
N°52 -53: Page 117, Para 4.40  
On cash -based food assistance under an Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP)  
What was the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid (value and type of commodities) and what 
were the destinations of this kind of aid, at least in the last three years?  
RESPONSE:  From 2014 through 2016, the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid was 
$538,971,823.80 and was shipped to the following countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, 
Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic Of The Congo, Republic Of The Co ngo, 
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea -Bissau, Haiti, 
Honduras, Cote d'Ivoire, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Philippi nes, Republic Of South Sudan, 
Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.  
In 2014, the level of non -emergency in -kind food aid was $225,262,511.66.  
Commodity  FY 2014  
Beans  $4,350,101.60  
Bulgur   $9,429,620.20  
Bulgur, soy -fortified  $284,126.90  
Cornmeal  $1,593,955.90  
Cornmeal, soy -fortified  $276,590.00  
Corn-soy blend  $4,900,624.20  
Corn-soy blend plus  $13,093,348.20  
Crude degummed soybean oil  $17,177,717.50  
Flour, all purpose  $259,407.30  
Green split peas  $185,731.00  
Lentils  $784,429.30  
Potato flakes, dehydrated  $747,557.60  
Potato granules, dehydrated  $860,236.06  
Rice, milled  $12,060,132.50  
Sorghum  $2,185,696.70  
Soybean meal  $37,365,105.00  
Sunflowerseed oil  $157,713.23  
Vegetable oil  $20,843,682.67  
Wheat, hard red winter  $52,291,435.40  
Wheat, northern spring  $18,222,677.00  
Wheat, soft white  $17,646,915.90  
Yellow corn  $219,450.00  
Yellow split peas  $10,326,257.50  
Grand total  $225,262,511.66  
In 2015, the level of non -emergency in -kind food ai d was $ 148,587,093.51.  
Commodity  FY 2015  
Beans  $3,186,237.60  
Bulgur   $2,173,162.10  
Bulgur, soy -fortified  $1,601,893.00  
Cornmeal  $2,492,115.50  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 193 - 
 
  Commodity  FY 2015  
Cornmeal, soy -fortified  $501,628.00  
Corn-soy blend  $3,493,097.10  
Corn-soy blend plus  $13,548,470 .70  
Crude degummed soybean oil  $17,627,808.10  
Flour, all purpose  $211,870.80  
Green split peas  $189,068.20  
Lentils  $1,688,394.50  
Potato granules, dehydrated  $709,234.50  
Rice, milled  $8,079,308.30  
Sorghum  $3,664,509.00  
Soybean meal  $4,676 ,560.00  
Sunflowerseed oil  $153,648.26  
Vegetable oil  $22,114,468.85  
Wheat, hard red spring bag  $65,440.00  
Wheat, hard red winter  $44,086,596.20  
Wheat, northern spring  $7,398,480.00  
Yellow corn  $2,032,400.00  
Yellow split peas  $8,892,702.80  
Grand total  $148,587,093.51  
Could the US clarify what is the state of play of the reform process of its food aid policies?  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as appropriate i f there are changes in the future.  
EU follow up question:  
5. The EU thanks the US for this very useful and interesting reply. Could the US further specify 
to which extent could the US Administration deviate from the mandate of the Food For Peace Act, 
that , at least 1.875 million tonnes (or 75% of the minimum tonnage level of 2.5 million tonnes) is 
to be channeled as non -emergency food aid. Is there a minimum tonnage or percentage for the 
non-emergency food aid which the US Administration cannot breach in exercising its discretion to 
determine the volume of commodities destined for emergency and non -emergency food aid?  
RESPONSE:  The original question from the EU asks about non -emergency food aid provided 
through the cash based Emergency Food Security Progra m (EFSP). The EFSP program does not 
provide any non -emergency food aid and generally does not utilize U.S. in -kind food in its 
programming. The information and table provided includes information regarding USDA non -
emergency program which are distinct from  EFSP.  
In answering the follow up question, the Food for Peace Act sets non -emergency program levels at 
a floor of $350 million per fiscal year or 20 -30 percent of the appropriated level. The level of 
programming is determined by dollar value.  
Questions 6-7 
Page 135 section 2.3.3. on Telecoms  
EU initial question N° 47 renumbered by the US Question 59  
P. 138, Para 4.124  
"The FCC's Open Internet Order does not apply to enterprise services, virtual private network 
services, hosting, or data storage service s (paragraph 4.124, WT/TPR/S/350)". The EU notes that 
FCC has also recently abandoned plans for a reform of the business data services market. This is 
an important market, for instance, for many foreign companies providing secure VPN services, who 
must rel y on the local business data services offers to provide their own VPN service. Such foreign 
providers have often claimed to face discriminatory treatment from local providers of business 
data services, who seek to offer their own secure VPN services or to drive up costs and extract 
monopoly rents".  
EU initial Question N° 47 re numbered 59 by the US:  Is this potentially anti -competitive 
situation going to be addressed? Will there be a future regulatory focus on the business data WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 194 - 
 
  services market? How does the  USA assess its commitments under the GATS regulatory reference 
paper in relation to the business data services market?  
RESPONSE:  There is an ongoing proceeding by the FCC examining the business data services 
market in the United States. In the course of t his proceeding, the FCC will assess the effectiveness 
of current regulation in light of changes in the market. On May 2, 2016, the FCC released a 
proposal for regulation, which is available at : https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC -
16-54A1_Rcd.pdf . The proceeding remains open and under consideration by the FCC. Beyond this 
statement of the current situation, it is not clear what part of the GATS Reference Paper on Basic 
Telecommunications the EU is concerned with in relationship to the business data services market. 
The United States could provide more specific information if the EU provided additional information 
regarding the specific commitments and related aspec ts of the business data services market that 
are of concern.  
EU follow up question:  
The EU thanks the US for its preliminary reply and its further request for clarification of the EU 
initial question. Regarding that aspect of EU initial question, the EU w ould like to add the following.  
6. Can the US confirm that the FCC decision on 16 November 2016 to remove all rule -making 
items from the agenda of the official FCC meeting, implies that these items, including the 
"Business Data Services" proceeding, indee d remain on the FCC agenda? If so, what is the 
foreseen timetable for adoption? Will such adoption be based on the 2 May, 2016 proposal?  
RESPONSE:  The practice of the FCC is to circulate proposals for the FCC Commissioners to 
consider through an internal electronic system. The FCC maintains a list of such proposals on 
circulation that is updated weekly and is available at : http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc -
bin/circ_items.cgi . The proposal in the FCC proceeding in the FCC docket on "Business Data 
Services in an Internet Protocol Environment" was circulated to the FCC Commissioners on October 
6, 2016. The FCC may adopt such proposal through one of two mechanisms: (1) consideration of 
the proposal as  an agenda item at a public meeting of the FCC; or (2) through a vote of the 
Commissioners through an internal electronic system. The proposal referenced above remains on 
circulation to the FCC Commissioners. The FCC may use either of these two mechanisms to adopt 
the proposal or to remove it from circulation.  
7. In this context, does the US agree with the following:  
a. Leased circuit lines can be considered essential facilities in the sense of the GATS Reference 
Paper on Telecommunication Services (Defini tion "Essential facilities mean facilities of a public 
telecommunications transport network or service that (a) are exclusively or predominantly 
provided by a single or limited number of suppliers; and (b) cannot feasibly be economically or 
technically sub stituted in order to provide a service."),  
RESPONSE:  Yes, leased circuit lines can be considered essential facilities, to the extent that a 
"leased circuit line service" is a public telecommunications transport service and that the leased 
circuit line serv ice, or facilities thereof meet the definition of essential facilities.  
b. Suppliers of leased circuit lines as suppliers of business data services can be considered 
major suppliers in the sense of the GATS Reference Paper on Telecommunication Services 
(Definition "Major supplier is a supplier which has the ability to materially affect the terms of 
participation (having regard to price and supply) in the relevant market for basic 
telecommunications services as a result of: (a) control over essential facilit ies; or (b) use of its 
position in the market.")  
RESPONSE:  Yes, a supplier of "leased circuit line services" and/or "business data services" can be 
considered a major supplier, to the extent that "leased circuit line services" and/or "business data 
service s" are public telecommunications services and the supplier of such services has the ability 
to materially affect the terms of participation (with regard to price and supply) in the relevant 
market as a result of its control over an essential facility or it  use of its position in such relevant 
market.  
c. As such, suppliers of leased circuit lines as suppliers of business data services:  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 195 - 
 
  i. Can be subject to the measures defined under the "Competitive Safeguards" provision in the 
GATS Reference Paper on Teleco mmunication Services (Section 1. Competitive safeguards, in 
particular paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 -a and 1.2 -c) 
RESPONSE:  Yes, to the extent that "leased circuit line services" and/or "business data services" 
are public telecommunications services and the supplier  of such public telecommunications service 
is a major supplier.  
ii. Can be subject to the measures defined under the "Interconnection" provision in the GATS 
Reference Paper on Telecommunication Services (Section 2. Interconnection, in particular 
paragraphs  2.2, 2.2 -a 2.2-b and 2.2 -c)? 
RESPONSE:  All suppliers of public telecommunications services are potentially subject to the 
specified paragraphs of the GATS Reference Paper. Interconnection refers to the connection of 
networks and exchange of traffic betwee n suppliers of public telecommunications services, so 
users of different networks can communicate with each other. As such it is not clear how "leased 
circuit line services" and/or "business data services" would be subject to the specified paragraphs 
of the GATS Reference Paper.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 196 - 
 
   
GUATEMALA  
Informe del Gobierno:  
6.1 Asistencia relacionada con el comercio prestada por los Estados Unidos en el 
marco de la Organización Mundial del Comercio  
Pregunta 1 : Notamos que en el informe de Gobierno se presentan las diferen tes áreas de 
asistencia con la que apoya el Gobierno de Estados Unidos en el marco de la OMC. Quisiéramos 
saber ¿qué aportes tiene previsto realizar su Gobierno, para la implementación del Acuerdo de 
Facilitación de Comercio? ¿Qué medidas tiene previstas p ara brindar apoyo al Mecanismo para el 
Acuerdo sobre Facilitación de Comercio, establecido en la OMC, en favor de los países en 
desarrollo?  
RESPONSE : The United States is primarily delivering technical assistance and capacity building for 
the implementati on of the WTO TFA through the new public -private partnership, the Global 
Alliance for Trade Facilitation. More information about the Alliance can be found here : 
http://www.tradefacilitation.org/ . 
Informe de  la Secretaría:  
3.1.3 Normas de origen  
3.1.3.4 Certificaciones de origen  
Pregunta 2 : El informe menciona que la mayoría de Acuerdos de Libre Comercio o Acuerdos 
Preferenciales no cuentan con un formato específico para los certificados de origen que se exi ge a 
todo importador para justificar el trato preferencial. ¿Dónde se encuentra la información detallada 
sobre los requisitos que se exigen para los certificados de origen? ¿Tiene pensado su gobierno 
establecer un formato específico para los certificados d e origen?  
RESPONSE : The United States does not require a specific format for certifications of origin for the 
majority of Free Trade Agreements or Preferential Arrangements. More information about 
certification of origin requirements for NAFTA can be foun d at the following link: 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/nafta/certificate -origin  and for other Free Trade Agreements at this 
link: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/trade -agreements/free -trade -agreements . 
3.1.9.2 Administración de Productos Alimenticios y Farmacéuticos (FDA)  
3.119. La norma definitiva sobre certificación por terceros acreditad os permite, aunque no exige, 
que los órganos de acreditación obtengan el reconocimiento de la FDA para la acreditación de los 
órganos de certificación encargados de expedir los certificados relativos a los alimentos y las 
instalaciones. En el marco de ese programa, la certificación puede utilizarse para dos fines. En 
primer lugar, los certificados sobre instalaciones de proveedores extranjeros ayudarán a los 
importadores a establecer su idoneidad para participar en el programa de importación acelerada 
denom inado Programa Facultativo de Autorización de Importadores (VQIP).123 En segundo lugar, 
la FDA puede exigir la certificación de alimentos e instalaciones en el marco de ese programa en 
determinadas circunstancias en las que considere necesario garantizar l a inocuidad de los 
alimentos. Los órganos de acreditación reconocidos por la FDA pueden ser agencias 
gubernamentales o entidades privadas extranjeras. Los órganos de acreditación pueden presentar 
documentos probatorios de su conformidad con las normas ISO/ CEI a fin de demostrar que reúnen 
las condiciones exigidas para su reconocimiento por la FDA. Los órganos de acreditación deben 
solicitar su reconocimiento a la FDA, pero esta puede también acreditar directamente a órganos de 
certificación de terceros. Los  órganos de certificación de terceros acreditados están obligados a 
llevar a cabo auditorías de instalaciones sin previo aviso y notificar las posibles constataciones 
negativas a la FDA. El programa de certificación por terceros acreditados no está aún en 
funcionamiento; la FDA tiene previsto ponerlo en marcha lo antes posible después de la 
publicación de sus directrices finales sobre normas modelo de acreditación y su norma definitiva 
sobre las tasas de usuario  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 197 - 
 
  Pregunta 3:  ¿Podrían compartirnos información  general sobre la mecánica general prevista para 
el programa de certificación por terceros acreditados?  
RESPONSE : FDA published the final rule on Accredited Third Party Certification, effective January 
26, 2016, in the Federal Register, 80 FR 74569 (11/27 /2015). The rule was notified to the WTO 
SPS Committee G/SPS/N/USA/2502 in 2015. Information on the rule can be found on FDA 's 
website in Spanish at: 
http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/UCM480483.pdf . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 198 - 
 
   
HONG KONG , CHINA  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350) and Government (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.3.2.1. Reciprocal Agreements (2.21 -2.23 (S/350)) and 4.2.1 The TPP (4.14 -4.16 
(G/350))  
The TPP Agreement will open markets and raise st andards in the fastest growing region in the 
world, boosting economic growth, promoting innovation, and supporting job creation in the 
United  States and its TPP partners. The current focus of the 12 TPP partners  is on completing their  
respective domestic approval processes and having the agreement enter into force  
1. In light of the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election, we would like to confirm whether 
the specific paragraphs in the Government Report are still up-to-date. We would also like to know 
the latest position of the U.S. on the TPP and whether it will keep WTO Members informed of 
developments in this area in future.  
RESPONSE: The Government Report is up to date, including the paragraphs that describe th e 
Obama Administration 's support for TPP and the comprehensive benefits of the TPP Agreement for 
the United States and its TPP partners. With respect to the incoming Administration that will take 
office in January 2017, we remind Members that TPRs are retr ospective reviews. We look forward 
to keeping the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 2  
Section 3.1.7.2 Anti -dumping (3.87 -3.90)  
As at end 2015, there were 258 anti -dumping (AD) and 65 countervailing duties (CVD) measur es 
in place, of which 217 AD and 41 CVD had been renewed after sunset reviews7. The average 
duration of an AD measure in place at the end of 2015 was around seven years, not mentioning 
some of those AD and CVD measures have been in place for over 10 or eve n 20 years. For 
2013-15, there were 78 sunset reviews of AD orders and only 12 (i.e. 15% of total) of them were 
revoked after reviews.  
2. In view of the long duration of the AD/CVD measures and the low revocation rate in sunset 
reviews, how would the concerne d U.S. authorities ensure the mechanism of sunset review is 
justified, fair and unbiased? Does the U.S. have in place a mechanism to specifically look into 
those AD and CVD orders of a long duration (say those over 10 years)? If not, will the U.S. 
consider  establishing such mechanism as a standard procedure?  
RESPONSE: In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or an antidumping 
order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably 
foreseeabl e time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) considers the factors set out in 
U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The USITC considers these factors in the context of the record 
of the five -year review; it establishes a new record for each five -year review of an order. In 
determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order 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 U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) considers the 
factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
The determinations in each sunset review conducted by the USITC and Commerce are case 
specific. The results for all sunse t reviews can be found on the USITC's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). From this website, Members can obtain, on a case by case 
                                                
7 Sunset review would be initiated by the US Department of Commerce (DoC) on an AD order after its 
publication for five years to determine whether revocation of an AD order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. For sunset review, an AD order will be revoked after the review unless the DoC 
determines that expiration would likely lead to a recurrence of dumping and injury to the U S industry.  If, 
within 15 days of the initiation of the sunset review, no domestic party files a statement with the DOC that it 
will participate in the review, the sunset review will be terminated and the related order will be revoked.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 199 - 
 
  basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation  or termination of a countervailing 
duty or an antidumping duty order.  
Commerce and USITC administer the U.S. laws governing antidumping and countervailing duty 
sunset reviews consistently, regardless of whether the orders are of a relatively long duration . 
Question 3  
Section 4.2.1.2. Financial Services – Legislative and Regulatory Framework (4.53)  
In order to promote financial stability, address "too big to fail" considerations, protect taxpayers, 
and shield consumers from abusive financi al services pract ices, the 2010  Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd -Frank Act) entered into force in July  2010. While 
most of the mandated rulemaking requirements have been met, some of these statutorily 
mandated rules have not been finalise d or yet to be proposed.  
3. Please update us on the latest development of the Dodd -Frank Act, including the 
implementation of finalised rules and latest legislative progress of the remaining mandated 
rulemaking provisions. What is the timetable of finalising or implementing the outstanding 
mandated rules?  
RESPONSE: Note that the cited paragraph 4.53 states that t hat Dodd -Frank Act mandated 
390 rulemaking requirements by 20 regulatory agencies and as of July 2016, 80 of these 
statutorily mandated rules had yet to be proposed by financial services regulators. There have 
been no new developments since July 2016. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective 
reviews. We look forward to keeping the Membership informed as the new Administration comes 
into place.  
Ques tions 4 -6 
Section 4.2.2. Telecommunication Services (4.122)  
The new Open Internet Order adopted in 2015 imposes a "no unreasonable 
interference/disadvantage" standard on broadband internet access service providers. Under this 
standard, internet access serv ice providers could not "unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably 
disadvantage" the abilities of end users to select, access, and use broadband Internet access 
service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, o r edge 
providers' ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. 
Pursuant to this standard, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could address practices 
not covered by the three "bright -line" rules (i.e. n o blocking, no throttling and no paid 
prioritization) on a case by case basis.  
4. How many cases on the practices of broadband internet access service providers have been 
investigated by the FCC under this "no unreasonable interference/disadvantage" standard since 
2015? Were these investigations self -initiated by the FCC or based on complaints lodged to the 
FCC?  
RESPONSE: The FCC has not initiated a formal investigation, either on its own motion or in 
response to a complaint, under its no unreasonable interfe rence/disadvantage standard. Although 
the FCC has not initiated a formal investigation, the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
did send letters to AT&T on November 9, 2016 and Verizon on December 1, 2016 expressing 
concern about each companies' spons ored data programs. Based on AT&T's response, on 
December 1, 2016, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sent AT&T a second letter stating 
that the preliminary conclusion of the Bureau was that the program inhibits com petition and 
requesting further infor mation.  
5. Are there any objective criteria for assessing whether the practices are "unreasonable"?  
RESPONSE: The Open Internet Order provided a non -exclusive list of factors that the FCC will 
consider in making its case -by-case assessment of whether any part icular practice is consistent 
with the no unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard. Those factors are: end -user control; 
competitive effects; consumer protection; the effect on innovation, investment, or broadband WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 200 - 
 
  deployment; free expression; whethe r the practice is application agnostic; and best practices and 
technical standards.  
6. What are the consequences in the case of violation by broadband internet access service 
providers and is there any mechanism for appealing against the decision of the FCC?  
RESPONSE: Violations of the Open Internet rules can be subject to any and all penalties 
authorized under the Communications Act and rules. Enforcement actions typically include 
monetary forfeitures. Final agency actions taken by the FCC may be appealed to the appropriate 
U.S. Court of Appeals.  
Question 7  
Section 4.2.3.2.3. Maritime Transport – Shipbuilding and ship repairs (4.162)  
Financial assistance is provided to ship -owners and U.S. shipyards under the Federal Ship 
Financing Program to promote the growt h and modernisation of the U.S. merchant marine and 
U.S. shipyards. The programme provides U.S. Government guaranteed debt (i) for financing or 
refinancing either U.S. flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed or 
reconditioned in U .S. shipyards; and (ii) for financing advanced shipbuilding technology and 
modern shipbuilding technology of a privately -owned, general shipyard facility located in the 
United States.  
7. Are U.S. flag vessels or U.S. shipyards with foreign capital be subject to the same treatment 
as other U.S. flag vessels or U.S. shipyards owned by U.S. citizens under the Federal Ship 
Financing Program?  
RESPONSE: Treatment only varies for domestic versus export projects.  Domestic projects are 
given greater priority in use of subsidy dollars for loan guarantees. 46 CFR 298.3(k)(5) provides 
for priority.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 201 - 
 
   
INDIA  
Questions on Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Questions 1 -3 
Section 1.2.2 Trade in Services (1.35)  
In the U.S GATS Schedule of Commitments (GATS/SC/90) under Mode 4, th e U.S. has specified 
commitments in respect of: "Intra-corporate Transferees " and; "Specialty occupation " i.e. 
8 U.S.C.  § 1101 (a) (15) (H) (i) (b) [Section 101(a) (15) (H) (i) (b)of the INA]. In relation to the 
above, the U.S. is requested to:  
1. Confirm tha t the temporary (non -immigrant) workers classification corresponding to 
"Intra-corporate Transferees " and "Specialty occupation " are L-1 and H -1B categories respectively.  
RESPONSE:  This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the Understanding on the Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"). The question, therefore, is appropriately addressed 
through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matte r, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites of the U.S. 
Departme nt of State ( https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homelan d Security (https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
2. Explain the legislative objective and purpose of the L -1 and H -1B classifications of temporary 
(non-immigrant) workers.  
RESPONSE:  This question concerns matters that presently are the subject  of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the website s of the U.S. 
Department of State (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
3. Explain the categories of temporary (nonimmigrant) w orkers, other t han L -1 and 
H-1B categories, that allow such nonimmigrants (i.e. intra -corporate transferees, and persons in 
specialty occupations) to work in the U.S.  
RESPONSE: This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations f rom India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites of the U.S. 
Department of State  (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
Questions 4 -9 
(Page 30, Para 2.18)  
4. The U.S. is requested to inform what is the objective and rationale behind imposition of 
higher fees to applicants on the basis of the 50:50 criteria as  reflected in PL 111 -230 and 
PL 114-113? 
RESPONSE : This question concerns matters that presently are the s ubject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 202 - 
 
  As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the w ebsites of the U.S. 
Department of State (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
5. Was there any research, survey, data, study, analyses or othe r document on the basis of 
which such higher fees were determined? If yes, please provide the relevant documents.  
RESPONSE: This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites of the U.S. 
Department of State ( https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
6. On what basis have the limits of "50 employees " and composition of "50 perc ent or more 
non-immigrants in the workforce " been determined?  
RESPONSE: This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites of the U.S. 
Department of State ( https://travel.state.gov/c ontent/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
7. Why the increase in fee was confined only to applicants "that employ 50 or more employees 
in the United States "? On what basis was the threshold size of "50 or more employees " 
determined?  
RESPONSE: This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed t hrough the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites of the U.S. 
Department of State ( https://travel.state.gov/co ntent/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
8. Why was the increase in fees confined only to the applicants mentioned above which 
employed 50 percent or more H -1B and/or L -1 nonimmigrants in their workforce, and not to all 
applicants having H -1B and/or L -1 nonimmigrants in their workforce? On what basis was the 
threshold of "50 percent or more " determined?  
RESPONSE: This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, information about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites  of the U.S. 
Department of State ( https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). 
9. Why w as the increase in fees confined only to those applicants that employ 50 percent or 
more nonimmigrants under H -1B and/or L -1 nonimmigrant categories, and not for applicants that 
employ any other classifications of temporary nonimmigrant workers?  
RESPONSE: This question concerns matters that presently are the subject of a request for 
consultations from India under Article 4 of the DSU. The question, therefore, is appropriately 
addressed through the consultations requested by India.  
As a general matter, infor mation about U.S. visa categories is available at the websites of the U.S. 
Department of State ( https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html ) and U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security ( https://www.uscis.gov/ ). WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 203 - 
 
  Question 10  
Section 3.1.9.5 EPA (3.129)  
10. United States is requested to provide justification for maintaining MRL standards for active 
ingredients in which there is no Codex standard set at the interna tional level. The U.S. is further 
requested to provide justification, if any, and indicate the notifications under which it has notified 
to the SPS committee of the WTO. The U.S. is requested to give the justification of how these 
non-codex MRL standards o n active ingredients should not be considered as protectionism 
prevalent in its agricultural sector.  
RESPONSE: The US EPA considers the establishment of tolerances and maximum residue limits 
for active ingredients based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to 
human, animal and plant life or health. The US EPA initiates the tolerance/MRL -setting process 
based on applications, typically submitted by pesticide registrants. If USEPA receives an 
application to establish a new toler ance, USEPA is required by law to act on that application and 
establish a tolerance unless USEPA has a compelling reason not to (this may happen if USEPA 
cannot make a safety finding, for example, due to lack of scientific information/data). These 
determin ations are based on available scientific data, are notified to the WTO as appropriate, and 
are consistent with WTO obligations.  
Questions 11 -13 
Section 3.1.9.5. EPA (3.129)  
United States is requested to provide justification for maintaining stringent stand ards in maximum 
residual limits (MRL) in comparison to Codex standards for agricultural products of exports interest 
for India:  
11. In respect to MRL restrictions on active ingredients for each of the agricultural products, 
could USA indicate whether the requi site risk assessments were undertaken or the relevant 
scientific evidence as mandated by the SPS Agreements was available?  
RESPONSE: Yes, US EPA is required by law to perform a risk assessment for each new use 
showing that risks are acceptable prior to gr anting the use or tolerance.  
12. Could the USA point out the specific documents containing the risk assessments/scientific 
evidences for each of the MRL standards set for active ingredients used in agricultural products?  
RESPONSE: Please see response to quest ion 13.  
13. It is observed that such standards are maintained in products like: Cucumber  (in active 
ingredient "Abamectin "); Grape  (Chlorpyrifos); Rice (Clothianidin); Sesame  (Gamma Cyhalothrin 
and Lambda Cyhalothrin); Wheat  (Clothianidin); Barley Grain  Clothi anidin); Bean Broad  fava 
(Lambda Cyhalothrin); Corn Sweet  (Penthiopyrad); Ginger , root (Beta -Cyfluthrin and 
Cyfluthrin); Grape Wine  (Chlorpyrifos); Potato (Indoxacarb); Rape seed (Clothianidin and 
Fludioxonil); Cattle meat  (Fluxapyroxad and Pyrimethanil) a nd Milk (Azoxystrobin, Clofentezine, 
Clothianidin, Ethephon and Fluxapyroxad). The U.S. is requested to indicate how the use of default 
MRLs standards of (0.01 ppm) are justified under the appropriate level of protection (ALOP) of the 
SPS Agreement?  
RESPO NSE: The US EPA does not have any authority to establish "default " tolerances/MRLs. 
Every food -use needs to have a tolerance/MRL. For residues that fall below the limit of 
quantification of the method, a tolerance will be established at the limit of quanti fication for the 
enforcement method on that commodity.  
Questions 14 -17 
Section 3.2.5.2. SBA Export Loan Programs (3.161)  
14. Could the U.S. confirm that the support provided under the SBA Export Loan Programs 
would not be available if the applicant has not exp orted historically, or is not likely to show 
increased export sales in future?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 204 - 
 
  RESPONSE: SBA guarantees commercial loans for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that 
might have difficulty obtaining financing without the government guaranty. The total cost of such 
financing is typically higher than commercial loans due to the guaranty fee that SBA charges. 
Although SBA guaranteed business loan programs fall under 7(a) section of the Small Business 
Act, the names and allowable uses of proceeds vary depending on the programs. Three loan 
programs are directed at companies that export or will begin to export, as part of their business 
activities, although any SBA loan program can be used by companies that export in addition to 
selling into the domestic market.  
15. Has the SBA or any other agency in the U.S. undertaken an analysis confirming that the 
specific terms and conditions of the SBA loan available to the borrower is not better than what 
would be commercially available to the borrower in the market place? If, ye s, could the U.S. 
provide details of the study.  
RESPONSE: No study exists to our knowledge, but given the fact that borrowers typically pay a 
guaranty fee to the SBA on the guaranteed portion of the loan at a tiered rate (2% on loans up to 
$150,000, 3% on loans from 500,001 to 700,000, 3.5% on loans 700,001 to $1 million, and 
3.75% on guaranteed portion over $1 million), the cost of SBA financing is generally seen as more 
expensive than conventional financing.  
16. In case no such study has been undertaken how i s it ensured that no benefit is conferred to 
the applicant on account of support provided under the SBA Export Loan Programs ?  
RESPONSE: Because of the additional cost to the applicant of obtaining financing from SBA, due 
to the guaranty fee which can go u p to 3.75% on the guaranteed portion of a loan, conventional 
commercial financing would be less costly.  
17. Would the U.S. agree that the support provided under the SBA Export Loan Programs are 
prohibited export subsidies? If not, on what ground would the U.S.  consider this support not to be 
a prohibited export subsidy?  
RESPONSE: No. SBA supported financing provided to SMEs is more costly than financing provided 
without an SBA guaranty.  
Questions 18 -19 
Section 3.3.4. State trading (3.189, Table 3.18)  
18. Could the U.S. provide the details of the total amount of under -funded pension obligations 
taken over by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) for the following years 2012 -13, 
2013-14 and 2014 -15? 
RESPONSE: Details of PBGC 's activities can be found on PBGC 's w ebsite at:  
http://www.pbgc.gov/about/budget -performance -and-planning.html . 
19. Could the U.S. further indicate how much of the under -funded pension liabilities taken over 
by PBGC du ring the period 2012 -13, 2013 -14 and 2014 -15 related to the automobile industry, 
steel industry and airline industry? Year -wise details may kindly be provided separately in respect 
of each of the three industries.  
RESPONSE:  See reply to Question 18.  
Questi ons 20 -24 
Section 3.3.5. Government Procurement - Overview (3.193)  
Out of the amount of U.S. $ 439.3 bn., could the  U.S. provide following details:  
20. Details of the value of procurement made from suppliers outside the U.S. and the countries 
from which these procurements were made?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not have information available on the country of origin of 
suppliers in its government procurement market. The collection of country of origin data is WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 205 - 
 
  currently being discussed in a work programme o n statistics i n the GPA Committee. The 
United  States would welcome India 's accession to the GPA and its contribution to those 
discussions.  
21. Amount of procurement made at the sub -federal level during 2013 and 2014, which are 
covered by obligations under the GPA?  
RESPONSE: The United States ' most recent statistical submission (for the year 2010) to the GPA 
Committee can be found in document GPA/108/Add.9, which is publicly available. The submission 
contains an estimated value of total procurement for the 37 U .S. states covered by the GPA, which 
looks at capital outlays as well as operational expenses (minus compensation). For the year 2010, 
the combined total estimated procurement of the 37 U.S. states covered by the GPA is 
$627,818,477,000.  
22. Value of procureme nt of IT Services during 2014 and 2015? Could the U.S. further indicate 
the percentage of these procurements made from foreign suppliers?  
RESPONSE: The United States ' most recent statistical submission (for the year 2010) to the GPA 
Committee can be found in document GPA/108/Add.9, which is publicly available. The submission 
contains a breakdown of product or service procured by agency. Based on the data in this 
submission, in FY2010, the United States procured $10.2 billion of IT services covered by the GP A. 
This includes both open and limited tendering procedures and the total dollars obligated above and 
below GPA thresholds. The United States does not have information available on the country of 
origin of suppliers in its government procurement market.  
23. Value of procurement through limited tendering on grounds of protection of exclusive rights 
and additional purchases from original suppliers? Could the U.S. further indicate the percentage of 
these procurements made from foreign suppliers?  
RESPONSE: The Unit ed States ' most recent statistical submission (for the year 2010) to the GPA 
Committee can be found in document GPA/108/Add.9, which is publicly available. While the United 
States provides the value of government procurement contracts awarded through limit ed 
tendering, the United States does not break this down by justification in its submission to the GPA 
Committee. For fiscal year 2010, the value of contracts awarded by covered U.S. Federal 
Government entities for covered goods and services above the thre sholds in the GPA was 
$45,882,176,422 for goods and services and $1,091,223,585 for construction services. The United 
States does not have information available on the country of origin of suppliers in its government 
procurement market.  
24. Value of procuremen t of IT Services during 2014 and 2015? Could the U.S. further indicate 
the percentage of these procurements made from foreign suppliers?  
RESPONSE: Please see response to Question 22.  
Questions 25 -28 
Section 3.5.5.3. Government Procurement – Market Access C onditions (3.217)  
25. According to the US, should the federal excise tax of 2% to be applied to government 
purchases of goods and services from foreign entities not party to an international procurement 
agreement be treated  as an internal tax applied on forei gn procurement? Could it provide reasons 
if it does not agree with this characterisation?  
RESPONSE : By its terms, section 301 of Public Law 111 -347 (January 2, 2011) (26 U.S.C. 
s. 5000C) "imposed on any foreign person that receives a specified Federal proc urement payment 
a tax equal to 2 percent of the amount of such specified Federal procurement payment. " 
Section  301 of Public Law 111 -347 defines "specified Federal procurement payment " as "any 
payment made pursuant to a contract with the Government of the United States for —(1) the 
provision of goods, if such goods are manufactured or produced in any country which is not a party 
to an international procurement agreement with the United States, or (2) the provision of services, 
if such services are provided i n any country which is not a party to an international procurement WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 206 - 
 
  agreement with the United States. " Section 301 of Public Law 111 -347 further provides that "[t]his 
section and the amendments made by this section shall be applied in a manner consistent wi th 
United States obligations under international agreements. " 
26. Would the U.S. agree that by imposing an internal tax or charge on imported products only, 
violates the National Treatment obligation under Article III:2 of GATT 1994? Such a tax or charge 
is not exempted under Article III:8 of GATT, since the ambit of the exemption under Article III:8 is 
only with respect to laws, regulations and requirements , and not  internal taxes or other internal 
charges.  
RESPONSE: The text of Articles III:2 and III:8 of the  GATT 1994 speaks for itself, and the United 
States will not comment on the hypothetical situation described in the question.  
27. Would the U.S. agree that t he MFN obligation under Article I of GATT 1994 is violated by the 
2% federal exercise tax since it appl ies the tax only to products originating from some WTO 
Members, and not to all? Article I of GATT 1994 does not provide for any exception from the MFN 
obligation in respect of government procurement.  
RESPONSE: The United States does not agree that section 301 of Public Law 111 -347 is 
inconsistent with any U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement. As noted in response to question 
25 above, section 301 of Public Law 111 -347 expressly provides that "[t]his section and the 
amendments made by this section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States 
obligations under international agreements. " 
28. Could the U.S. provide details of the total revenue collected by implementation of 2% 
federal exercise tax?  
RESPONSE: As the regulations that facilitate colle ction of the tax went into effect very recently, 
we do not have any relevant data to provide yet.   
Questions 29 -30 
Section 3.2.5.2. SBA Export Loan Programs (3.162)  
29. Could the U.S. please clarify that by making the International Trade Loan Programme 
more a ttractive the SBA office is giving loan guarantees that are not otherwise available for small 
businesses in the market?  
RESPONSE: As noted previously, borrowers pay substantial fees for SBA guaranties. Lenders 
individually —by institution —set parameters on the amount of risk they are willing to underwrite 
when doing SME loans. The International Trade Loan is only one of many products that address 
SME needs and lender underwriting standards.  
30. Why has the U.S. not notified the International Trade Loan Programme  in the 2015 New 
and full notification pursuant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the agreement on 
Subsidies and countervailing measures to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  
RESPONSE: Due to the substantial fees paid  for SBA guaranties, a benefit is not provided under 
the International Trade Loan program.  
Question 31 -33 
Section 3.2.5.2 SBA Export Loan Programs (3.161)  
31. Is it correct that, had it not been for the SBA guarantee, small businesses might not be able 
to rai se loans from the market?  
RESPONSE:  It is difficult to speculate as to the alternative financing any one small business might 
have been able to take advantage of in the absence of an SBA guaranty.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 207 - 
 
  32. Is it correct that the SBA -guaranteed loans are made availa ble to small businesses at a rate 
of interest lower than a comparable commercial loan which the firm could actually obtain on the 
market?  
RESPONSE: The interest rate is negotiated between the borrower and lender. The total cost on an 
SBA loan ( i.e., the in terest rate and fees charged by the lender, as well as the fees for the 
guaranty charged by SBA) can be more than a comparable commercial loan.  
33. Please clarify how the export loans maintained by SBA is not a subsidy prohibited under 
Article 3.1(a) of the WT O Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as the loans are 
available only for small businesses that provide export business plans and evidence of likelihood of 
increased export sales?  
RESPONSE:  SBA loan guaranties do not provide a benefit as tha t term has been interpreted under 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
Questions 34 -36 
Section 3.2.5.1. EXIM (3.160)  
34. Can the US clarify whether this implies that the U.S. also has to eliminate subsidised export 
financing programmes a nd other forms of export subsidies or is it applicable only to major 
exporting countries?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
35. Does t his provision refer to US 's extant export programmes?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
36. Could the U.S. please clarify whether EXIM  Bank's support for small businesses amounts to 
export subsidy? If yes, why has this support not been notified in the 2015 New and full notification 
pursuant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the agreement on Subsidies and 
countervailing measures to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
RESPONSE: The EXIM small business programs operate at break -even or at a small profit and 
provide financing that is comparable to commercial financing on domestic financing for such 
borrowe rs (Note: the typical reason EXIM support is requested by small business exporters is that 
financing for these foreign receivables is not generally available). Moreover, the few EXIM small 
business programs that are medium -term are fully compatible with OE CD parameters.  
Question 37  
Section 3.2.5.1. EXIM (3.155 -3.156)  
37. Data from EXIM Bank 's Annual Report for 2014 shows that the Boeing company is the 
primary beneficiary of the Banks long term loan guarantees. Out of US $10.8 billion authorized by 
EXIM Bank in loan guarantees, US $7.4 billion (68.3 per cent) was granted to Boeing. Data from 
EXIM Bank 's Annual Report for 2014 also shows that the Boeing Com pany is the recipient of 
40 per cent of total authorizations (Loans+ Guarantees+ Export Credit Insurance) of EXIM Bank in 
2014. Can the US clarify why the long term loan guarantee program is not de -facto specific and 
required to be notified to the WTO?  
RESPONSE:  The Boeing Company is not the recipient of the guarantees as stated in the question. 
The beneficiaries  of the loan guarantees are the foreign airlines purchasing Boeing products. EXIM 
Bank is a demand driven export credit agency. The question is framed by selecting the recent high 
watermark of Boeing exports. While the 2014 Annual Report indicates that 40%  of total 
authorizations went to foreign buyers purchasing Boeing products, in some past years support to 
foreign purchasers of Boeing products was less than 10 percent. The only sector on which the 
EXIM Bank is congressionally directed to focus is renewab le energy technology/products. There is, 
therefore, no fundamental basis to consider the long -term guarantees as sector -specific. Moreover, WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 208 - 
 
  as all of EXIM's medium - and long -term guarantees are compliant with the OECD Arrangement, 
there is no basis for WTO  notification.  
Questions 38 -43 
Section 3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance (3.175 and Table 3.15)  
38. For the federal fisheries subsidy programs maintained, has there been any due diligence 
conducted to determine whether these programs will lead t o overfishing or overcapacity?  
RESPONSE: Yes. The US fisheries management system is among the most robust and effective in 
the world. Guidelines for the provision of government financial transfers prohibit their use in 
fisheries which are overfished.  
39. Are these subsidies specific to the fisheries sector?  
RESPONSE: Insofar as the notification obligation is a transparency -oriented provision that, 
pursuant to Article 25.7 of the Subsidies Agreement, carries no legal weight as to the actual 
identification or mea surement of a subsidy, its status as an actionable subsidy, or its trade effects, 
the United States has included certain activities in its notifications which arguably are not (or are 
not always) "specific subsidies" within the meaning of the Agreement.  
In the notification (G/SCM/N/253/USA, 9 May 2014) made by the USA as required under Article 25 
of the SCM Agreement, the following sub -federal programmes have been notified:  
 The Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund by Alaska (provides long -term, low intere st 
loans to commercial fishing businesses).  
 Gasoline and Special Fuel Taxes for Commercial Fisherman by Louisiana.  
 Massachussets Development Finance Agency by Massachussets  
 Fishing Boat Fuel by Washington  
40. Will these programmes aggravate the risks of overfi shing and overcapacity?  
RESPONSE: No. The US fisheries management system is among the most robust and effective in 
the world. Guidelines for the provision of government financial transfers prohibit their use in 
fisheries which are overfished.  
41. What is the a mount of subsidy disburses under the Gasoline and Special Fuel Tax 
Concessions maintained by the State of Louisiana? What is the size of commercial boats that are 
eligible for this subsidy?  
RESPONSE: The total amount of credits provided under this program  is not immediately available. 
The United States will endeavour to provide this information in its next notification. For purposes 
of this credit, "commercial fishing boat" means any watercraft used in the occupation of fishing for 
profit.  
42. What is the amou nt of subsidy disbursed under the Massachusetts Development Finance 
Agency?  
RESPONSE: The loan fund under this program uses two types of financing. The first is a micro 
loan with a max of $50,000 to assist businesses that are unable to secure traditional b ank 
financing. The second loan provides gap financing of up to $100,000. Loans have a fixed rate of 
eight percent for the initial lending period. Calculation of the precise benefit under this program 
would require examination of each loan and the cost of a  comparable commercial loan.  
43. Please clarify what is the amount of subsidy disbursed under the Washington Fishing Boat 
Fuel programme.  
RESPONSE: The total amount of credits provided under this program for 2016 is estimated to be 
is $2,769,000.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 209 - 
 
  Questions 44 -45 
Section 3.2.5.3. OPIC (3.163)  
44. Could the U.S. please clarify that the US government, by providing investor financing, 
insurance against political risk, private equity investment funding through its development finance 
institution (OPIC), is making a fina ncial contribution  as provided in Article 1 (1.1) (a) (1) (iv) of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, i.e. a financial contribution where a 
government is making payments through a funding mechanism.  
RESPONSE:  OPIC supports investment in  developing countries. It is not a "funding mechanism" as 
used in referenced clause (iv).  
45. Could the U.S. also clarify why the OPIC services which are provided when "these services 
are not available on commercially viable terms " do not constitute the confer ment of benefit as 
provided in Article 14 (a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, i.e. 
"government provision of equity capital shall not be considered as conferring a benefit, unless the 
investment decision can be regarded as inconsi stent with the usual investment practice (including 
for the provision of risk capital ) of private investors in the territory of that Member. " (emphasis 
supplied). If yes, why has OPIC activities not been notified in the 2015 New and full notification 
pursu ant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the agreement on Subsidies and 
countervailing measures to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
RESPONSE: OPIC does not confer a benefit as provided in Article 14 (a) of the Agreemen t on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures because OPIC does not provide equity capital.  
Question 46  
Section 3.2.5.3. OPIC (3.163)  
46. How does OPIC ensure that its activities (loans, loan guarantees) do not have "possible 
negative effects on the U.S economy a nd employment "? Are there domestic sourcing/employment 
requirements that are tied to OPIC 's activities?  
RESPONSE: U.S. law prohibits OPIC loans or loan guarantees to support any private sector 
project that is likely to cause a significant reduction in the number of employees in the U.S. or any 
project that intends to reduce or eliminate U.S. operations by moving production overseas.  OPIC is 
also required by U.S. law to report to U.S. Congress on any such job loss resulting from an OPIC 
loan or loan guaranty  of a private sector projects.  As such, OPIC reviews each proposed project to 
assess its potential impacts on the U.S. economy.  Based on an assessment of the project 's 
estimated production volumes and markets, as well as the health of the U.S. sector that could be 
affected by the project 's production (using U.S. production, export, import, and employment trend 
statistics), OPIC makes a determination on the project 's potential impact on the U.S. economy and 
will decline support to a project that has the pote ntial to reduce U.S. jobs.  OPIC does not tie U.S. 
sourcing or employment requirements as a requirement for support.  
Question 47  
Section 3.3.6.1. IPR - Overview (3.240)  
47. What are the incentives provided to enterprises and institutions in the US for promoting  and 
encouraging technology transfer to least developed country members?  
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to continually enhancing its activities pursuant to 
Article 66.2 of the Agreement on the Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights  (TRIPS) 
and reporting those activities. 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, pursuant to 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, including most recently on October 27, 2016 (document 
number IP/C/W/616/Add.5, which is available at: 
http://w ww.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/techtransfer_e.htm ). WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 210 - 
 
  Question 48  
Section 3.3.6.1. IPR - Overview (3.240)  
48. What has been the extent of technology transfer in value term to the LDCs in 2014, 2015 
and 2016?  
RESPONSE: Good sources of data on technology tra nsfer from the United States or any other  
territory is limited because of the multiplicity of such transfers fr om a diverse array of entities, 
principally in the private sector. The United States reports annually to the TRIPS Council on the 
incentives it p rovides to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of 
promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least -developed c ountries, pursuant to 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, including most recently on October 27, 2016 (docume nt 
number IP/C/W/616/Add.5, which is available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/techtransfer_e.htm ). 
Question 49  
Section 3.3.6.1. IPR Overview (3.237)  
49. The report mentions that the IP intensive industries in the US accounted for 38.2% of US 
GDP in 2014. What is the composition of the IP intensive industries? What is the proportion of the 
share of Trademark intensive industry? Does the figure estimated by the USPTO s tudy include a 
valuation of Trade Secrets?  
RESPONSE:  Intellectual property -intensive industries continue to be a major, integral and growing 
part of the U.S. economy. The Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update notes the 
value added by IP -intensive industries increased substantially in total amount and as a share of 
GDP between 2010 and 2014. IP -intensive industries accounted for $6.6 trillion in value added in 
2014, up more than $1.5 trillion (30 percent) from $5.06 trillion in 2010. Accord ingly, the share of 
total U.S. GDP attributable to IP -intensive industries increased fr om 34.8 percent in 2010 to 
38.2 percent in 2014. This does not even cover the industries that heavily rely on other forms of IP 
protection, such as trade secrets, which also contribute substantially to the economy.  
In 2014, the share of GDP attributed to trademark - and copyrigh t-intensive industries was 
34.9 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively. Trademark -intensive indu stries alone accounted for 
$6.1 trillion in value ad ded in 2014, and the value added by paten t-intensive industries was 
$881 billion. The share of GDP attributable to patent -intensive industries acc ounted for 
5.1 percent.  
For more information about the Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Updat e, visit: 
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPandtheUSEconomySept2016.pdf .  
Questions 50 -53 
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents (3.248)  
50. What is the pro portion of applications filed through the cooperative projects?  
RESPONSE: Recent USPTO cooperative projects to improve the efficiency and quality of patent 
examination include the Patent Prosecution Highway, the Global Patent Search Network, the 
Cooperativ e Patent Classification system, and the Global Dossier Initiative. Some of these 
initiatives comprise a subsection of patent applications, for example, the Patent Prosecution 
Highway, while others may affect all patent applications, such as the Global Pate nt Search 
Network, the Cooperative Patent Classification system, and the Global Dossier Initiative. Under the 
Patent Prosecution Highway, an applicant who receives a favorable ruling on patentability from one 
office may request that the other participating  office expedite the examination of a commonly filed 
application. By leveraging each office 's work products, participating offices can accelerate 
processing and improve patent quality, which in turn allows applicants to obtain higher quality 
patents in mul tiple jurisdictions with significant savings in terms of time and money. For more 
information on the Patent Prosecution Highway, including participation statistics, visit : 
http://www.jpo.go.jp/p pph-portal/globalpph.htm . For more information on these initiatives visit : 
https://www.uspto.gov/patents -getting -started/international -patent -cooperation . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 211 - 
 
  51. What is the time taken to process an application filed through the cooperative projects vis -
à-vis the normal mechanism of filing patent applications?  
RESPONSE: Recent USPTO cooperative projects to improve the efficiency and quality of patent 
examination include  the Patent Prosecution Highway, the Global Patent Search Network, the 
Cooperative Patent Classification system, and the Global Dossier Initiative. These initiatives seek 
to improve the efficiency and quality of patent examination in different ways. The Pa tent 
Prosecution Highway enables the participating offices to leverage each other 's work and avoid 
duplicating certain examination efforts. The Global Patent Search Network enables the examiners 
to search Chinese patent documents in the English or Chinese language. The Cooperative Patent 
Classification system harmonizes existing patent classification systems and supports developing a 
common classification scheme. The Global Dossier Initiative is a set of business services aimed at 
modernizing the global pat ent system and delivering benefits to all stakeholders through a single 
portal/user interface. Under the Patent Prosecution Highway, an applicant who receives a favorable 
ruling on patentability from one office may request that the other participating offi ce expedite the 
examination of a commonly filed application. By leveraging each office 's work products, 
participating offices can accelerate processing and improve patent quality, which in turn allows 
applicants to obtain higher quality patents in multiple  jurisdictions with significant savings in terms 
of time and money. For more information on the Patent Prosecution Highway, including a variety 
of patent examination statistics, visit : http://ww w.jpo.go.jp/ppph -portal/globalpph.htm . The 
USPTO continues to monitor how these initiatives improve the efficiency and quality of patent 
examination, including by seeking stakeholder feedback. For more information on these initiatives, 
including recent de velopments, visit : https://www.uspto.gov/patents -getting -started/international -
patent -cooperation .  
52. Has there been a study on whether the quality of  patents gran ted enhances significantly? 
If so what are the conclusions?  
RESPONSE: The United States supports high quality patents. Continuing to improve patent 
quality, both in terms of ensuring that every patent issued comports with all statutory 
requirements and has  a clear record, is a top priority for the USPTO. Through issuing high -quality 
patents, we enable certainty and clarity of rights which fuels investment in innovation and reduces 
needless litigation. In 2016, the United States Government Accountability Off ice (GAO) issued a 
report examining issues and making recommendations related to improving patent quality. The 
USPTO concurred with the recommendations and had already taken a number of steps to address 
the issues identified by the study, through the USPTO 's Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI). 
The USPTO launched the EPQI in February 2015 and seeks to institutionalize best practices and 
strengthen our work products, processes, services and the measurement of patent quality at all 
stages of the patent process. For more information on the EPQI visit : 
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/enhanced -patent -quality -initiative -0. 
53. Is there an assessment of the impa ct on the work load of the patent examiners? Please 
provide details.  
RESPONSE: Detailed in an October 25, 2016 Federal Register Notice entitled "Request for 
Comments on Examination Time Goals " (Docket No. PTO –P–2016–0040), the Patent and 
Trademark Office h as recently undertaken a study to evaluate the examination time given to 
examiners. The Office has a staff of approximately 8,400 patent examiners who examine patent 
applications in hundreds of technology areas. Each technology area is assigned an examinat ion 
time goal. The goals are used by the Office for a variety of purposes, including forecasting 
pendency and staffing needs and evaluating individual examiner performance. Since the 
examination time goals were originally assigned, significant changes to t he examination process 
have occurred, including increased use of electronic tools, changes in law due to court decisions, a 
growing volume of prior art, and progress in technology, which results in increasingly complex 
subject matter in applications. In ad dition, the Office recently transitioned from the United States 
Patent Classification (USPC) system to the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. 
Because the current examination time goals were assigned based on the USPC system, 
implementation of the CPC system has caused the Office to reconsider and reassess the 
assignments of examination time goals. Furthermore, the Office is (i) implementing the Enhanced 
Patent Quality Initiatives in order to provide a higher quality examination to our stakehold ers and 
(ii) assessing the relationship between examination time and value -added examination activities, 
such as best practices for enhancing the clarity of the record with respect to claim interpretation, WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 212 - 
 
  interview summaries, and reasons for allowance. Al l of these factors warrant a reevaluation of the 
Office 's examination time goals.  
Questions 54 -57 
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents (3.250)  
54. Does the figure of 589410 patent applications include utility patent applications?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO received 589,410 utili ty patent applications in 2015.  
55. Please indicate the number of utility patent applications in 2014 and 2015.  
RESPONSE: The USPTO received 578,802 utility patent applications in 2014 and 589,410 utility 
patent applications in 2015.  
56. What is the proportion of foreign origin applications in the utility patent applications and in 
patent application?  
RESPONSE: In 2015, the USPTO received 288,335 utility patent applications having a U.S. origin 
and 301,075 utility patent applications having a foreign origin.  
57. How ma ny patents in total including utility patents were granted in 2014 and 2015? Of 
this, please indicate the share of foreign origin applications in the grant of utility patents and in 
patent.  
RESPONSE: In 2015, the USPTO granted 140,969 utility patent applic ations having a U.S. origin 
and 157,438 utility patent applications having a foreign origin. In 2014, the USPTO granted 
144,621 utility patent applications having a U.S. origin and 156,057 utility patent applications 
having a foreign origin.  
Questions 58 -60 
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents (3.252)  
58. United State Patent Invalidity Study conducted in 2012 and presented at the US PTO Annual 
Meeting in 2012 shows that the US court system has been struggling with a number of cases that 
challenge the validity of patents. B etween 2007 and 2011, 283 cases were identified in the US 
federal district courts where patent validity was to be determined. Of these only in 39 cases was 
the patent held valid and enforceable. The report also states that patents towards mechanical 
devise s an pharmaceutical drugs are more susceptible to patent validity.  
RESPONSE: The referenced report does not appear to be a U.S. government report, and 
accordingly we are not able to comment on this question.  
59. Has there been a recent study on patent invalid ity in the US? Does it indicate improvement 
in the situation given the numerous steps taken by the USPTO to improve quality of examination.  
RESPONSE: The United States supports high quality patents. Continuing to improve patent 
quality, both in terms of e nsuring that every patent issued comports with all statutory 
requirements and has a clear record, is a top priority for the USPTO. Through issuing high -quality 
patents, we enable certainty and clarity of rights which fuels investment in innovation and redu ces 
needless litigation. In 2016, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a 
report examining issues and making recommendations related to improving patent quality. The 
USPTO concurred with the recommendations and had already taken a  number of steps to address 
the issues identified by the study, through the USPTO 's Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI). 
The USPTO launched the EPQI in February 2015 and seeks to institutionalize best practices and 
strengthen our work products, proce sses, services, and the measurement of patent quality at all 
stages of the patent process. For more information on the EPQI, visit : 
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/in itiatives/enhanced -patent -quality -initiative -0.  
60. How is improvement in quality of patent products determined? Has USPTO developed 
indicators for this?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 213 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States supports high quality patents. Continuing to improve patent 
quality, both in  terms of ensuring that every patent issued comports with all statutory 
requirements and has a clear record, is a top priority for the USPTO. Through issuing high -quality 
patents, we enable certainty and clarity of rights which fuels investment in innovati on and reduces 
needless litigation. Patents that are correctly issued in compliance with all requirements of Title 35 
as well as the relevant case law at the time of issuance, enable certainty and clarity of rights, 
which fuels innovation and reduces needl ess litigation. To ensure that the USPTO continues issuing 
high-quality patents well into the future, the USPTO launched the Enhanced Patent Quality 
Initiative (EPQI) in February 2015. This multifaceted initiative builds on past efforts and includes 
almost  a dozen programs aimed at improving the accuracy, clarity, and consistency of patents that 
are issued, as well as how patent quality is measured. For more information on the EPQI visit : 
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/enhanced -patent -quality -initiative -0. 
Question 61  
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents (3.253)  
61. What is the definition of micro entities? Does the concession of 75% discount for patent fees 
apply to fore ign applicants also?  
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 123, defines a micro entity as an applicant 
that makes a certification that the applicant: qualifies as a small entity, as defined in regulations 
issued by the Director; has not bee n named as an inventor on more than 4 previously filed patent 
applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under section 
35 USC 111(b), or international applications filed under the treaty defined in section 35 U SC 
351(a) for which the basic national fee under section 35 USC 41(a) was not paid; did not, in the 
calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, have a gross 
income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenu e Code of 1986, exceeding 3 times the 
median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the 
Bureau of the Census; and has not assigned, granted, or conveyed, and is not under an obligation 
by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the 
application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which 
the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Inter nal 
Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding 3 times the median household income for that preceding 
calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census.  
Question 62  
Section 3.3.6.3 Patents (3.253)  
Article 29 of TRIPS states that "Members shall req uire that an applicant for a patent shall disclose 
the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a 
person skilled in the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out 
the inv ention known to the inventor at the filing date or, where priority is claimed, at the priority 
date of the application "  
62. Why was the requirement to set forth the best mode to carry out the invention eliminated in 
the patent applications?  
RESPONSE: An appli cant for a patent must disclose: (1) a written de scription 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 "best mode " requirement continues to be part of the disclosure requirement under U.S. law. 
The Leahy -Smith America Invents Act provides that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not 
be a basis on which any patent claim may be cancelled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable. 
See legislative history for further information, e.g., 153 Cong. Rec. H10270 -H10307.  
Question 63  
Section 3.3.6.5.2. Geographical Indicati ons (3.261)  
63. Can a GI once granted protection in the US become generic even when it continues to be 
protected as a GI in the country of origin?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 214 - 
 
  RESPONSE: A geographical indication certification or collective mark that is protected in the 
United States may b ecome generic if the owner abandons the mark. There are two scenarios for 
abandonment identified in 15 U.S.C. §1127: "A mark shall be deemed to be 'abandoned ' if either 
of the following occurs:  
(1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resu me such use. Intent not to resume 
may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence 
of abandonment. 'Use' of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary 
course of trade, and not made merel y to reserve a right in a mark.  
(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, 
causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with 
which it is used or otherwise to lo se its significance as a mark. Purchaser motivation shall not be a 
test for determining abandonment under this paragraph. " 
Question 64  
Section 3.3.6.6 Trade Secret Protection (3.262)  
64. With the federal law and the state laws on trade secret in existence, can  parties seek 
remedy under both simultaneously? Please explain.  
RESPONSE: Parties may seek remedies for an infringement of a trade secret as appropriate under 
federal and state law. An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil actio n 
under federal law if the requirements of the statute are met. An owner of a trade secret that is 
misappropriated also may also bring a civil action under relevant state law if all of the elements of 
the state trade secret law at issue are met.  
Question 6 5 
Section 3.3.6.7. Copyright (3.269)  
65. Have the recommendations made by IPTF been implemented? If not what are the next steps 
foreseen ? 
RESPONSE: The Green Paper recommendations have not been taken up by Congress. The White 
Paper 's recommendations relating t o statutory damages were sent to Congress earlier this year 
but have not yet been taken up.  
Question 66  
(Page 102, Para 3.272)  
66. US provides for statutory licenses under the Clean Air Act for use of patented technology 
that is mandated by the EPA also. What is the basis of fixing the terms of access to these 
technologies? Are there any guidelines to enable access?  
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes that Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement permits other 
use of the subject matter of a patent without the autho rization of the rightholder under certain 
conditions. Please refer to 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq., and rela ted implementing regulations at 
40 C.F.R.  Subchapter C, Parts 50 -98, for potentially relevant provisions to the question.   
Questions 67 -69 
(Page 102, Par a 3.272)  
67. Does the US provide for mandatory or compulsory license under the 28USC 1498, Bayh Dole 
Act and on account of anti competitive practices? Mandatory licenses exist under other 
environmental and pesticide related legislations also.  
RESPONSE: The Uni ted States does not accept the characterization underlying this question, but 
provides the following information regarding the referenced legal provisions:  
Detailed information regarding the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (also known as the 
Bayh-Dole Act) can be found in the U.S. Code at Title 35 (entitled "Patents "), Chapter 18 (entitled WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 215 - 
 
  "Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance "). See 35 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The Act 
promotes the utilization of inventions arising from federally supp orted research or development.  
Detailed information regarding Section 1498 (entitled "Patent and Copyright Cases ") of U.S. Code 
Title 28 (entitled "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure "), Chapter 91 (entitled "Court of Federal 
Claims ") can be found at 28 U.S. C. 1498.  
Detailed information regarding U.S. competition law can be found in the Sherman Antitrust Act, 
the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Department of Justice and 
the Federal Trade Commission has also issued Antitrust G uidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual 
Property. Those guidelines are currently in the process of being updated. Information can be found 
at the Department of Justice website, at : http://www.doj.gov/ . 
68. What is the pr ocedure for issue of these compulsory/mandatory licenses? Do they apply 
irrespective of the field of technology?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not accept the characterization of the legal provisions 
referenced in this question. Additional detailed infor mation on these legal provisions can be found 
under Question 67.   
69. How many such cases of compulsory license have issued in the US especially in the context 
of USC 1498 and the "March in Rights "? 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not accept the characterizat ion of the legal provision 
referenced in this question. Additional detailed information on this legal provisions can be found 
under Question 67.  
Question 70 -71 
Section 3.3.6.8. IP Enforcement (3.277)  
US Government has remedies beyond legal provisions, to e nsure that an action which is beneficial 
to the larger interest of the US economy and its consumers is taken.  Executive Orders of the 
President can be issued to address specific situations and to overturn determinations made by 
judicial bodies. Some years ago a federal order overturned the determination of the USITC in the 
Apple Vs Samsung Case.  
70. What forms the basis of such decisions? Can the concern that forms the basis of the decision 
go beyond health urgency and public safety?  
RESPONSE: This response doe s not attempt to address inaccurate assertions found in the 
chapeau text introducing Questions 70 and 71. Based on the reference in the chapeau to the 
United States International Trade Commission (USITC), it appears that Questions 70 and 71 refer 
to the st atutory authority of the United States President (delegated to the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) in 2005) to disapprove certain determinations of the USITC under section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The United States notes first t hat section 337 is only 
one of a range of IP enforcement avenues potentially open to parties. Information on the basis for 
the referenced decisions is provided at 19 U.S.C. section 13 37 and S. Rep. No. 93 -1298, 
93d Cong. 2d Sess. 199 (1974). The bases for individual decisions to disapprove are set out in a 
notice from the United States President or the USTR to the USITC.  
71. What is the due process that is followed before the order is brought out? Is it open for 
review -including judicial?  
RESPONSE: Information  on the procedures governing determinations under section 337 can be 
found at 19 U.S.C. section 1337 and 19 C.F.R. section 210. A USITC final determination is 
appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  
Questions 72 -73 
Section 3.3.6.3 . Patents (3.252)  
72. US has access to the TKDL Database since 2009. What has been the impact of this database 
in improving the quality of patent products?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 216 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Improving patent quality both in terms of ensuring that every patent issued comports 
with all statutory requirements and has a clear record, is a top priority for the USPTO. This 
includes providing patent examiners access to the best search tools necessary to identify prior art 
in patent applications in order to prevent the erroneous grant of paten ts. Access to the TKDL and 
other databases provides such search tools. The TKDL can help prevent attempts to patent 
traditional knowledge, which may not only result in the erroneous grant of a patent, but may also 
remove knowledge from the public domain.  
73. Are oral submissions in respect of novelty, claims made by the applicant accepted from third 
parties?  
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 102(a), defines prior art with respect to 
novelty as whether the claimed invention was patented, desc ribed in a printed publication, or in 
public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the 
claimed invention.  
Questions 74 -75 
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents (3.252)  
US has a mechanism of permits issued by national par ks such as Yellowstone national park for 
access to genetic resource. There are also benefit sharing agreements signed between parties 
utilizing these resources and the national parks.  
74. Is a patent applicant required to indicate the particulars of the permit  or the commercial 
agreement signed between the National Park and the inventor, in his application?  
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 112(a), requires the patent application 
specification contain a written description of the invention,  and of the manner and process of 
making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in 
the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, 
and shall set forth t he best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out 
the invention. U.S. Patent Law does not require patent applicants to indicate information regarding 
a permit or agreement signed between a National Park and the inventor (or applic ant) in a patent 
application.  
75. In case access is obtained without permit or a benefit sharing agreement, what is the course 
of action under law (even if it is outside the patent system)?  
RESPONSE: In 2013, the United States National Park Services (NPS) iss ued Director's 
Order  #77-10: NPS BENEFITS SHARING, which addresses benefits sharing stemming from 
research results derived from NPS -permitted research, and the relationship between benefits 
sharing and technology transfer resulting from NPS activities. The  NPS also issued the 
"Benefit -Sharing Handbook " in 2014, which provides additional information. For more information 
on NPS Benefit Sharing visit : http://www.nature.nps.gov/benefitssharing/ .  
Quest ions 76 -78 
Section 3.3.6.2. IPR – General Regulatory Framework (3.247)  
76. Does the US provide data exclusivity protection from the date of first registration or from 
the date of registration in the US?  
RESPONSE: The United States provides the following releva nt information regarding applicable 
processes and periods relating to regulatory data protection in the United States. Detailed 
information regarding the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act can be found in 
U.S. code title 21 (entitled "Food and Drugs "), chapter 9 (entitled "Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act "), section 355 (entitled "New drugs "). Additionally, with respect to biological 
products, detailed information on the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act can be found 
in U.S. code title 42 (entitled "the Public Health and Welfare "), section 262 (entitled "Regulation of 
biological products. "). With respect to agricultural chemicals, detailed information on the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act can be found  at U.S. code title 7 (entitled 
"Agriculture "), chapter 6 (entitled "insecticides and environmental pesticide control ").  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 217 - 
 
  77. Is there a specific period from the date of first registration within which protection must 
sought to enable data exclusivity protecti on? 
RESPONSE: Please see the detailed information provided in response to question 76.  
78. What is the process followed in case of agrochemical substances? What are the modalities 
that must be completed by generic suppliers of agrochemical substance?  
RESPONSE:  Please see the detailed information provided in response to question 76. A narrative 
description of the process and mechanisms for obtaining data protection are provided at : 
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide -registration/about -pesticide -registration .  
Questions 79 -81 
Section 3.3.6.2. IPR – General Regulatory Framework (3.247)  
79. What is the difference between market exclusivity and data exclusivity? Can validity of 
market excl usivity outlast data exclusivity?  
RESPONSE: The meaning of the terms "market exclusivity " and "data exclusivity " as used in this 
question are unclear from the question. Please see the detailed information provided in response 
to question 76.  
80. What is the u nderlying basis for market exclusivity?  
RESPONSE: Please see the detailed information provided in response to question 76.  
81. Can the US provide information about databases which contain the patent expiration date 
and the data exclusivity expiration date fo r pharmaceutical and pesticide products (similar to the 
FDA's orange book which contains patent expiration date and date of market exclusivity expiration 
of pharmaceutical products)  
RESPONSE: Please see the detailed information provided in response to ques tion 76. Additionally, 
relevant information can be found at the following links, among others: 
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/default.cfm  and https://www.epa.gov/pesticide -
registration/petitions -filed-establish -new-exclusive -use-periods -specific -commodity . 
Questions 82 -91 
Section 4.1.2.2. Pri ce Loss Coverage   
82. Is PLC is totally decoupled from current production or is it coupled to current production due 
to its link to current price of a product?  
RESPONSE: The PLC program is considered decoupled from the planting decision because 
producers canno t affect the level of their payments by what they plant.  
83. What is the logic behind updating yield for calculation of PLC payments? Does updating of 
yield make this programme coupled to some extent?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Act does not provide reasons for th e provision that provides a one -
time updating of historical yields. Payments under the PLC program continue to be made on base 
acres and are independent of current planting decisions. Farmers were not required to update 
yields to be eligible for PLC paymen ts. 
84. PLC payment is given on the basis of base acre and Farm Act 2014, does not allow for 
updating base acre. Assume a farmer had 800 acre of farm land as a base acre but in recent year 
(assume 2016) he sold 500 acre farm land. Is the farmer still to receiv e PLC based on 800 acre or 
300 acre in 2017?  
RESPONSE: A farmer cannot have more base acres than the number of acres he/she currently 
owns or operates. This farmer could only retain 300 acres of base after the sale, but the other 
base acres would belong to  the new owner of the 500 acres.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 218 - 
 
  85. Reallocation of base acre is allowed under the farm Act 2014. Assume that a farmer 
cultivates corn on 400 acre and 400 acre on wheat in 2015. Therefore payment would be based on 
base acre allocated to wheat and corn (50: 5 0). If farmer in 2016 does not grow corn and allocates 
all land to wheat, whether PLC payment still calculated based on base acre allocation? How is the 
USA government dealing with this kind of situation?  
RESPONSE: Base acres are determined by historical, not current, production. The base acre 
reallocation option under the 2014 Farm Act allowed producers a one -time opportunity to reset the 
historical commodity distribution of their base on a more recent historical basis. The one -time base 
reallocation for t hat farm is then fixed for the life of the 2014 Farm Act.  
86. Assume that a farmer updates yield of a crop to 2009 -2012 as allowed under Farm Act. How 
does the government verify the updated base yield? What kind of evidence would be accepted by 
the government  to verify the farmers claim with respect to updated base year yield and current 
year yield?  
RESPONSE: Producers who have participated in the Federal crop insurance program may use Risk 
Management Agency yield data on their farms. Alternatively, producers may report their yield data 
to the Farm Service Agency supported by available production evidence.  
87. In case a landowner enrols in PLC programme for Farm Act duration (2014 -2018) in 2014 
and leases out land to other farmers (tenant) in 2017. Who will be elig ible to receive PLC payment 
– landowner or tenant for the year 2017 and 2018?  
RESPONSE: Eligibility for PLC payments would depend on the type of lease. Landowners with 
share leases in which the landowner receives a share of the revenue from the farm would be 
eligible for the same share of PLC payments.  
88. It is given that a farmer can choose between PLC or ARC (county) to protect his interest 
from price or revenue fluctuations. In case a farmer is not able to select any programme out of 
these two before Farm A ct 2014, then how is the farmer 's interest protected under this Act? 
Whether these types of farmers can enrol in 2016 for PLC or ARC?  
RESPONSE: Producers are eligible for these programs based on the election made for base acres 
on a farm. If a producer acq uires base acres after the election period, the base acre elections 
already made under the 2014 Farm Act remain in place. Producers who did not make an election 
for base they owned during the required period had their base acres automatically assigned to t he 
PLC program.  
89. In a situation where a farmer bought new agricultural land from other farmers in 2010 or 
thereafter, whether he can claim payments under PLC/ARC? In this case updation of base acre 
required? How is this type of situation dealt with in Farm Act 2015?  
RESPONSE: See response to question 88.  
90. Can a tenant make a decision regarding updation of yield or reallocating base acre? If yes, 
then what is the process for tenant to enrol in PLC? Who will be eligible to receive payments 
(tenant or landowners )? 
RESPONSE: Base acre reallocation and yield update decisions were made by owners only and 
were made as a one -time choice in 2014 to remain in place for the life of the Farm Bill. However, 
the one -time election decision between ARC and PLC required a unan imous decision by owners and 
operators who leased the land.  
91. In case a farmer enrols for PLC programme but later he grow upland cotton, will he receive 
payment under PLC? Is there any monitoring policy which checks these scenarios under the Farm 
Act? 
RESPO NSE: PLC payments are made on historical base, not current production. Producers may 
plant any commodity, or no commodity, on base acres without affecting payments. There is a 
limited exception that restricts planting fruits and vegetables on base acres un der certain 
circumstances.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 219 - 
 
  Questions 92 -95 
Section 4.1.2.3. Agricultural Risk Coverage  
92. What are the reasons for implementing ARC at individual farm level and county level?  
RESPONSE: USDA 's Farm Service Agency has implemented these two choices as required b y the 
Farm Bill.  
93. What are the specific reasons for low enrolment rate for individual ARC?  
RESPONSE: While producers were not required to provide reasons for the election choices, 
observers have suggested that the ARC individual program requirement that the re be unanimous 
agreement between owners and operators on all farms operated by the producer interested in 
electing ARC individual coverage could have been a deterrent to election. The program is also 
more complex than ARC county coverage.  
94. Please share the  data about the percentage of farmers enrolled in PLC, ARC (IC) and ARC 
(CO) 
RESPONSE: Data on ARC/PLC election are not available by farmer, since farmers could elect more 
than one program for the base acres on their operations.  
95. The guarantee under the ARC -County coverage is 86% of the ARC -County benchmark 
revenue . Why was 86% figure was chosen rather than 100 percent of the ARC -county benchmark 
revenue.  
RESPONSE: The Farm Bill does not provide reasons for specific provisions. In general, the ARC 
program wa s designed to provide some support to producers through payments on a fixed 
historical base during times of economic stress, not to replace individual farm 's revenue losses. 
Using 86 percent of the benchmark revenue accomplishes this goal while reducing th e potential 
expenditures under the program.  
Questions 96 -97 
Section 4.1.2.4. Marketing Loan Programme  
96. What is the percentage of farmers in 2015, who defaulted the loan under Marketing Loan 
Programme?  
RESPONSE: The marketing loan program is a non -recourse l oan program, so defaults are not 
possible.  
97. What was the total Marketing Loan Gain Payment and Loan Deficiency Payment in 2015? Is 
it showing upward or downward trend in comparison to year 2012 (under previous Farm Act)  
RESPONSE: Expenditures under the mark eting loan program for 2015 will be reported in our 2015 
domestic support notification.  
Questions 98 -99 
Section 4.1.2.7. Sugar  
Based on the Domestic Support notifications made by the U.S. to the Committee on Agriculture, it 
is clear that the domestic suppo rt to sugar is high. Between 2003 and 2013, the domestic support 
to sugar as a value of production of sugar as in the range of 39% - 66%.  
98. Would the U.S. agree that such high subsidisation distorts the sugar market?  
RESPONSE: The United States has always n otified the U.S. sugar program as market price 
support in the Amber Box. The United States would note that while no or limited quantities of 
sugar have been procured by the United States under this program, the level of support is fully 
captured due to the  use of total eligible production in the calculation of the market price support . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 220 - 
 
  99. Could the U.S. indicate how it proposes to reduce the distortion in sugar market caused by 
its domestic support to sugar?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. sugar program is governed by the 2014 Farm Act for the period 2014 -2018. 
Any changes in the program will be considered as part of a new Farm Bill.  
Question 100  
Section 4.1.2.8. Dairy Sector  
100.  Based on the Domestic Support notifications made by the U.S. to the Committee on 
Agriculture, it is  clear that the U.S. has changed the basis of calculation of domestic support for 
dairy products. While in some of the notifications domestic support for dairy products has been 
calculated using the External Reference Price (ERP) of $ 159.826 for Dairy, th e more recent 
notifications calculate the domestic support separately for Butter, Nonfat dry milk and Cheddar 
Cheese. Could the U.S. provide details of trade of dairy products disaggregated into Butter, Non 
fat dry milk, Cheddar Cheese and other dairy prod ucts during the base period of 1986 -1988 so as 
to clearly discern how the ERP for dairy products was determined to be $ 159.826?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. change in notification of the support to dairy beginning in 2008 was the 
result of a legislative change in the structure of the U.S. dairy price support program. Prior to 
2008, the Dairy Price Support Program supported all milk at a statutory minimum price, therefore 
the U.S. market price support notification calculated support using an all -milk fixed external 
reference price (FERP) and quantity of eligible production. From 2008, the Dairy Product Price 
Support Program supported butter, non -fat dry milk, and cheddar cheese at separate statutory 
minimum prices, therefore the U.S. market price support notification  calculated support using a 
FERP for each of those products based on relevant trade data from 1986 -88 and the quantity of 
eligible production of each of those products, which was the total volume of production.  
Question 101  
Section 4.2.1.2. Financial Servi ces – Legislative and Regulatory Framework (4.63)  
101.  The U.S. is requested to elaborate on the criterion on which a U.S. or a foreign non -bank 
financial company is determined as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI).  
RESPONSE: Please see the F inancial Stability Oversight Council webpage on systemically 
important, non -bank financial companies at : 
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/designa tions/Pages/default.aspx#nonbank . 
Question 102  
Section 4.2.1.4 Banking Services (4.69)  
102.  The U.S. is requested to inform the national treatment limitations applied in practice on 
foreign banks and foreign -owned bank subsidiaries.  
RESPONSE: The national trea tment limitations that apply generally to foreign banks and foreign -
owned subsidiaries, excluding those areas in which reservations have been taken, include activity 
restrictions that apply to domestically -owned U.S. banks and foreign -owned U.S. banks. For eign 
banks and foreign -owned U.S. banks also are subject generally to geographic expansion limitations 
based on their home state, consistent with geographic expansion limitations for domestically -
owned U.S. banks.  
Question 103  
Section 4.2.1.4 Banking Servi ces (4.72)  
103.  The U.S. is requested to inform the difference between federally -licensed branches and 
agencies and state -licensed offices.  
RESPONSE: Federally -licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks are licensed and 
supervised by the Office of the Comp troller of the Currency, while state -licensed branches and 
agencies of foreign banks are licensed and supervised by the various state banking authorities.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 221 - 
 
  Question 104  
Section 4.2.1.4 Banking Services (4.73)  
104.  The U.S. is requested to inform the relevant re strictions for establishment of branches and 
also the requirements for interstate merger.  
RESPONSE: The relevant restrictions for establishment of branches by foreign banks and the 
requirements for interstate merger may be found at:  
12 U.S.C. 3103 : http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:12 section:3103 edition:prelim) , 
12 U.S.C. 36(g) : http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:12 section:36 edition:prelim)   
12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(4) : http://uscode.house.gov/view.x html?req=(title:12 section:1828 
edition:prelim)  
and 12 U.S.C. 1831u : http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:12 section:1831u 
edition:prelim)   
Questi on 105  
Section 4.2.1.5. Insurance Services (4.79)  
105.  The U.S. is requested to inform the 13 areas of state insurance regulation that may not be 
pre-empted by federal law.  
RESPONSE:  Please refer to Sec. 104(d)(2)(B) of the GLBA at:  
https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ102/PLAW -106publ102.pdf . 
Question 106  
Section 4.2.1.5. Insurance Services (4.84)  
106.  The U.S. is requested to inform the states for which in -state residency requirement i s 
applicable and how this condition is consistent with the U.S. GATS commitments in insurance 
services.  
RESPONSE: Please refer to the U.S. Schedule of Specific Commitments under GATS for a listing of 
the states with the requirement.  
Questions 107 -108 
Section 4.2.3. Transport (4.128)  
107.  The U.S. is requested to inform the preferences accorded to its domestic carriers in maritime 
transport and aviation transport.  
RESPONSE: The preferences that the United States accords to its domestic carriers in aviation 
transp ort and maritime transport are found (among other things) in the Report by the Secretariat 
in 4.2.3.1 Air Transport and airports (4.129 -4.142) and 4.2.3.2 Maritime transport, port services, 
and shipbuilding (4.143 -4.166).   
108.  It is further requested to provid e the details of the funds provided for the transport sector 
that are also linked to industrial policies in other, related, areas (e.g. ship building).  
RESPONSE: The details of the funds provided for the transport sector that are also linked to 
industrial policies in other, related, areas (e.g. ship building) are found (among other things) in the 
Report by the Secretariat in 4.2.3.2.3 Shipbuilding and ship repairs (4.161 -4.166).  
Question 109  
Section 4.2.3.1.1. Air Transport (4.135)  
109.  The U.S. is requested to provide the details of the subsidies for services to certain small 
communities, including the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program and the Small Community Air 
Service Development Program (SCASDP).  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 222 - 
 
  RESPONSE: There are currently 174 Essential Air Service (EAS ) communities, including 61 in 
Alaska, receiving subsidized air service at a total cost of about $290  million. There are currently 
91 communities that have outstanding Small Community Air Service Development Program 
(SCASDP)  grants at a total value of near ly $40M.  
Question 110  
Section 4.2.3.1.2. Airports (4.136)  
110.  The U.S. is requested to provide the details of the restrictions on the use of revenues by the 
privately owned airports.  
RESPONSE: Title 49 United States Code Sections 47107b and 47133 requires that  local taxes on 
aviation fuel (except taxes in effect on December 30, 1987) and revenues generated by a public 
airport will be expended for the  capital or operating costs of:  
(a) the airport;  
(b) the local airport system; or  
(c) other local facilities owned or opera ted by the airport owner or operator and directly and 
substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property.  
FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue , 64 Federal Register, 7696, 
February 16, 1999, provides furth er clarity on the permitted and prohibited uses of airport 
revenue. Title 49 United States Code Section 47134 provides for exemptions of Sections 47107b 
and 47133 for airports accepted under FAA 's Airport Privatization Pilot Program.  
Questions 111 -114 
Section 3.2.5.1 EXIM (3.155)  
111.  Since the credit and country risks assumed by the US EX -IM are not picked up by 
commercial lenders and insurers, they are likely to have greater default probability. In the last 
three years, how much such defaults occurred on the lending or guarantee extended by the US 
EX-IM? 
RESPONSE: EXIM Bank 's default rate is defined in its Charter and reported to Congress quarterly. 
On September 30, 2014 the default rate was 0.175%; on September 30, 2015 the default rate 
was 0.235%; and on Sep tember 30, 2016 the default rate was 0.266%.  
112.  Whether the losses incurred by US EX -IM on account of defaults are underwritten by US 
Government or any other Government Agency?  
RESPONSE: All defaults were on credits underwritten by the EXIM Bank.  
113.  If so, how m uch (in value terms) of such losses were underwritten in the last three years, 
and how much it accounts (per cent terms) for in the total business of US EX -IM? 
RESPONSE: Of the authorizations supported by EXIM in FY 2014, FY 2015, FY 2016, the Bank 
losses were $26 million or 0.07% of authorizations, all of which were funded from EXIM 's reserves.  
114.  If not, how much (in value terms) of such losses were absorbed by US EX -IM on its books in 
the last three years, and how much it accounts (per cent terms) for in th e total profit of US EX -IM? 
RESPONSE: As all credits were underwritten by EXIM Bank, this question is not applicable.  
Question 115  
Section 3.2.5.2 SBA (3.161)  
115.  Whether SBA guarantees the loans beyond USD 5 million? If so, whether a fee is charged, 
and who p ays the fee?  
RESPONSE: SBA does not guarantee loans above  $5 million, which is the maximum loan amount 
allowed per borrower under current legislation.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 223 - 
 
  Question 116 -118 
Section 10 of the Charter of US EXIM, Page 74 -77 
116.  In the last three years, how much of u sage of funds from Tied Aid were combined with other 
financing or guarantee programmes?  
RESPONSE: EXIM has not engaged in any Tied Aid in the past three years.  
117.  Whether such combining the Tied Aid Funds with other financing and guarantee 
programmes, of US E X-IM or other private entities are in compliance to the OECD Agreement on 
Tied Aid?  
RESPONSE: EXIM has not done any Tied Aid in past three years.  
118.  When combining the Tied Aid Funds with other financing and guarantee programmes, what 
will be the grant elemen t, and whether the grant element matches with the grant elements of IMF 
or OECD?  
RESPONSE: EXIM does not initiate tied aid and has not provided tied aid in recent years. 
However, if tied aid were to be provided, the grant element, or level of concessionali ty, would be 
determined on a case -by-case basis depending on the terms of the financing using the tied aid 
calculator under the OECD Arrangement. In addition, if tied aid were to be provided, the level of 
concessionality offered would adhere to the provisi ons outlined in the OECD Arrangement.  
Question 119  
12 U.S.C. 635k, Page 101 of the Charter of US EX -IM 
119.  If there is no fiscal year limitation of USD 100 million, whether higher losses can also be 
borne by the Secretary Treasury and compensated to the US EX -IM through other means (such as 
recapitalization,  grant etc)  
RESPONSE:  All EXIM exposure carries the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.  
Questions 120 -121 
Page 30 of the Annual Report (2015)  
120.  While we understand that on July 01, 2015 the authorisa tion to US EX -IM lapsed, the 
reduction in subsidies in FY 2015 is well explained. Kindly provide the data on appropriation 
warrant provided by US Treasury every year in FY 2012, 2013 and 2014.  
RESPONSE: EXIM Bank is a self -sustaining agency for which the f ees and other income charged to 
borrowers pay all expenses and fund all loan loss reserves. The Bank has a net appropriation of 
zero. The Bank did not receive warrants from the US Treasury in FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014.  
121.  Whether such appropriation warran t provided by US Treasury is compatible with ASCM and 
OECD Guidelines on Export Credit?  
RESPONSE: As discussed in the prior response, EXIM is a self -sustaining agency with a net 
appropriation of zero. As noted, EXIM did not receive warrants in FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014.  
Question 122  
Section 1.3 Foreign Direct Investment  
122.  Which sectors in manufacturing have seen a jump in FDI inflows in recent years? Has the 
Government taken any specific steps towards attracting greater investments in such sectors?  
RESPON SE: The stock of FDI in the United States totaled $3.1  trillion in 2015, up from 
$2.3 trillion in 2010 (on a historic cost basis). In manufacturing,  this stock increased from 
$757 billion to $1.2 trillion, roughly 55 percent of the overall increase. The ch emical industry 
(mostly pharmaceuticals) accounted for more than two -thirds of the manufacturing increase. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 224 - 
 
  Information on U.S. FDI inflows can be found on the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis website 
(https://www.bea.gov /).  
SelectUSA is a U.S. government -wide program to facilitate business investment into the 
United  States and raise awareness of the critical role that FDI plays in the U.S. economy. It helps 
companies of all sizes find the information they need to make d ecisions; connect to the right 
people at the local level; and navigate the federal regulatory system. Additional information on 
SelectUSA can be found on its website : https://www.selectusa.gov/ . 
Question 123  
Section 3.1.5.1.1 Merchandise Processing Fee  
123.  What is the objective of levying MPF and how are differentiated rates determined?  
RESPONSE: The MPF is a user fee paid by the importer to CBP for the processing of merchandise 
at the time of entry of merchandise into the United States. Currently, the MPF for  formal entries 
(shipments valued over $2500) is an ad valorem fee of 0.3464 percent, subject to a cap. The fee 
is based on the value of the merchandise being imported, not including duty, freight, and 
insurance charges, and may not exceed $485 or be less than $25. For informal entries of 
merchandise (less than $2500) the fee is $3, 6, or $9, depending on how the entry information is 
submitted.  
Question 124  
Section 3.3.5.2. Government Procurement - Institutional and Legal Framework  
124.  What are the criteria to designate eligible and non -eligible countries to waive from 
discriminatory purchasing requirements for Federal Government? Please provide a list of countries, 
both eligible and non -designated.  
RESPONSE: The criteria for designating countries can be found a t 19 U.S.C. § 2511 (b). The 
definition of a designated country can be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 
25.003. The definition provided includes a list of designated countries.   
Questions 125 -126 
Section 3.3.6 IPR Special 301 Report (3.23 8, 3.244, 3.263, 3.275)  
125.  The enactment of the Trade Facilitation Act by the USA in Feb 2016 can lead to imposition of 
sanctions if the countries categorized as "Priority Watch List " under Special 301 do not provide 
"adequate and effective" protection of int ellectual property rights or "fair and equitable market 
access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property rights ". Since under World 
Trade Organisation jurisprudence, legality of unilateral actions over sovereign countries is 
questionabl e, does this domestic legislation of the USA not go beyond the provisions of WTO?  
RESPONSE: The protection and enforcement of IPR supports high -paying jobs, stimulates and 
promotes creative industries, and provides important solutions for pressing global c hallenges, for 
example including, clean energy technologies, new and improved medicines and health 
treatments, and technologies to improve agricultural yields. In that connection, Congress has 
charged the USTR to provide the annual the Special 301 Report p rovides an assessment of 
countries ' IPR regimes and identifies countries that do not provide adequate and effective 
protection of IPR or fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon IPR 
protection. The United States encourages t he listed countries to address the barriers and 
challenges identified in the Report. When countries make progress to address these barriers and 
challenges, those steps are highlighted as positive actions.   
126.  The U.S. invokes the Special 301 provisions to try  and influence other countries ' IP laws, 
which are TRIPS compliant and are domestic in application. Further, among many of the 
recommendations of the United Nations Secretary -General's High -Level Panel on Access to 
Medicines Report issued in September 2016 , one of the recommendations specifies that countries 
"must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO 
Members to use TRIPS flexibilities. " Under such circumstances, is the Special 301 TRIPS 
compliant?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 225 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The Special 301 Report provides an assessment of countries ' IPR regimes in order to 
determine whether countries provide adequate and effective protection of IPR. Among the key 
areas highlighted in past Special 301 Reports are domestic laws in for eign countries that either fail 
to provide adequate and effective protection of IPR or deny fair and equitable market access to 
U.S. rights holders. The assessments set forth in the Special 301 Report are based on various 
critical factors, including, where  relevant, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and 
Public Health. As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement 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. An effective, transparent, and predictable IPR system is 
necessary for both manufacturers of innovative medicines and manufacturers of generic 
medicines.  
Questions 127 -128 
Section 3.3.5.5. Bidding Procedures (3.235)  
127.  It has  been observed in the report of General Accountability Office (GAO) of the US 
Government issued on July 20, 2016 where recent trends in patent litigation were examined. The 
report comments that about 20 percent of all defendants named in new patent infring ement 
lawsuits were sued in the Eastern District of Texas, and by 2 015 this had risen to almost 
50 percent, thus raising the question of why so many cases have been filed only in a single court. 
How does the US government propose to address this issue?  
RESPONSE: Without commenting on the accuracy of the question 's conclusions, there have been 
a number of recent changes to the patent litigation landscape in the United States including 
judicial decisions and amendments promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in December 2015 which are relevant to the issues raised in 
the GAO report. The effects of these recent changes on the patent litigation landscape continue to 
be reviewed.  
128.  What are the measures t hat the US proposes to undertake in response to the adverse 
reports on patent quality at the United States Patent and Trademark Office by the General 
Accountability Office (GAO) of the US Government, that have also sought to identify ways for the 
Patent Of fice to Strengthen Search Capabilities and Better Monitor Examiners' Work.  
RESPONSE:  The United States supports high quality patents. Continuing to improve patent 
quality, both in terms of ensuring that every patent issued comports with all statutory 
requirements and has a clear record, is a top priority for the USPTO. Through issuing high -quality 
patents, we enable certainty and clarity of rights which fuels investment in innovation and reduces 
needless litigation. In 2016, the United States Government Ac countability Office (GAO) issued a 
report examining issues and making recommendations related to improving patent quality. The 
USPTO concurred with the recommendations and had already taken a number of steps to address 
the issues identified by the study, t hrough the USPTO 's Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI). 
The USPTO launched the EPQI in February 2015 and seeks to institutionalize best practices and 
strengthen our work products, processes, services and the measurement of patent quality at all 
stage s of the patent process. For more information on the EPQI visit : 
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/enhanced -patent -quality -initiative -0. 
Further, in recent  years, the USPTO made workforce management a critical focus and have 
invested significant time and effort on improving our overall management for all employees 
including teleworking employees and those stationed at our physical facilities. The USPTO has 
taken a number of concrete steps – including requiring new training for employees and 
supervisors, updating policies, adding controls and building tools for supervisors – to enable them 
to engage and manage their employees more effectively. Today at the USP TO, supervisors receive 
extensive training and have a variety of tools in place to help monitor employees ' attendance and 
work levels, regardless of where the employees are working.  
Quality of Patents and other issues Para 3.252, 3.255 Page 98:  
Questions 1 29-136 
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents (3.252, 3.255)  
129.  What are the views of the US on the issue of evergreening of patents, considering that the 
US itself restricts or invalidates patents on the basis of "secondary considerations ", and also in WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 226 - 
 
  light of the United  Nations Secretary -General's High -Level Panel on Access to Medicines Report 
that has specifically recommended that countries should use measures to prevent evergreening of 
patents?  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that there is no common understanding of the concept of 
"evergreening. " The United States strongly supports that patents be made available for all 
inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, 
involve an inventive step, and are capable of indu strial application. Certain countries, including 
India, have applied patentability criteria, including through the application of India 's Section 3(d) 
"enhanced efficacy" standard, in a way that has led to rejections of patent applications for 
innovative p harmaceutical products that have received patents in other countries. Patents provide 
critical incentives for the biopharmaceutical industry to develop new and enhanced treatments that 
benefit patients worldwide. The United States supports ensuring that pa tents are available for 
eligible biopharmaceutical inventions, including for potentially beneficial innovations, which could 
include drugs with fewer side effects, decreased toxicity, improved delivery systems, or 
temperature or storage stability.  
The Uni ted States is deeply disappointed with the Report of the High -Level Panel on Access to 
Medicines and it recommendations. Effective intellectual property rights and liberalized trade have 
played an important role in incentivizing the development of medicine s and bringing them to new 
markets. The narrowly -focused mandate of the panel was flawed and did not produce outcomes 
that adequately address the complex issue of access to medicines. The United States Government 
remains committed to advancing access to ex isting and new medicines, including by supporting 
innovation through robust intellectual property protections and working with public and private 
partners to find new solutions to the world's pressing public health challenges.  
130.  What is the stand of the US g overnment on the recently issued judgement where Mr. Mayer, 
Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in "Intellectual Ventures LLC vs 
Symantec Corp " has commented that "it's well past time to return software to its historical 
dwelling place in the domain of copyright ". 
RESPONSE: The question quotes out of context a concurring opinion in this case. We note that 
the quoted statement is not adopted by, or reflected in, the opinion of the court. Title 35 of the 
United States Code, sect ion 101, provides whoever invents or discovers any new and useful 
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement 
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Th e 
U.S. judiciary, including the United States Supreme Court, also plays an important role in further 
defining patent eligible subject matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office develops 
examination guidelines that allows patent examiners to cond uct complete and thorough 
examinations of subject matter eligibility in accordance with the current state of the law.  
131.  In the US, "Third Party Representations " can be filed only on payment of a hefty fee, but 
even then, there is no mandatory provision of ge tting an opportunity of hearing. While larger 
corporations can bear the cost, it puts SMEs and individual inventors at a disadvantage. This may 
also affect the quality of patent examination adversely, as affected parties do not get an 
opportunity of hearin g, and is thus against the principle of natural justice. What are the views of 
the US in this regard?  
RESPONSE: The United States Patent and Trademark Office offers discounted fees for small 
entities and micro entities on a variety of patent services. Smal l entities can receive a fifty percent 
discount and micro entities can receive a seventy -five percent discount. Detailed in an October 3, 
2016, Federal Register Notice entitled "Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2017 " 
(Docket No. PTO -P-2015-0056), the USPTO is seeking stakeholder feedback on the possibility of 
expanding the small entity and micro entity discount to additional services. The USPTO also 
provides a mechanism for third parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other 
printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application. These 
submissions, under 37 CFR 1.290, are free under certain circumstances.  
132.  How does the US propose to prevent the misappropriation or bio -piracy of genetic r esources 
and associated traditional knowledge, given that it has not acceded to the Nagoya Protocol on 
Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their 
Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity ? WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 227 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States recognizes the importance of genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge and supports lawful access and utilization by the public. U.S. trade secret laws provide 
protection against misappropriation of traditional knowledge tha t can be protected as trade 
secrets, and the U.S. plant variety protection and patent laws can provide protection against the 
making and use of genetic resources that can be protected under those systems. Patentability 
criteria can also help ensure that an  invention based upon the prior art of previously -disclosed 
traditional knowledge is not patent -eligible. To this end, the USPTO continuously seeks to ensure 
that it has the best available resources for patent examiners and has developed an extensive 
collection of relevant non -patent literature. See, for example: https://www.uspto.gov/learning -
and-resources/support -center s/scientific -and-technical -information -center -stic/traditiona -0. As 
part of this effort, in 2009, the USPTO entered into an agreement with Government of India to 
allow USPTO to access the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Also, in 2013, the United St ates 
National Park Services (NPS) issued DIRECTOR'S ORDER #77 -10: NPS BENEFITS SHARING, which 
addresses benefits sharing stemming from research results derived from NPS -permitted research, 
and the relationship between benefits sharing and technology transf er resulting from NPS 
activities. The NPS also issued the "Benefit -Sharing Handbook " in 2014, which provides additional 
information. For more information on NPS Benefit Sharing visit:  
http://www.nat ure.nps.gov/benefitssharing/ . 
133.  Recently, a German court has granted a CL to a US company. What are the views of the US 
in this regard, and whether such a CL is justified? How does the US differentiate such compulsory 
licenses issued in favour of US compani es from those issued in other countries to non -US 
companies?  
RESPONSE: There is no contextual information provided in this question, and it appears is more 
appropriate for Germany or the European Union.   
134.  As per testimony given before the USITC, any federa l agency can rely upon 
28 USC § 1498(a) to limit remedies for the infringement of patents, copyrights, plant variety rights 
[28 USC § 1498(d)], mask works [protection of semiconductor chips -chapter 9 of title 17] and 
designs (chapter 13 of title 17 [28 USC § 1498(e))] to compensation only. By removing the 
possibility of an injunction to enforce an exclusive right, the US government has the equivalent of 
a compulsory license on intellectual property rights covered by the statute. There are several 
examples in  this regard. Thus, there is a compulsion involved in these actions; how are these then 
different from Compulsory Licenses (CL) issued under patent laws by various countries in 
accordance with the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration?  
RESPONSE: The Uni ted States does not accept the characterization of the legal provision 
referenced in this question. Detailed information regarding Section 1498 (entitled "Patent and 
Copyright Cases ") of U.S. Code Title 28 (entitled "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure "), Cha pter 91 
(entitled "Court of Federal Claims ") can be found at 28 U.S.C. 1498.  
135.  In 2013, the United States Trade Representative through an Executive Order overturned the 
decision of the US International Trade Commission in the Apple Vs Samsung case, where 
infringement action had been initiated by Samsung Electronics for infringement of their US patent 
by Apple Inc. Does this mean that patent rights can be infringed on certain grounds; if so, what 
are these grounds? Does the US government have any plans to acc ord similar relief to foreign 
companies infringing US patents?  
RESPONSE: Without commenting on the accuracy of the factual assertion and related 
assumptions contained in the question, USTR Michael Froman stated in his August 3, 2013 letter 
notifying the U SITC Chairman of his decision to disapprove the referenced determination that "My 
decision to disapprove this determination does not mean that the patent owner in this case is not 
entitled to a remedy. On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to purs ue its rights through 
the courts. " USITC Section 337 cases are governed by standards established by law and 
regulation, the application of which is made without regard to the nationality of the parties 
involved.   
136.  The Bayh -Dole Act permits a university, sma ll business or non -profit institution using federal 
funds for research leading to an invention, to retain the title on any patent issued for such 
inventions. Under 35 U.S. Code § 204 which relates to preference for United States industry, no 
small business  firm or non -profit organization, or their assignee, which receives such title to the WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 228 - 
 
  patent, shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or s ell any invention in the 
United  States, unless such person agrees that any products embodying the inventi on or produced 
through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the United States. Can 
preference be given to domestic manufacturing over imports, and is this TRIPS compliant? Will the 
US support other Governments ' initiatives to have  local manufacturing provisions?  
RESPONSE: The United States considers its trade obligations and the specific requirements of 
each technology to determine if the "substantial manufacture " requirement is met.  
Questions 137 -139 
Section 3.3.6.5.1. Trademarks  (3.257)  
137.  Section 211 of the U.S. Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 ("Havana Club") prohibits, 
under certain conditions, the registration or renewal of a trademark that is identical or similar to a 
trademark previously owned by a confiscated Cuban entity. No U.S. Court can recognise or enforce 
any assertion of such rights. Is Section 211 in violation of both the national treatment and the 
most favoured nation obligations of the TRIPS?  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that the WTO Appellate Body found that Section 211(a)(1) 
was not inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States. Furthermore, 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 r elating to any intellectual property or other property 
rights that … have been expropriated or otherwise confiscated in other territories. " See Appellate 
Body Report, para. 362. The United States refers to its statements on this matter in the Dispute 
Settlement Body.  
138.  The registration of trademark in US can be obtained only after a mark is used in U.S. at the 
time of registration. As such, even well -known foreign trademarks cannot be protected in US, if no 
actual use of them is shown in US. So what provisio ns are made for protection of well -known 
foreign trademarks, if they cannot establish actual use in U.S.?  
RESPONSE: Without commenting on the accuracy of the question 's assertions, a registration can 
be obtained in the United States by applicants filing ba sed on a foreign registration under the Paris 
Convention or based on an international registration under the Madrid System who can claim a 
"bona fide intention to use " the mark in U.S. commerce.  
Furthermore, with regard to protections against applications  that are filed for or used in bad faith, 
the United States has tools to prevent and address those filings at the USPTO, including relative 
examination, as well as statutory protections under the Lanham Act and state law, which include 
causes of action, to  address that bad faith behavior or unfair competition in the marketplace.  
139.  Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides remedies for holders of U.S. intellectual 
property rights for keeping the imported goods which are infringing on such rights out of t he U.S. 
("exclusion order "), or to have them removed from the U.S. market once they have come into the 
country ( "cease and desist order "). What adequate system U.S. has opted for protection of 
genuine proprietors of foreign trademarks in US?  
RESPONSE: This response does not attempt to correct the inaccurate and incomplete description 
of section 337 found in Question 139. The U.S. Trademark Act and other state and federal laws 
provide protection for trademarks consistent with national treatment principles.  
Questions 140  
Section 3.3.6.5.1. Trademarks (3.258)  
140.  The goods and services for the purpose of registration of trademarks are classified as per 
International Classification of goods and services under Nice Classification. Almost all IP offices of 
the world are either member of the Nice Agreement or they follow the Nice Classification. US is 
also a member of the Nice Agreement. The Nice Agreement is administered by WIPO. The 
international Bureau of the WIPO also administers international registration of marks  under the 
Madrid System. In case of applications for international registration of marks under the Madrid 
System, the formality examination including that in respect of classification or description of goods 
and services are done by the IB of the WIPO. It  is observed that US office raises objection in 
respect of classification or description of goods and services, even if such objections are not raised WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 229 - 
 
  by the WIPO. Why is the U.S. not following the Nice Classification for international registration, 
even t hough U.S. is a member of Nice Agreement?  
RESPONSE: The United States is a member of the Nice Agreement and applies the Nice 
classification system to U.S. filed trademark applications, including those filed via the Madrid 
System for the International Regis tration of Marks.  
The WIPO International Bureau (IB) undertakes a review of the wording of an identification of 
goods or services in an international application for the purpose of determining whether the 
wording is definite enough for purposes of classif ication. It is not intended to be an examination 
for compliance with Madrid contracting parties ' national requirements. Once an international 
registration issues and the United States receives a request for extension of protection, the 
USPTO 's examination of the request might reveal that the wording of the identification of goods 
and services does not have the desired level of specificity for USPTO examiners and third parties to 
understand the nature of the goods and services. Because applicants designating  the United States 
through the Madrid System must have a bona fide intention to use the mark in the United States 
at the timing of filing, the identification of goods or services reflected in the registration must be 
specific enough so that the intention t o use can be appropriately evaluated by the USPTO and by 
third parties. As for classification, the USPTO cannot amend the classification in a Madrid extension 
of protection from that what the IB assigns to the International Registration, nor can the USPTO 
allow the applicant to add a class, as it would for a direct filed application.  
Questions 141 -144 
Section 3.3.6.7. Copyrights (3.266)  
141.  What is the reason for the U.S. not making its Copyright Act compliant with the WTO 
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), effectively limiting 
the scope of protection for sound recordings, despite sound recordings being recognised as 
"works " under US copyright law? This is despite losing a WTO case on the issue and settling the 
same with the EU.  
RESPONSE:  Without commenting on the accuracy of the question 's characterization of a decision 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, the United States continually seeks to improve its system for 
copyright protection and enforcement, including complying wi th decisions of the Dispute 
Settlement Body and providing robust copyright protection and enforcement, including to all 
foreign rightsholders, who thrive in the U.S. market The United States has resolved the vast 
majority of disputes in which the Dispute S ettlement Body has issued recommendations with 
respect to a U.S. measure. As for the remaining few instances where U.S. efforts have not yet 
been successful, the United States has been working actively towards resolving such matters. The 
United States has a strong record of support for both the WTO dispute settlement system and the 
Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.  
142.  Why has the U.S. not joined the Rome Convention of 1961, which recognises the right of 
Performers and Produce rs of Phonograms, and further taken an exception under the World 
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) of 1996, 
actively excluding or limiting the right of remuneration granted under Article 15 of the WPPT.  
RESPONSE: The Rome Convention (1961) afforded protection for so -called neighboring rights 
protecting music performers, broadcasting organizations and phonogram prod ucers. The 
United  States did not join the treaty for several reasons, including concerns that i t afforded lesser 
protections than copyright and issues of subject matter and rights. Key features of the Rome 
Convention were reflected many years later in the WTO TRIPS Agreement and, subsequently, the 
WPPT. With respect to the WPPT, the United States is  among a number of WPPT members who 
have invoked WPPT Article 15(3) and taken a reservation on a permissible matter.   
143.  Compliance with the Berne Convention is a threshold requirement under TRIPS. While 
species of damages claims such as compensatory and/or p unitive damages are available under US 
law for unregistered copyrighted works, Statutory Damages are not available for the infringement 
of unregistered copyrighted works United States. Statutory Damages may only be claimed for 
works registered under US Cop yright law. The Berne Convention does not require copyrighted 
works to be registered so as to enjoy full protection under domestic laws of member countries. 
How then can the U.S. law on Copyrights be said to complaint with TRIPS?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 230 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United State s provides all necessary protection and enforcement of copyrighted 
works, and has one of the world 's most vigorous and thriving copyright industries. Unlike U.S. 
works, foreign works do not have to be registered (or officially refused registration) prior t o the 
rightsholder having the ability to bring an infringement suit. The U.S. statutory damages system is 
consistent with TRIPS and the Berne Convention.  
144.  US Copyright law as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John 
Wiley & Sons which held that the "first sale doctrine " does apply to foreign made works, imperils 
foreign copyright holders who may wish to price their copyrighted products differently (i.e. higher) 
for the US market, since under the Judgement, lower priced works from foreign markets can be 
imported freely into the US. In the light of the above judgement, does the US law have national or 
international exhaustion of IP rights of Copyrights?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Supreme Court 's decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is available at : 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11 -697_4g15.pdf . The full impact of that decision 
is currently being interpreted by the judiciary. Congress has not made a ny changes to copyright 
law as a result of this decision.  
Questions on Government Report (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 145 -146 
Section 4.2.1. TPP  
145.  The U.S. is requested to inform the details of how the interoperability of telecommunications 
networks and services (as envisaged in Article 13.25 of Telecommunications chapter and Article 
14.6 of the E -commerce chapter of TPP) is being implemented in the US. Is U.S. following any 
standards pertaining to interoperability of telecommunications networks and services? If y es, the 
U.S. is further requested to provide the details of these standards.  
RESPONSE: Article 13.25 of the TPP Telecommunications Chapter is entitled "Relation to 
International Organizations " and is a recognition of the importance of international standar ds and 
international organizations relevant to those standards. The United States is active in the work of 
the International Telecommunication Union and of numerous standards organizations with work 
relevant to the interoperability of telecommunications ne tworks and services.  
Article 14.6 of the TPP Electronic Commerce Chapter is entitled "Electronic Authentication and 
Electronic Signatures " and includes a commitment to encourage the use of interoperable electronic  
authentication. The U.S. laws on electroni c signatures and authentication include the federal 
Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce (ESIGN) Act and state laws based on the model 
Uniform Electronic Transaction Act. The United States allows for parties to transactions to mutually 
determi ne an appropriate method of authentication.  
146.  The U.S. is requested to inform the details of how the TPP provision 'Access to and Use of 
Public Telecommunications Services ' (as envisaged in Article 13.4 of Telecommunications chapter) 
is being implemented in the US.  
RESPONSE:  Article 13.4 of the TPP Telecommunications Chapter is entitled "Access to and Use of 
Public Telecommunications Services " and includes a commitment to ensure that enterprises have 
access to and use of public telecommunications services on reasonable and non -discriminatory 
terms and conditions.  
This article is based on Article 5 of the GATS Annex on Telecommunications but includes certain 
improvements and additional commitments. First, whereas the GATS provision on access and use 
provides p rotections for access to and use of public telecommunications services to service 
suppliers of any other Member, the TPP extends the protections on access and use to all 
enterprises (i.e., any entity constituted or organized under applicable law, whether o r not for 
profit, and whether privately or governmentally owned or controlled, including any corporation, 
trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, association or similar organization). Second, 
the TPP text includes additional provisions that  further protect the rights of enterprises to use 
public telecommunication services in the provision of services or in conjunction with investment.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 231 - 
 
  The United States provides this treatment through FCC implementation and enforcement of the 
Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments and through the Telecommunications Act of 
1996.  
Question 147 -149 
Para 2.1 and 4.7 Trade Policy  
147.  How is the professed commitment of the U.S. to preserving and enhancing the WTO's role in 
harmony with the role played by the U.S.  in refusing to agree to reaffirm the Doha mandates at 
the Nairobi Ministerial Conference?  
RESPONSE: It was precisely the U.S. commitment to preserving and enhancing the WTO's role, 
and the credibility of its negotiating functions, that led the United Stat es to conclude that we could 
not, in good conscience, reaffirm a negotiating framework that had so demonstrably failed to 
produce meaningful results. The United States believes the WTO reached a historic turning point at 
MC10, and now has the opportunity t o reestablish the negotiating credibility of the multilateral 
trading system through new approaches on both longstanding issues and issues that are newly 
relevant to the global trading economy.  
148.  Would the U.S. agree that by refusing to reaffirm the Doha man dates, it has significantly 
undermined the predictability and stability of the entire negotiating process? If not, could the U.S. 
provide reasons?  
RESPONSE: See the answer to Question 147.  
149.  Would the U.S. agree that by refusing to reaffirm the Doha mandates  it's actions have 
severely eroded the credibility of the negotiating function of the WTO? If not, could the U.S. 
provide reasons?  
RESPONSE: See the answer to Question 147.  
Question 150  
Section 9 Small and Medium -Sized Business Trade  
150.  Are there specific inc entives and support provided to SMEs to encourage development of 
intellectual property resources? If yes, please provide details.  
RESPONSE: Intellectual property protection is critical to fostering innovation. Without protection 
of ideas, businesses and i ndividuals would not reap the full benefits of their inventions and would 
focus less on research and development. Similarly, artists would not be fully compensated for their 
creations and cultural vitality would suffer as a result. USTR's Office of Intelle ctual Property and 
Innovation (IPN) uses a wide range of bilateral and multilateral trade tools to promote strong 
intellectual property laws and effective enforcement worldwide, reflecting the importance of 
intellectual property and innovation to the futur e growth of the U.S. economy, and consults with a 
wide array of stakeholders including small businesses on these initiatives. Further information on 
these initiatives may be found at : https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/intellectual -property# . 
In particular, U.S. small and medium -sized enterprises may lack the knowledge, expertise or 
resources necessary to develop and protect their IP. In fact, research conducted by the U.S. Patent 
and Trademark O ffice (USPTO) found that only 15 percent of small businesses that conduct 
business overseas know that they need to file for IP protection abroad.  
Therefore, the U.S. Government has developed a number of free tools and resources for small 
businesses to help  them more effectively tackle IP protection and enforcement at home and 
abroad. Free online web module training helps small businesses understand different types of IPR, 
including copyright, patent, and trademark, as well as the legal protections available  for each of 
them; understand the process and benefits of acquiring and protecting IPR; and discover resources 
to help small companies enforce their IPR. Country and industry IPR toolkits are also available 
online, as well as contact information for federa l agencies responsible for protecting and enforcing 
intellectual property rights. These resources may be found at www.stopfakes.gov.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 232 - 
 
  Additionally, trade experts and attorneys from the Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration (ITA) and the  USPTO travel across the country to host one -day seminars on how 
companies and individuals can protect and enforce intellectual property to get the most out of 
exporting abroad. The STOPfakes.gov Road Show answers companies ' questions about 
commercializing  their creations and innovations, includes strategies for protecting and enforcing a 
company 's intellectual property when exporting to foreign markets, and advice for avoiding 
common pitfalls. Participants have the chance to ask export questions related to  patents, trade 
secrets, trademarks, copyrights and domain names. At the conclusion of each Road Show, 
participants take advantage of one -on-one consultations with intellectual property experts to get 
targeted advice. Small and medium -sized businesses in p articular benefit from this unique 
opportunity.  
General Questions  
Question 151  
151.  How does USA propose to impose high duties on Chinese goods, when its average bound 
rate of duties is less than 5%?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective revie ws. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 152  
152.  The US has large number of tariff lines with a specific, complex and mix duties. What is the 
US plan to convert these as Ad Valorem duties?  
RESP ONSE: As indicated in Table 3.2 of the Secretariat 's report, there are 1,146 tariff lines with 
non-ad valorem tariff rates in the HTSUS, which account for 10.9 percent of U.S. tariff lines. As 
noted in the Secretariat Report, these non -ad valorem tariff ra tes comprise specific and compound 
duty rates.  
ADDITIONAL  QUESTIONS FROM INDIA  
Questions on Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Chapter 3 (Trade Policies and Practices by Measure)  
Section 3.1.6(Import prohibitions, restrictions, and special requirements)  
Paragraphs 3.58, pages 51 -52 
Question 1:  
Could the United States kindly elaborate on the new rules which have come into effect from 
September 20, 2016? India would also like to know if the United States has undertaken an impact 
analysis of the new rules on t he traders.  
RESPONSE : NOAA Fisheries published a final rule establishing a Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program on December 9, 2016.  The Rule can be found here:  
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/seafood -import -monitoring -
program . The final rule reflects public comments on the proposed rule and seeks to minimize the 
burden of compliance on industry and foreign trading partners while providing the information 
necessary to ensure that imported seafood is legally harvested and truthfully represented.  Both 
the preliminary and final rules includ e a regulatory impact analysis.  
Question 2:  
Could the United States kindly highli ght the key features of the new rules and the compliance 
requirements of the rule on importers of fish and seafood into the United States?  
RESPONSE : The final seafood traceability rule establishes permitting, data reporting and record -
keeping procedures r elating to the import of certain "priority " fish and fish products, identified as 
being particularly at -risk of IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud, into U.S. commerce. The rule will WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 233 - 
 
  become effective on January 8, 2017, however compliance with reporting and r ecordkeeping 
requirements in the rule for priority species other than shrimp and abalone is delayed until January 
1, 2018. The effective date for wild -caught and aquaculture -raised shrimp and abalone is stayed 
until commensurate requirements have been esta blished for domestic aquaculture -raised shrimp 
and abalone production.  
Section 3.1.9 (Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements)  
Paragraphs 3.117 and 3.118, page 66  
Question 3:  
In the wake of the new rules pertaining to food imports, inspections, testing an d certification, is 
there any mechanism in place to assist the traders from the developing countries to comply with 
the regulations?  
RESPONSE:  USFDA has adopted  an International Communications and Engagement Plan to 
prepare stakeholders for compliance wit h FSMA regulations through education and training. USFDA 
has established a Technical Assistance Network to address questions related to FSMA regulations, 
programs and implementation. USFDA is also collaborating with federal agency partners such as 
USDA 's Foreign Agricultural Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development on FSMA 
Readiness Programs in various regions. Finally, USFDA is working through public -private 
partnerships known as FSMA Alliances to develop core curriculum and training progr ams for 
stakeholders to assist with compliance. The international community is welcome to engage with 
FSMA Alliances as part of International Subcommittees to promote training opportunities and 
develop educational materials.  
Chapter 4 (Trade Policies by Se ctor) – Agriculture  
Section 4.1.2 (The 2014 Farm Act)  
Paragraph 4.6, page 108  
Question 4:  
India would like to know if the United States has noticed any changes in production decisions since 
the new laws have come into effect.  
RESPONSE:  The 2014 Farm Act is designed to enable U.S. producers to respond to market signals 
in their planting and production decisions.  
Paragraph 4.18, page 112  
Question 5:  
India would like to know if there are any plans to reduce crop insurance subsidies by the United 
States.  
RESPONSE: The current provisions of the Federal crop insurance program are governed by the 
current farm bill. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to 
keeping the Membership informed of any changes that may occur in a future  Farm Bill.  
Questions on Government Report (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Paragraph 7.6, page 28  
Question 6:  
Could the United States elaborate on the road map it has in mind to deal with harmful fisheries 
subsidies and the ambit of the potential plurilateral agreement?  
RESPONSE:  As set out in a September 14, 2016 Joint Statement, the United States and a number 
of other WTO Members are seeking to negotiate an ambitious, high standard plurilateral 
agreement, with the goal of eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies, includi ng those subsidies that 
contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, and subsidies linked to illegal, unreported and 
unregulated fishing. Participants will also seek to strengthen the reporting and transparency of 
fisheries subsidies, and enhance cooperatio n to help developing countries to build their capacity to 
implement these types of subsidy disciplines. At the same time, we will continue to work with all WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 234 - 
 
  WTO Members to make progress toward a multilateral outcome in the WTO. We believe this 
plurilateral initiative will provide new momentum on an issue that has long -stalled in the WTO, 
primarily because of linkages to unrelated issues that some WTO Members have made. 
Participants in the FSA are aiming to conclude an agreement by MC11. The Joint Statement i s 
available at:  https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -office/press -
releases/2016/september/obama -administration -undertaking . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 235 - 
 
   
INDONESIA  
Report by the Secretariat  
Question 1  
(Page 1 Para 1 ) 
"The U.S. economy, the single largest in the world, continued to expand during the review period. 
Although GDP growth has been somewhat uneven on a quarterly basis since the last  Trade Policy 
Review, real GDP continued to expand at annual rates of 2.4% and 2.6% in 2014 and 2015, 
respectively, before slowing down to an annual rate of around 1% in the first half of 2016. Growth 
in private consumption has been robust, and the unemplo yment rate has continued to decline from 
10% in  2009 to less than 5% at present. A strengthening labour market and growth in personal 
income, together with falling energy prices, and low inflation, below the Federal Reserve's 
long-term objective of 2%, hav e boosted consumers' purchasing power. Gross capital formation 
was an engine of growth in 2014 and most of 2015, encouraged by low interest rates. However, 
investment contracted during the fourth quarter of 2015 and the first two quarters of 2016, partly 
due to inventory adjustment, declines in equipment and structures investment (both oil and 
non-oil), and the negative impact of lower crude oil prices on investment in the energy sector. 
Despite the robust economic performance, challenges remain, including dealing with a 
deteriorating infrastructure and rising income inequalities ". 
1. Would the U.S. Government kindly share the future U.S. trade and trade -related policies 
direction?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forwar d to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 2  
(Page 9 . Para 9 ) 
"The long -standing commitment of the United States to open trade policies continued in the period 
under review. A number of trade facilitation mea sures have been implemented. In this respect, 
efforts have been focused on the implementation of the single -window International Trade Data 
System (ITDS) by 31 December 2016. In the future, traders will use the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE) to sup ply all information required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) and its 47 Partner Government Agencies for the clearance of imports and exports. Other 
trade facilitation measures include continued work on simplified entry programmes and trusted 
trader programmes ". 
2. Would the U.S. Government provide us with information on the possibility to establish a 
cooperation in the field of capacity building concerning trade facilitation?  
RESPONSE: The United States is primarily delivering technical assistance and capacity building for 
the implementation of the WTO TFA through the new public -private partnership, the Global 
Alliance for Trade Facilitation. More information about the Alliance can be found here:  
http://www.tradefacilitation.org/ . 
Question 3  
(Page 9 Para 10 and 12, Page 44 Table 3.2, Page 119 Para 4.45 Chart 4.3 )  
"Overall, the legal and regulatory framework for tariffs, rules of origin, import licensing, customs 
valuation, and import fees and charge s remained unchanged during the review period. The current 
tariff, implemented in January 2016, has 10,516 tariff lines at the 8 -digit level. Most MFN tariffs 
are ad valorem, but specific and compound duty rates cover approximately 11% of all tariff lines.  
Non-ad valorem tariff rates are concentrated in agriculture, fuels, textiles, and footwear. Most MFN 
rates are identical to their bound levels and have remained virtually unchanged for 10 years or 
more. The simple average tariff amounted to 4.8% overall i n 2016. Nearly 37% of the tariff lines 
face no import duty on an MFN basis, and a further 7.8% of tariff lines are subject to duty rates of WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 236 - 
 
  2% or less. Tariffs above 25% ad valorem are concentrated in agriculture (notably dairy, tobacco, 
and vegetable prod ucts), footwear, and textiles. An estimated 22 tariff lines corresponding to 
agricultural products carry import duty rates above 100%. "  
(Page 9 Para 12 ) "The United States continues to be an active user of anti -dumping (AD) duties. 
During the period 2014 to end -June 2016, the number of AD investigation initiations totaled 85. 
There were 269 AD orders in place as of 30 June 2016. The trading partners most affected by the 
measures were China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the S eparate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei). The investigations 
initiated during the period were mainly concentrated in the steel industry. The average duration of 
an AD measure in place at the end of 2015 was seven years . There were 60 countervailing duty 
(CVD) investigations initiated between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2016. A total of 69 CVD orders 
were in place in late June 2016. " 
3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.4 T ariffs 
3.1.4.2 Applied Rates  
(Page 44 )  
Table Error! No text of specified style in document. .1 Structure of the tariff schedules, 
selected yearsa 
  2007  2009  2012  2014  2016b 
1. Total number of tariff lines  10,253 10,253  10,511  10,514  10,516  
2. Non-ad valorem  tariffs (% of all tariff lines)  10.7 10.7 10.9 10.9 10.9 
3. Non-ad valorem  with no AVEs (% of all tariff lines)  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
4. Lines subject to tariff quotas (% of all tariff lines)  1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 
5. Duty free tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)  36.5 36.3 37.0 36.8 36.8 
6. Dutiable lines tariff average rate (%)  7.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 
7. Simple average tariff (%)  4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 
8. WTO agriculture  8.9 8.9 8.5 9.0 9.1 
9. WTO non -agricul ture (incl. petroleum)  4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 
10. Agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishing (ISIC 1)  5.5 5.7 5.6 6.7 6.5 
11. Mining and quarrying (ISIC 2)  0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 
12. Manufacturing (ISIC 3)  4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 
13. First stage of processing  3.7 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.3 
14. Semi-processed products  4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 
15. Fully processed products  5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3 
16. Domestic tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff lines)c 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 
17. International tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff lines)d 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.1 5.1 
18. Overall standard deviation  11.9 11.8 11.9 13.7 14.0 
19. Nuisance applied rates (% of tariff lines)e 7.1 7.2 7.7 7.8 7.8 
20. Bound tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)f 100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  
4 Trade Policies by Sector  
4.1 Agri culture  
4.1.4 Levels of Support  
(Page 119 Para 4.45 )  
"The U.S. notifications to the Committee on Agriculture classify support according to the definitions 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. The reported assistance primarily falls in the Green Box category 
(Charts 4.2 and 4.3) due to the extensive coverage of domestic food aid programmes, accounting 
for US$109.6 billion of total green box outlays of US$132.5 billion in the 2013 marketing year. " WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 237 - 
 
  Chart Error! No text of specified style in document. .1 Amber Box support in the United 
States, 2001 -13 
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Other
Rice
Maize
Cotton
Livestock and livestock products
Soybeans
Wheat
Sugar
Dairy
Non product-specificChart 4.3
Amber Box support in the United States, 2001 -13
Source:   WTO notifications.(US$ million)
 
Source:  WTO notifications.  
3. As the largest economy in the world, would the U.S. Government please inform us why does 
the U.S. still apply protectionist policies, especial ly for agricultural, textile, and footwear products, 
by imposing high tariff rates, non -ad valorem tariff rates, domestic support and strict trade 
remedies (including anti dumping) policies?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. rejects the premise of the question. It is one  of the most open economies in 
the world, by any legitimate measure. Furthermore, we stand by our policies as consistent with 
WTO rules.  
Question 4  
Page 10 , Para 13  
"Standardization activities in the United States are decentralized and demand driven. Circ ular A-
119 directs federal agencies in the elaboration of technical regulations to rely on voluntary 
consensus standards, rather than developing government -unique standards, unless this approach 
is inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. The U.S. O ffice of Management and Budget 
(OMB) issued a revised Circular A -119 in January 2016, which takes into account regulatory 
developments since 1998, including the increasing accessibility and online availability of 
documentation, and the need to ensure the t imely updating of standards. " 
4. Would the U.S. Government inform us the procedures and requirements for establishing a 
mutual recognition cooperation in standards and conformity assessment?  
RESPONSE: Executive Order 12866 of 30 September 1993 establishes a R egulatory Working 
Group made up of officials from U.S. agencies with significant domestic regulatory responsibility. 
Executive Order 13609 of 1 May 2012 ( "Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation ") tasks 
the Regulatory Working Group with certain acti vities related to international regulatory 
cooperation. These responsibilities include, inter alia, serving as a forum to discuss, coordinate, 
and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities 
with respect to eff orts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross -cutting 
international regulatory cooperation activities. On 26 June 2015, the United States released 
guidelines on the applicability and implementation of the aforementioned Executive Order. The 
guidelines states that "[t]he Working Group will select international regulatory cooperation issues 
for discussion based on suggestions and input provided by affected agencies and the public ."  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 238 - 
 
  Questions 5 -7 
Page 32 , Para 2.30  
"The GSP Subcommittee rev iews and amends the list of goods eligible for GSP treatment annually 
on its own initiative or following petitions. Only interested parties may submit petitions to modify 
the GSP product list. During the period under review, certain cotton, cotton products  and travel 
and luggage goods made in LDCs have been added to the preferential list. The  2015/16  review 
resulted in removal from the list of fluorescent brightening agents and PET resin originating in 
India. " 
5. Please inform us why GSP facility for travel go ods is only granted to LDCs countries?  
RESPONSE: In making any decision with regard to the provision of duty -free treatment for any 
eligible article from any beneficiary country, the President under the GSP statute must have due 
regard for the following fa ctors:  (1) the effects such action would have on furthering the economic 
development of the developing countries through the expansion of their exports; (2) the extent to 
which other developed countries have granted comparable preferences; (3) the anticipa ted impact 
on U.S producers; and (4) the developing country 's export competitiveness with respect to the 
product . Based on a review of these factors in the spring of 2016, the President designated certain 
travel and luggage goods articles as eligible for d uty-free treatment to least -developed beneficiary 
developing countries and African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) beneficiary countries. A 
decision regarding, other, generally, more advanced beneficiary countries was deferred.  
6. Please give us information  on the the initiatives that can be taken by Indonesia to improve 
the benefits from the currently ongoing GSP program?  
RESPONSE: The US GSP Guidebook has a wealth of information on how to benefit from the GSP 
program, and is available here : https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP -Guidebook -September -16-
2016.pdf . In addition, Indonesia should continue to work with the United States to resolve its 
outstanding GSP country  practice petition regarding intellectual property rights.  
7. How is the review process for GSP recipients in 2016/2017, especially for the specific 
products?  
RESPONSE: We are not entirely clear what is being asked here. Information pertaining the GSP 
review process can be found at: https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/preference -programs/generalized -
system -preferences -gsp/current -reviews/gsp -20162017  
Question 8  
Page 33 , Para 2.33  
"India, Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines were the leading exporters to the 
United  States under the GSP programme in 2015. The main GSP items (by import value) were 
motor vehicle parts, ferroalloys, m onumental or building stone, precious metal jewellery, and 
electric motors and generators. " 
8. Please inform us the procedures and requirements to request for additional eligible products 
to be included in the GSP scheme since Indonesia has already implemente d many policies based 
on sustainable development framework.  
RESPONSE: The requirements for filing a petition to add additional eligible production to GSP are 
available here: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR -Regulations -Pertaining -Eligibility -GSP-
Program -15-CFR-Part-2007_0.pdf .  
Question 9  
3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.3 Rules of Origin  
3.1.3.1 Non -preferential  
(Page 42, Para 3.30)  
"U.S. non -preferential rules of origin use the "wholly obtained" or "substantial transformation" 
criteria to determine the origin of an imported product. A wholly obtained product is entire ly WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 239 - 
 
  grown, gathered, produced or manufactured in a particular country. The substantial transformation 
criterion, i.e. change in name, character or use, is applied case -by-case for goods that consist in 
whole or in part of materials from more than one countr y. The United  States notified its 
non-preferential rules of origin to the WTO in 1995 and administrative rulings of the U.S. Customs 
Service in 1996. " 
9. Please inform us the detail implementation of U.S. non -preferential rules of origin? Does the 
U.S. Govern ment apply the said provision to all countries and for all products?  
RESPONSE: A comprehensive explanation of the U.S. non -preferential rules of origin can be found 
at the following link:  https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016 -
Apr/icp026_3.pdf . Legislation and implementing regulations governing non -preferential rules of 
origin may be found at: 19  U.S.C.  § 1304, 19 CFR Part 134, and 19 CFR §1 02.0. The United States 
applies non -preferential marking rules of origin to imports from all countries to all products . 
Questions 10 -11 
3.1.6 Import Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Special Requirements  
3.1.6.1 Prohibitions and Restrictions  
(Page 51 , Para 3 .58) 
"In June 2014, the President established a task force to develop recommendations to enhance 
coordination and implement a comprehensive framework to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 
The task force provided an action plan to implement 15 recommenda tions on 15  March 2015. Two 
of the recommendations address the establishment of a risk -based programme to track domestic 
and imported seafood from point of harvest or production to entry into U.S. commerce. In 
February 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmosp heric Administration (NOAA Fisheries) published a 
proposed rule for public comment, and expected to publish a final rule in September 2016. The 
proposed rule would establish reporting requirements (through ACE) for imports of a set of priority 
species, app licable to U.S. importers. The proposed rule focuses on imports because, for the 
priority species selected for the programme's initial phase, equivalent information for domestic 
products is already being collected through existing programmes. The importer will need to keep 
records regarding the product's chain of custody to point of entry into U.S. commerce and make 
those records available to NOAA Fisheries upon request. The rule does not institute new labelling 
requirements. " 
10. With regard to Seafood Import Monitoring Programme (SIMP) which will be implemented 
this month, please kindly share the progress on the implementation of SIMP? We are hoping that 
the implementation of SIMP will be simple and will not add extra burden especially to the small 
scale fishe ries in Indonesia.  
RESPONSE:  NOAA  Fisheries  published  a final rule establishing  a Seafood  Import  Monitoring  
Program  on December  9, 2016.  The Rule can be found  here:  
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/magnuson -stevens -fishery -
conservation -and-management -act-seafood -import -monitoring -program . The final rule reflects 
public  comments  on the proposed  rule and seeks  to minimize  the burden  of compliance  on industry  
and foreign  trading  partners  while providing  the information  necessary  to ensure  that imported  
seafood  is legally  harvested  and truthfully  represented.   
With respect  to small scale fisheries,  the final rule exempts  an importer  from providing  specific  
information  about  small  vessels  or small scale aquaculture  facilit ies if the importer  provides  other  
required  data elements  based  on an aggregated  harvest  report . Aggregated  harvest  report  is 
defined  as a record  that covers:  (1) harvests  at a single  collection  point in a single  calendar  day 
from small -scale vessels  (i.e., twelve  meters  in length  or less or 20 gross  tons or less);  (2) landing  
by a vessel  to which  catches  of small -scale vessels  were delivered  at sea. 
The final rule will become effective on January 8, 2017, however compliance with reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in the rule for priority species other than shrimp and abalone is 
delayed until J anuary 1, 2018. The effective date for wild -caught and aquaculture -raised shrimp 
and abalone is stayed until commensurate requirements have been established for domestic 
aquaculture -raised shrimp and abalone production. At such time, NOAA Fisheries will an nounce a 
compliance date for shrimp and abalone, allowing for a reasonable period of time for 
implementation.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 240 - 
 
  11. Indonesia is in line with the U.S. with regard to combating IUU Fishing. Indonesia now takes 
stern action in combatting IUU Fishing. We have alrea dy ratified several international instruments 
on strengthening cooperation in this area. Indonesia has also implemented the export standard 
based on certification from European Union and Regional Fisheries Management Organization 
(RFMOs). Therefore, Indone sia would like to suggest for the importing countries to have a 
harmonized standard on imported seafood products.  
RESPONSE: The United States  recognizes Indonesia 's efforts and shares the objective of 
continuing to make progress to combat IUU fishing, incl uding through work in RFMOs and other 
fora. 
Question 12  
3.1.9 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Requirements  
3.1.9.3 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  
(Page 67 , Para 3.125 )  
"The FSIS maintains a list of those countries determined equivalent, which also identifies those 
establishments in each country certified and eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products to 
the United States. Currently, there are some 32 countries determined equivalent and actively 
exporting meat (beef and pork), poultry, and pro cessed egg products to the United States. 
The 2008 Farm Act amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to transfer food safety 
inspection authority for Siluriformes fish and fish products from the FDA to the FSIS. The final rule 
for this change in regu latory authority was published on 5 December 2015 and became effective 
on 1 March 2016. " 
12. Would the U.S. Government inform us the procedures and requirements to determine 
equivalent of meat and poultry products with the United States?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Dep artment of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS) engages in a rigorous equivalence determination process for each country seeking to import 
meat, poultry and processed egg products into the United States. Details and guidance about the 
FSIS equivalence process, are publicly available on the FSIS website at : 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international -affairs/importing -
products/equivalence . Additionally, a list of those countries and products determined equivalent 
and eligible for purposes of  import ing meat, poultry and/or processed egg products into the United 
States is publicly accessible on the FSI S website at:  
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international -affairs/importing -produ cts/eligible -
countries -products -foreign -establishments . 
FSIS also publishes copies of its equivalence determinations on the FSIS website and notifies the 
WTO SPS Committee when new determinations of initial equivalence are made.  
Questions 13 -15 
3.1.9.4 An imal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS)  
(Page 68 , Para 3.128 )  
"The Lacey Act, which combats trafficking in wildlife, fish and plants, was expanded to a broader 
range of plants and plant products in 2008. Lacey Act declarations (PPQ Form 505), wh ich are 
mandatory for certain plants and plant products, have been required to be filed in the Automated 
Commercial Environment (ACE) since 31  March  2016. However, as of June 2016 many importers 
did not appear ready for the full range of data to be submitt ed to APHIS through the new "single 
window" approach before the end of the year. " 
Under the 2008 Amendments, the Lacey Act now prohibits, among other things, the importation or 
sale of wood that was logged in violation of the law of other countries. The pe nalty depends on 
mental state: a defendant is guilty of a felony only if she knew the wood was illegal; she is guilty 
of a misdemeanor if, in the exercise of due care, she should have known that wood she imported 
was illegal. A person who innocently trades  in illegal wood faces no liability under the Act, although 
the wood still is considered illegal and may be subject to forfeiture.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 241 - 
 
  The Lacey Act is a powerful tool in the ongoing fight against the illegal wood trade. The Act helps 
(1) dismantle criminal op erations and deter illegal activities; (2) protect U.S. interests, including 
legitimate businesses and U.S. consumers; and (3) protect victims of environmental crimes.  
13. Please inform us the current implementation of ACE policies as well as detail informatio n on 
what should be done in order to comply with the said regulation?  
RESPONSE: The Lacey Act is an important tool in U.S. efforts to combat illegal logging and wildlife 
trafficking. Among other things, the Act prohibits imports or trade within the United States of flora 
and fauna that were harvested or traded illegally under the law of the country of harvest. 
Importers of timber products are required to file an import declaration identifying the species and 
country of harvest of the imported product, as we ll as the value and quantity of the plant or plant 
product being imported. These declarations are required to be filed electronically through the 
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)  system. General information regarding the Lacey Act 
and the import decl aration is available on the website of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 's 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ou rfocus/planthealth/import -information/SA_Lacey_Act . 
14. Indonesia has already implemented Timber Legality Verification System, which also has been 
acknowledged by other countries. Would the U.S. Government inform us the procedures and 
requirements for establi shing a voluntary partnership cooperation in the field of timber legality 
mutual recognition?  
RESPONSE:  The United States acknowledges and applauds the efforts that Indonesia has made in 
developing its timber legality verification system. The United State s has provided substantial 
technical assistance in the past in support of Indonesia 's efforts in this regard. As noted in 
response to Question 13, the Lacey Act prohibits imports of flora and fauna that were harvested or 
traded illegally under the law of t he country of harvest. The Lacey Act requires importers to 
exercise due care in ensuring that their imports were not illegally harvested or traded. The statute 
does not provide the legal authority to enter into mutual recognition agreements regarding timbe r 
legality.  
15. Would the U.S. Government be interested in conducting a voluntary mutual recognition 
cooperation with Indonesia?  
RESPONSE: See response to Question 14.  
Question 16  
Page 169 Table A3. 4 Selected sub -federal subsidy schemes for "greener" energy  
 
16. Indonesia appreciates the tax credit policy implemented by the U.S. Government. The said 
policies show that the U.S. Government pays high attention and consideration on the sustainability 
of renewable energy in the world. Indonesia hopes that these pol icies would be maintained and 
developed in the short, medium, and long -run. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 242 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States takes note of these comments.  
Other Questions  
Question 17  
Participation of the United States in Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP)  
17. Would the United Stat es ratify the Agreement within TPP framework or would it consider a 
renegotiation in TPP and in other international framework? Please share the outline of U.S. foreign 
trade policies that will be pursued during the new Administration.  
RESPONSE: With respec t to the incoming Administration that will take office in January 2017, we 
remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the Membership 
informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into place.  
Questions 18 -20  
The Plan to Remove Carrageenan from the National List of Permitted Non -organic Materials  
18. With regard to the recommendation of National Organic Standard Board (NOSB) to remove 
carrageenan from the list of ingredients allowed in organic food, could the U.S. please share  how 
will the U.S. Department of Agriculture follow up of this recommendation? Is it a final 
recommendation from NOSB?  
RESPONSE: While the NOSB has completed its deliberations on carrageenan, the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture 's National Organic Program (N OP) is waiting for written NOSB recommendations on 
the material.  Once received, the NOP will assess the recommendations and determine how to 
proceed. Please note that until such time as a decision is made on the status of carrageenan  on 
the National List, section 205.605(a), it is permitted for use in processed organic products.  
19. Please kindly share the detail of the result of the study on carrageenan which is used as the 
base for reviewing the position of carrageenan in the said list?  
RESPONSE: The basis fo r the NOSB 's recommendation to remove carrageenan from the National 
List was specifically on the essentiality and the availability of alternative ingredients. The final 
recommendation  from the NOSB will be available on the USDA website at the end of Decemb er 
2016.  
20. While there are still dissenting opinions and scientific analysis on carrageenan, we hope that 
USDA will come up with a policy that based on thorough and scientific risk assessment.  
RESPONSE: The United States takes note of these comments.  In deve loping the organic 
standards, the NOP considers various factors. These include , but are not limited to,  scientific and 
economic information, recommendations from the NOSB, public comments, and other existing 
regulations.  
Questions 21 -23 
United States of Am erica/State of Pennsylvania: Relaxation of Buy America Rules for Certain 
Products Made From Steel8 
On October 24, 2012 the Pennsylvania state legislature enacted a bill (H.B. 1840) that relaxed the 
state's existing Buy American provisions with respect to c ertain steel products. The amendments, 
which took effect sixty days after enactment, provided for a new exception to the Steel Products 
Procurement Act (73 P.S. §§ 1881 et. Seq) that was originally enacted in 1978. That law requires 
every public agency to include in its contracts for construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, 
improvement or maintenance of public works a provision that, if any steel products are to be used 
or supplied in the performance of the contract, only products made from U.S. st eel may be 
procured. The term "public agency " is broadly defined and includes, for example, Commonwealth 
agencies, counties, cities, municipalities, school districts, authorities and other public bodies.  
                                                
8 The information i s obtained from : http://www.globaltradealert.org/measure/united -states -
americastate -pennsylvania -relaxation -buy-america -rules-certain -products -made -s. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 243 - 
 
  The 2012 amendments provide for the creation by the Pennsylvania Department of General 
Services an official list of steel products that are not produced in the United States in sufficient 
quantities.  
The second exception states that the requirement to use steel products made from U.S. steel does 
not apply ( emphasis added): As required by the amendments, the Department issued a Statement 
of Policy in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 9, 2013, setting forth the processes by which the 
Department will establish the list each year and for resolving disputes r aised during the public 
comment period.  
21. Please give us detail explanation on the relaxation of the rules?  
RESPONSE: The federal government does not regulate or track changes to State procurement 
systems. Beyond the information provided by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, the federal 
government has no information regarding this State legislation. See:  
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo /billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN
=1840 . 
22. What are the programs that have been implemented by the U.S. in the context of the 
relaxation policy?  
RESPONSE: The federal government has no information as to how the State of Pennsylvania 
implemente d these changes. However, that the State of Pennsylvania has provided information 
about the processes by which the Pennsylvania Department of General Services will establish the 
list of exempt machinery and equipment steel products  each year. See:  
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol43/43 -6/234.html . 
23. Related to the Government Procurement rules in the U.S., please provide us with the detail 
regulation/policy that contain the list of products which are required to be made in the U.S.?  
RESPONSE: For federal procurement, the Buy American Act applies to all goods. However, those 
restrictions are waived for goods covered under the GPA. Please see the U.S. GPA schedule for 
information ab out goods restrictions not waived for GPA parties. The federal government does not 
regulate or track State procurement systems.  
Questions 24 -27 
Trade Barriers for Tobacco Products  
To protect the public and create a healthier future for all Americans, the F amily Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), signed into law on June  22, 2009, gives 
FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. The 
Tobacco Control Act:  
a. Restricts Tobacco Marketing  and Sales to Youth  
b. Requires Smokeless Tobacco Product Warning Labels  
c. Ensures "Modified Risk " Claims are Supported by Scientific Evidence  
d. Requires Disclosure of Ingredients in Tobacco Products  
e. Preserves State, Local, and Tribal  Authority9 
The Act also contains prohibition for clove cigarette. The provision is considered to violate WTO 
regulations because it discriminates certain cigarette prod uct from other type of cigarettes, such 
as menthol, strawberry, orange flavor, et cetera. Tobacco products which are circulated after 2007 
are considered as new products. The products must be registered and fulfill certain requirements.  
24. Has The U.S. Govern ment already made an evaluation on the Tobacco Control Act related to 
its effectiveness in reducing the number of smoker in the U.S.?  
                                                
9 The information is obtained from : 
http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformati on/ucm246129.htm . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 244 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The United States continues to implement the Family Smoking Prevention and 
Tobacco Control Act  (Tobacco Control Act) and to evaluate its effectiveness over time in achieving 
its critical public health goals, taking into consideration a number of different measures within the 
context of various factors.  
25. Why is there a distinction between brand tobacco products which are released in 2007 or 
earlier with the brand of tobacco products which are released after 2007?  
RESPONSE:  A "new tobacco product " is defined in section 910(a)(1) of the Food Drug & Cosmetic 
Act (FD&C Act) as:  
(A) any tobacco product (including those pro ducts in test markets) that was not commercially 
marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007; or  
(B) any modification (including a change in design, any component, any part, or any constituent, 
including a smoke constituent, or in the content, d elivery or form of nicotine, or any other additive 
or ingredient) of a tobacco product where the modified product was commercially marketed in the 
United States after February 15, 2007.  
In general, under FD&C Act section 910, a tobacco product manufacture r must submit a premarket 
application and obtain an order from FDA before the manufacturer may introduce a new tobacco 
product into interstate commerce. An order under section 910 is not required, however:  
 if a manufacturer submits a substantial equivalen ce report under section 905(j) of the FD&C 
Act (a 905(j) report) and obtains an order under section 910(a)(2)(A)(i); or  
 if FDA has granted a substantial equivalence exemption request submitted under 21 CFR 
1107.1 and the manufacturer submits the required report under section 905(j).  
FDA refers to tobacco products that were commercially marketed (other than exclusively in test 
markets) in the United States as of February 15, 2007 as "grandfathered " tobacco products. 
Grandfathered tobacco products are not considered new tobacco products and thus are not 
subject to the premarket requirements of the FD&C Act . Please reference the following website for 
additional information: 
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM416498.
pdf. 
26. Please give us explanation on the marketing authorization selection process and mechanism 
of tobacco products which are released after 2007 . 
RESPONSE:  Manufacturers of new tobacco products can submit an application for premarket 
review through one of three available pathways : (1) Premarket Tobacco Application (PMTA) ; 
(2) Substantial Equivalence ; or (3) Exemption from S ubstantial Equivalence . A detailed 
explanation of each pathway is available at:  
http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/TobaccoProductReviewEvaluation/default.htm . 
27. Is there any study/review on the effectiveness of the Family Smoking Prevention and 
Tobacco Control Act ? If any, please inform us the result of the study.  
RESPONSE: The United States continues to conduct studies with regard to tobacco control 
programs initiated aft er the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act; for example, the Report to 
Congress on the Progress and Effectiveness of the Implementation of the Family Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was submitted to Congress in May 2013 and provides an 
evaluati on of FDA 's initial efforts in implementing the Tobacco Control Act after its signature into 
law on June 22, 2009. Please reference this report at the following website:  
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM371271.
pdf. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 245 - 
 
  Question 28  
Trade Barrier for Cocoa Beans  
Indonesia 's exports of cocoa beans to the United States continued to decline due to the 
implemen tation of automatic detention policies, especially because the U.S. authority found mold, 
dirt, insects and other foreign objects in the said products. The insects would appear after a long 
trip from Indonesia to U.S. The charges imposed are ranging from U S$ 90 to US$ 150 per metric 
ton.  
28. Please give us detail explanation regarding the automatic detention policy and the possibility 
to have a cooperation in this area?  
RESPONSE: Importers of food products intended for introduction into U.S. interstate commerc e 
are responsible for ensuring that the products are safe, sanitary, and labeled according to U.S. 
requirements. Both imported and domestically -produced foods must meet the same legal 
requirements in the United States.  
Under section 801(a) of the FD&C Act,  FDA may detain without physical examination (DWPE) 
products that appear to be in violation of FDA laws and regulations.   
These violations could be related to the product, manufacturer, shipper and/or other information 
indicating the product may be in viol ation of FDA laws.  A DWPE is an action directed against 
specific products manufactured or shipped by specific foreign firms . 
Import Alerts list products which may be detained without physical examination.  They place the 
responsibility back on the importer to ensure that the products being imported into the U.S. are in 
compliance with our laws and regulations.  Import Alerts are available on the internet at : 
http://www.fda. gov/ForIndustry/ImportProgram/ImportAlerts/default.htm.   
Information on FDA 's procedures for removing a product and/or foreign manufacturer from DWPE 
status, or from Import Alert is available at : 
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ImportProgram/ActionsEnforcement/ImportAlerts/ucm493806.ht
m. FDA remains open to working directly with Indonesia on this issue.  
Questions 29 -30  
Trade Barriers on Fishery Produ cts 
Dolphin -safe labels are used to denote compliance with laws or policies designed to minimize 
dolphin fatalities during fishing for tuna destined for canning. All fishery products that enter the 
United States must be labeled Dolphin -safe. 
29. What is the ro le of U.S. Government in Dolphin -Safe labeling regulation?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. law sets the minimum requirements for when tuna product marketed in the 
United States can be labeled as "dolphin safe." These legal requirements are set out in statute and 
in the  implementing regulations of NOAA. See Dolphin Protecti on Consumer Information Act, 
16 U.S.C. § 1385 (2011); Dolphin Safe Labeling Regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 216, Subpart H 
(sec. § 216.90 -95). The regulations can be found at this link:  http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -bin/text -
idx?SID=5106273ecf2fb003bde50490d9cab404&mc=true&node=sp50.10.216.h&rgn=div6 .  
30. What are the procedures and requirements  to obtain Dolphin -safe labeling?  
RESPONSE: The labeling conditions for the dolphin -safe label are provided for in NOAA 
regulations. See link  in response to question 29 . Many Indonesian companies are significant 
exporters of "dolphin safe" canned tuna to t he United States. These companies are clearly aware 
of, and comply with, U.S. regulations in this regard.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 246 - 
 
  Question 31  
Unnecessary Barrier to Trade Concerning Food Labelling  
Food labeling revision of the nutrition and supplement facts label will be applied  in 2018 in the US. 
The regulation applies where the trade exceeded 10 million US Dollars.  
31. Please inform us the objectives of the new food labeling regulations? What will be changed 
on food labelling? Is it related to standard and nutrition information?  
RESPONSE: FDA has updated the 20 -year old U.S. Nutrition Facts label to reflect new scientific 
information, including the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart 
disease. The modernized label serves public health objectives by makin g it easier for consumers to 
make better informed food choices. Changes to the Nutrition Facts label include updated serving 
sizes, more prominent information on calories, a requirement to declare added sugars, and 
updated lists of required nutrients and t heir daily values. For more details on the updated to the 
Nutrition Facts label, see:  
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulatio n/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Labeling
Nutrition/ucm385663.htm . 
Question 32  
The Elimination of the Provision That Exempted Low -value Imports of Cotton from an Assessment  
In a final rule published in the Federal Register (Volume 81, Number 115) on June 15, 2016 and 
effective July 15, 2016, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture eliminated a provision that exempted certain low -value imports of cotton from an 
assessment. The existing Cotton Board rules and re gulations had provided a de minimis provision 
with respect to the Cotton Research and Promotion (R&P) program, which assesses U.S. cotton 
producers and importers of cotton and cotton -containing products. Importers are exempt from 
paying the cotton import a ssessment (known commonly among importers as the "cotton fee ") if a 
line item on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) documentation is $2.00 or less. The 
exemption was initially established to lessen the administrative burden of collecting an import 
assessment, which was originally estimated to be $2.00 per line item, in instances in which the 
transactions costs of the collection would exceed the actual value of the assessment. According to 
AMS, technological advances in the CBP documentation process si gnificantly reduced the 
transactions costs associated with collecting import assessments, and CBP has since stopped 
charging for the processing and collecting of assessments. Given that transactions costs no longer 
exceed assessment rates of $2.00 or less,  AMS is removing this de minimis provision from the 
regulations. The removal of this exception may result in an increase in the administrative costs 
associated with certain imports.  
32. What is the detail reason for eliminating the provision that exempted some  low-value 
imports products from import assessment?  
RESPONSE: As outlined in the Federal Register notice, the provision was eliminated to reflect the 
technological efficiencies of the CBP import documentation process and helps to ensure that the 
assessment s collected on imported cotton and cotton content of imported products will be the 
same as those paid on domestically produced cotton.  
The de minimis  figure is an estimate of administrative burden, which is equivalent to the 
transaction costs of collectin g the cotton fee. Given that CBP no longer charges USDA for the 
collection of assessments on agricultural commodities, the administrative burden associated with 
the collection of assessments has been eliminated.  
Question 33  
The Discretion on the Investig ation of Anti Dumping and Countervailing Duty  
The U.S. Government published the amendment of Trade Preferences Extension Act of June 2015 
and Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of February 2016, The Act provide wide 
discretionary for U.S. authori ties (Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission, dan 
Customs and Broder Protection) to investigate anti dumping and countervailing duty (CVD).  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 247 - 
 
  The discretionary could refuse domestic price (normal value) based on the argument of "particular 
market situation " in the accused countries, and also the mandatory requirements to submit data 
production costs for exporters / producers in the process of anti dumping /CVD investigations.  
33. How does the mechanism and policy implications of the Trade Preferen ces Extension Act and 
the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act amendments?  
RESPONSE: The details of the specific amendments can be found in the US notifications identified 
in the Secretariat's Report.  
Questions 34 -36 
Seafood Import Monitoring Progr amme (SIMP)  
34. How does the U.S. ensure trading partner that the implementation of SIMP will be equally 
applied to domestic products and there will be no gap with state 's level regulation?  
RESPONSE: While the final rule is focused on imports, it is part of a  larger traceability program 
that includes domestic fish and fisheries products. For the priority species to which this rule 
applies, equivalent information is already being collected at the point of entry into commerce for 
the products of U.S. domestic fi sheries pursuant to various federal and/or state fishery 
recordkeeping and reporting programs. However, the effective date of this rule for all imported 
shrimp and abalone products – wild capture and aquaculture -raised - will be stayed until 
commensurate r eporting and/or recordkeeping requirements have been established for domestic 
aquaculture -raised shrimp and abalone production. At such time, NMFS will announce a 
compliance date for shrimp and abalone.  
35. With respect to Seafood Fraud, most of seafood fraud takes place within the US ' territory, and 
not from country of origin. Hence, Oceana finding suggests that since 2001, 77% of seafood fraud 
cases occured in the U.S. (wholesaler, retailer, and/or food service). In that regard, how does 
enforcing traceacilit y may address misleading information takes place in the U.S.? If there is any 
case of seafood fraud originated from country of origin, including Indonesia, the Government of 
Indonesia urges the U.S. to communicate the matter and address them through bilate ral 
approach.  
RESPONSE: The rule addresses seafood fraud by requiring the reporting and recordkeeping of 
catch and chain of custody information so that there is a verifiable chain of documents that proves 
that seafood entering the U.S. market is not misrep resented.  
36. Indonesia urges the U.S. to elaborate cooperation and capacity building it may offer to trading 
partner, particularly developing and least -developed countries, in order to address IUUF 
challenges. Most importantly, with regard to traceability and  data collection.  
RESPONSE: Subject to the availability of resources, NOAA and the broader U.S. Government 
intend to provide assistance to exporting nations and domestic importers to support compliance 
with the requirements of the rule, including providing  assistance to build capacity to: 
(1) undertake effective fisheries management; 2) strengthen fisheries governance structures and 
enforcement bodies to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud; and (3) establish, maintain, or 
support systems to enable export s hipments of fish and fish products to be traced back to point of 
harvest. U.S. Government priorities for capacity building are identified in a  Strategic Action Plan 
for Building International Capacity to Strengthen Fisheries Management and Combat IUU Fishi ng 
(See: http://bit.ly/NOCCIUUcapacity ). 
Question 37  
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)  
37. On June 2016, the U.S. announced its policy to limit the eligible beneficiary countries for 
certain travel and luggag e bag articles only for Least -Developed beneficiary developing countries 
and African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) beneficiary countries, and deferred other 
developing countries. Would the U.S. explain the rationale behind the policy?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 248 - 
 
  RESPONSE: In maki ng any decision with regard to the provision of duty -free treatment for any 
eligible article from any beneficiary country, the President under the GSP statute must have due 
regard for the following factors:  1) the effects such action would have on furtheri ng the economic 
development of the developing countries through the expansion of their exports; 2) the extent to 
which other developed countries have granted comparable preferences; 3) the anticipated impact 
on U.S producers; and 4) the developing country 's export competitiveness with respect to the 
product . Based on a review of these factors in the spring of 2016, the President designated certain 
travel and luggage goods articles as eligible for duty -free treatment to least -developed beneficiary 
developing  countries and African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) beneficiary countries. A 
decision regarding, other, generally, more advanced beneficiary countries was deferred.  
Questions 38 -39  
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)  
38. Indonesia requests the U.S. to h ave a capacity building cooperation concerning the 
implementation of FSMA.  
RESPONSE: The United States appreciates Indonesia 's interest in continued cooperation 
concerning the implementation of FSMA. The United States suggests that Indonesia 's food safety 
competent authority contact FDA directly to discuss potential capacity building efforts.  
39. In 2015, Indonesia inquired its request to be recognized officially as "third-party auditor " 
and potential cooperation for equivalent food safety system through bilate ral means. Indonesia in 
this regard urges the U.S. to inform the potential way to move forward.  
RESPONSE: The United States appreciates Indonesia 's interest in continued cooperation to ensure 
the safety of foods traded between our two countries. FDA and In donesia 's food safety competent 
authority can also discuss the purpose and requirements of FSMA 's Accredited Third -Party 
Certification rule and other opportunities for cooperative efforts.  
Question 40  
Special 301 Report  
40. Indonesia notes that the U.S. Gover nment re -lists Indonesia as Priority Watch Lists (PWL) in 
Special 301 report released on April 2016. Taking into account that major steps being undertaken 
by Indonesia domestically to improve Intellectual Property regime, Indonesia urges the U.S. to 
de-list Indonesia from PWL in order to stimulate reassurance to domestic stakeholders that the 
effort is fruitful.  
RESPONSE: Indonesia has been on the Priority Watch List since 2009, for the reasons clearly 
identified in annual Special 301 Reports. The United St ates and Indonesia have engaged in an 
effort to negotiate a mutually agreed work plan to address the concerns identified in the report. 
The United States encourages Indonesia to continue its engagement in those discussions.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 249 - 
 
   
JAPAN  
Report by the Secretaria t (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
1.1 Recent Economic Developments  
1.1.2 Structural reforms  
(Page 17, Paragraph 1.14)  
1. According to the report by the Secretariat, U.S federal debt is growing in absolute value 
while slightly declining in percent of GDP. What i s the outlook for the federal debt hereafter?  
RESPONSE: According to Table S -11 of the "Mid -Session Review, Budget of the U.S. Government, 
Fiscal Year 2017, issued July 15, 2016" , U.S. federal debt is estima ted to increase for the next 
11 years in absolute  value (from $13.1 trillion in 2015 to $20.3 trillion in 2026). However, as a 
percent of GDP, the federal debt is estimated to initially increase to 77.1% in 2017, before 
declining for the next 9 years to 73.0% in 2026 (lower than the actual level of 73.6%  in 2015).  
U.S. federal debt, net of financial assets, is estimated to increase for the next 11 years in absolute 
value (from $11.9 trillion in 2015 to $17.7 trillion in 2026). As a percent of GDP, the federal debt, 
net of financial assets, is estimated to  initially increase to 68.0% in 2016, before declining for the  
next 10 years to 63.8% in 2026 
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017 /assets/17msr.pdf ). 
Questions 2 -17 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
(Page 37, Para. 313; Page 48, Table 3.4)  
2. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.12) According to the report by the Secretariat, requests for advance 
rulings on classification can be submitted by letter or online. Is it true that the responses are 
published in written form and issued advence rulings legally bind on both the authorities and 
applicants?  
RESPONSE: Yes, responses to advance ruling requests are p ublished in written form and are 
binding on both CBP and the applicant. Please see the following link for more information: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys /pkg/CFR -2011-title19 -vol2/pdf/CFR -2011-title19 -vol2-sec177 -10.pdf . 
3. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) As for advance rulings on classification, do the authorities identify 
whether the goods at declaration the same as the goods of issued advance rulings by accepti ng 
and affirming the issued advance rulings attached to the declarations? If not, how do the 
authorities identify whether the goods at declaration the same as the goods which has requested 
for advance rulings?  
RESPONSE: A person who has received an advance  ruling shall make that known in connection 
with transactions to which the ruling applies. The issue of the conformity of the transaction to the 
facts in the ruling is subject to verification by CBP, applying risk management principles.   
4. (Page 37, Paragrap h 3.13) If someone declared the classification which is not based on the 
issued advance ruling, how would the declaration be dealt with?  
RESPONSE: The failure to do so may result in rejection of the entry or the application of 
penalties. However, the cours e of action taken depends on the facts and circumstances presented.  
5. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) If there are inquiries on classification orally by telephone or 
e-mail, how would they be dealt with?  
RESPONSE: Oral advice is for informational purposes only and  is not binding.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 250 - 
 
  6. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13)  Is all the issued advance rulings on classification posted on 
CROSS and publicized?  
RESPONSE: All advance rulings are posted on the Customs Rulings Online Search System at : 
https://rulings.cbp.gov/ .  
7. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) According to the report, there are several types of advance 
rulings concerning classification, rules of origin, valuation, and carriers. What are advance rulings 
on "carriers "? Does all the advance ruli ngs bind on both authorities and applicants?  
RESPONSE: Advance rulings on "Carriers " refer to rulings that apply the vessel and navigation 
laws of the United States. Such rulings also cover those laws pertaining to entry, clearance and 
cabotage with respec t to vessel, aircraft, truck and rail conveyances. As noted, advance rulings are 
binding on both CBP and the applicant. Please see the following links for additional information:  
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR -2011-title19 -vol2/pdf/CFR -2011-title19 -vol2-sec177 -2.pdf; 
and https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/do cuments/cbp_rulings_prog_3.pdf . 
8. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) Are the advance rulings issued by NCSD? If so, the infrastructure 
related to tariff classification work in the US would be different from WCO 's recommendation on 
tariff classification infrastructur e (25 June 1998). Please describe the infrastructure related to tariff 
classification in the US. Also, please describe the workflow of classification decision from the 
receipt of a request for advance ruling to the response to the request.  
RESPONSE: Most a dvance rulings on tariff classification are issued by the NCSD, a group of CBP 
employees who specialize in and have expertise on the tariff classification of a specific group of 
commodities, among other things.  
In general, classification ruling requests c onsidered by the NCSD are those that may be issued 
within 30 days of receipt of all necessary information. Matters that require more time due to the 
number or complexity of the issues or requests for confidential treatment are dealt with by CBP 
Headquarter s. 
9. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) If the infrastructure related to tariff classification in the US is 
different from WCO 's recommendation, please describe its advantages and disadvantages.  
RESPONSE:  The infrastructure described above is consistent with the appr oach provided in the 
WCO recommendation.  
10. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) Please give the breakdown of 3,993 advance rulings. How many 
advance rulings on classification are there?  
RESPONSE: The number of advance rulings on classification was 3,419.  
11. (Page 37, Par agraph 3.13) What is the difference between the inquiries to NCSD and R&R 
headquarters?  
RESPONSE: In general, classification ruling requests considered by the NCSD are those which 
may be issued within 30 days of receipt of all necessary information. Matter s that require more 
time due to the number or complexity of the issues or requests for confidential treatment are dealt 
with by headquarters.  
12. (Page 37, Paragraph 3.13) If applicants have dissatisfaction with the advance rulings issued 
by NCSD, how would it  be dealt with? Also, what about R&R headquarters?  
RESPONSE: An applicant may request reconsideration of a ruling with which the applicant 
disagrees. If the ruling was issued by the NCSD, the reconsideration would be issued by 
headquarters (HQ). If the rul ing was issued by HQ, it would be considered by HQ at a higher level.  
13. (Page 48, Table 3.4) In our understanding, each Import Assessment shown in the report by 
the Secretariat is a part of so -called check -off programs, and the number of the existing check -off WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 251 - 
 
  programs is now 22. However, the programs with the Import Assessment in the list are 15. Please 
explain why the other 7 programs do not have import assessment?  
RESPONSE: There are 22 Research and Promotion (R&P) programs; 16 assess imports and 6 do 
not assess imports.  Only R&P programs containing statutory authority to assess imports are 
permitted to assess importers.   
R&P programs that assess imports include: Cotton, Dairy, Christmas Trees, Beef, Blueberries, 
Avocados, Honey, Mango, Mushroom, Pork, Pota toes, Raspberries, Softwood Lumber, Paper and 
Packaging, Watermelon, and Sorghum.   
R&P programs that do not assess imports include: Fluid Milk, Eggs, Lamb, Peanuts, Popcorn, and 
Soybean.  
14. (Page 48, Table 3.4) As for the Import Assessment, has the USDA ever received complaints 
from importers?  
RESPONSE: No. 
15. (Page 48, Table 3.4) As for the Import Assessment, has the USDA imposed any restrictions 
on uses of revenues from import assessments, especially in terms of promotion of domestic 
agricultural commodities?  
RESPONSE: Revenues from R&P programs that assess importers are used for promotion activities 
in the U.S. market, which are restricted, because the promotion may not assert that domestic or 
imported products are better than the other. Assessments from import ers also may not be used to 
promote U.S. origin product in the U.S. market; although promotions may be conducted 
generically without attribution to origin.   
16. (Page 48, Table 3.4) As for the Import Assessment, the base laws requires/required 
referendum at th e time of introduction of check -off program. What were the actual results of each 
initial referendum of existing check -off programs?  
RESPONSE:   
Commodity Board  Approved/Disapproved  
Beef Majority Vote – 78.9% Favored  
Blueberries  Majority of Volume – 67.8%  favored representing 73.2% of the volume voting  
Cotton  Two Third vote or majority representing 2/3 volume – 68.04% favored  
Dairy  Majority Vote – 89.7% favored  
Christmas Trees  Requires approval by majority of eligible persons voting.  
Eggs 2/3 majority vote or majority representing 2/3 volume – 73% favored representing 
85.7% volume  
Fluid Milk  Majority Vote and 60% volume – 71.7% favored (76.7% volume)  
Hass Avocados  Simple majority of those voting – 86.6% approved  
Honey Packers and 
Importers  Majority o f those voting – Initial voting percentage unavailable. Continuance 
referendum required every 7 years – Passed 79% representing 94% of volume.  
Lamb  Majority of eligible persons voting representing a majority of volume – 85% favored 
representing 93% volume  
Mangos  Majority vote representing majority of those voting – 77.4% favored  
Mushrooms  Majority vote representing more than 50% volume – 80% favored representing 
70% volume  
Peanuts  Majority vote – 66.6% favored  
Popcorn  Majority vote representing more th an 50% of popcorn processed – 92% favored  
Pork Majority vote – 77.5% favored  
Potatoes  Approval by not less than 2/3 of those voting or a majority vote representing 2/3 of 
the volume – 69% favored representing 70% volume  
Raspberries  Majority vote – 88% a pproved  
Softwood Lumber  Majority of those voting and representing a majority of the volume – 67% favored 
representing 80% volume  
Soybeans  Majority vote 53.8% favored  
Sorghum  Majority vote - 76.2% favored  
Paper and Paper -based 
packaging  Majority vote r epresenting majority of volume – 85% favored representing 95% 
volume  
Watermelons  2/3 vote or 2/3 volume – 52.3% favored representing 73.5% volume  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 252 - 
 
  All referendum results are published in the Federal Register.  
17. (Page 48, Table 3.4) As for the Import Assessm ent, according to the website of the USDA 
Agricultural Marketing Service ("How to Propose a New R&P program"), "substantial industry 
support" is required for a new proposal of check -off program. How does the USDA see the term 
"substantial"? Is there any be nchmark or reference, for example, a certain percentage of 
affirmative producers among the industry?  
RESPONSE: Evidence of substantial industry support is provid ed to USDA in a number of ways. 
Methods may include but are not limited to:  
 Providing informat ion regarding industry outreach, which may include presentations on the 
program at industry meetings and conferences; organizing in person listening sessions, 
webinars or conference calls; a nd participation in town halls.  
 Submitting supportive corresponden ce from industry, particularly from those who would be 
assessed under the program.  
 Assessing feedback when it publishes in the Federal Register the proposed program for review 
and comment – interested persons may voice their support, opposition, or suggest ions for 
modification to the program by submitting comment s to the docket.  
 Referendum voting - all entities who would be assessed under the program (producers, 
handlers, importe rs, etc.) vote in a referendum.  
Questions 18 -24  
3.1.4 Tariffs  
(Page 43; Para. 3.41)  
18. According to HS convention, contracting parties were required to implement the HS2012 
changes from 1 January 2012. Is it true that changes of Cha pter 37 were implemented from 
1 January 2015? In HTSUS implemented in early 2012, did Chapter 37 remain in HS2007 version 
while all other chapters than 37 changed into HS2012?  
RESPONSE: These changes were not proclaimed with the other HS2012 changes due to 
inadvertence. It is common, given the extensive number of provisions that are typically affected 
by upd ates adopted by the WCO, that certain conforming changes of a technical or de minimis 
nature are made and proclaimed at a later date.  
19. What was the reason that Chapter 37 did not change in early 2012? Were there any 
problems by causing inconsistency with HS  convention? Were any special measures taken?  
RESPONSE: See response to #18 above. Accordingly, we disagree with the assumption in the 
question that there was any "inconsistency " with the HS Convention as a result of these few 
modifications being made at a  later date. We further note that there are no problems as a 
consequence because all HS 2012 changes are rate neutral.  
20. Are amendments of HS2012 reflected in the latest HTSUS?  
RESPONSE: Yes. All are now reflected.  
21. Is all the work on updating the tariff sche dule done by CBP? Or does ITC do some part of the 
process? What is the difference between the role of CBP and ITC?  
RESPONSE: No work on updating the HTS itself, as a publication reflecting applicable law, is done 
by CBP. It is solely handled by ITC. CBP th en incorporates the provisions of the HTS into its 
automated commercial environment for purposes of documentation by firms engaged in trade.  
22. Are all the changes of HS2017 going to be implemented from 1 January 2017?  
RESPONSE: A proclamation regarding the H S2017 changes was published on December 2, 2016, 
and the changes will become effective on January 1, 2017.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 253 - 
 
  23. Please describe the internal procedure in the US to reflect the amendment of HS in HTSUS 
after the WCO recommendation amending the HS nomenclature is  deemed to have been accepted.  
RESPONSE: Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 3005, the ITC conducts an investigation in which the changes 
required to the HTS to give effect to the WCO 's HS recommendations are drafted by ITC staff and 
made available for interagency revie w and public comment. The report in such an investigation 
provides a recommendation to the President that will enable the adoption into the HTS of the 
WCO's HS changes, done in accordance with the principle of duty rate neutrality and sound 
nomenclature pr inciples. 19 U.S.C. 3006 authorizes the President to proclaim modifications to the 
HTS based on the Commission 's recommendations, if the President determines that the 
recommended changes are in conformity with U.S. obligations under the HS Convention and d o 
not run counter to the national economic interest of the United States, and following a layover 
period when the President submits a report to Congress that sets forth the proposed modifications 
and the reasons therefor. A proclamation implements appropri ate tariff categories and legal notes 
in the HTS, effective 30 days after the publication of the text of the proclamation in the Federal 
Register.  
24. How do the authorities publicize the amendment of HS domestically?  
RESPONSE: In advance of implementation, a gencies provide information to the public in a variety 
of ways. For example, the Commission 's investigation, notices, the WCO recommendation, and 
other explanatory information are posted on the Commission 's web site and in the Federal 
Register, and outreac h is undertaken (with participation by other interested agencies) to trade 
associations and the public. The Commission normally issues a preliminary report for public 
comment, setting out proposed provisions to give effect to the WCO recommendations. The 
Commission 's final report reflects how the comments received have been taken into account and 
includes copies of the comments. Both ITC reports contain correlations between existing and 
proposed tariff categories. Additional comments may be received by Cong ressional committees 
during the layover period. CBP similarly provides information to the public through its web site and 
its automated commercial system. Once a proclamation implementing the HTSUS changes has 
been issued, CBP then provides information to the public concerning the implementation of the 
changes, and the ITC posts the proclamation and the updated HTSUS on its site. The proclamation 
text is also published in the Federal Register.  
Questions 25 -26  
3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports  
(Paras. 3 .46; 3.50)  
25. (Page 46, Paragraph 3.46)  Japan understands that U.S. is currently considering transforming 
the ad -valorem system of Merchandise Processing Fees (MPF) into a new system where four 
different amounts of fees are set depending on the freight value , based on the provisions of the 
TPP Agreement which prohibit the use of ad -valorem fees and charges. On the other hand, we 
have GATT Article 8 which limits fees and charges imposed in connection with importation or 
exportation to the approximate cost of s ervices rendered, and we wonder how U.S. will ensure the 
consistency of the new system with GATT Article 8. Please provide us with some data or 
information that show different levels of services are actually rendered depending on the value of 
goods.  
RESPON SE: The new fee structure under consideration was created to maintain at least the level 
of trade facilitation and rapid release of goods that exist today, while the costs for maintaining 
those levels increase.  
26. (Page 48, Paragraph 3.50) The Agriculture Qua rantine Inspection (AQI) fees remain high 
and are considered a non -tariff barrier to exporting countries. In addition, the level of fees 
considerably varies depending on the forms of customs clearance. Please indicate the calculation 
basis and use of these  fees. 
RESPONSE: The United States values its extensive cooperation with Japan and carefully considers 
the impact of all regulatory actions in safeguarding agricultural and natural resources. While it was 
necessary to adjust our user fees to ensure adequat e resources for agriculture inspection at U.S. 
ports of entry, we worked diligently to understand and minimize their impact on businesses. APHIS WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 254 - 
 
  identified its costs relative to all fees in its final rule for the AQI fee published late in 2015. The 
final r ule which describes the calculation basis and use can be found at : 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=APHIS -2013-0021-0251. As described in the Federal 
Register publication, AP HIS used activity -based costing to ensure that the cost basis for each of 
the AQI fees, which are not related to customs clearance, reflects the true costs of the services 
provided for each fee area so that there would be no cross subsidization.  
The Unite d States takes its international commitments seriously and works to ensure that 
measures affecting traders, including fee increases, comply with our international trade 
obligations. We are committed to reviewing our costs on a regular basis to ensure they remain 
consistent with the costs of delivering port of entry inspection services.  
Questions 27 - 36 
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safe guard measures  
27. (Page 53, Paragraph 3.84) Although the Government of Japan recognizes that the Byrd 
Amendment, C ontinued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, was found to be inconsistent 
with the WTO agreement in January 2003, and was repealed effective October 1, 2007, 
anti-dumping and countervailing (AD/CV) duties collected by CBP before October 1, 2007 has bee n 
continuing to be disbursed to domestic producers injured by foreign dumping and subsidies. The 
Government of Japan has reiterated this continuance is inconsistent with recommendations of the 
DSB.To clarify the future possible distribution by CBP, please indicate the specific figures stated 
below.  
(a) Total amount of AD/CV duties collected by CBP as of October 1, 2007.  
(b) Case by case amount (limited in case of Japanese) of AD/CV duties collected by CBP as of 
October 1, 2007.  
(c) Total amount of AD/CV duties which i s to be potentially dis bursed by CBP as of 
December  1, 2016.  
(d) Case by case amount (limited in case of Japanese) of AD/CV duties which is to be potentially 
disbursed by CBP as of December 1, 2016.  
RESPONSE: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) publishes information on anti -dumping 
and countervailing duties collected by CBP to be disbursed pursuant to the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), which was repealed effective October 1, 2007. Detailed 
information, including the amount of dut ies collected and disbursed, by year and case number, can 
be found on CBP 's website. Publicly available information on CDSOA collection and disbursement 
can be found at the following link: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/adcvd/continued -
dumping -and-subsidy -offset -act-cdsoa -2000. 
28. (Page 57, Paras 3.84 -3.86) C oncerning the initiation of anti -circumvention inquiries on the 
anti-dumping d uty and countervailing duty orders on certain corrosion -resistant steel products 
from China that was determined by the DOC on November 14, 2016. Under the circumstance 
where neither GATT nor WTO clearly define the circumvention, in under what situation is the 
imposition of anti -dumping duty for circumvention accepted? Furthermore, in contrast, in under 
what situation is the imposition of anti -dumping duty for circumvention not accepted? From these 
perspectives, how can the current investigation at issue be conducted in a manner consistent with 
the GATT rules?  
RESPONSE: Commerce 's circumvention determinations are based on the facts and circumstances 
of the events surrounding the alleged circumvention. The factors surrounding a specific 
circumvention determina tion can be found in Commerce 's final determination pertaining to a 
specific proceeding at : https:/ /access .trade.gov/ .  
29. (Page 57, Paragraph 3.90) With regard to the anti -dumping measures against products 
made in Ja pan, the oldest existing measure was imposed in 1978, and the average 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 measures may cause 
continued/renewed dumping and damages, the period of the measures may be extended as an 
exception. However, as abovementioned, the U.S. government repeats the extension of the period WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 255 - 
 
  for anti -dumping measures and continues them over the long term in many cases. The Japanese 
government would like to know what is leading reason to such circumstance despite of 
abovementioned AD rules and the U.S. view on this, and call for the U.S. to quickly remove 
unfairly long -continued anti -dumping measures.  
RESPONS E: The question mischaracterizes Article 11.3 of the ADA, which indicates that, in a five -
year review, the authorities must terminate a measure unless they determine that "expiry of the 
duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. " In determining 
whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or an antidumping order would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. 
International Trade Commission (US ITC) considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U .S.C. 
§ 1675a(a). The USITC considers these factors in the context of the record of the five -year review; 
it establishes a new record for each five -year review of an order. In determining whether 
revoca tion of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order 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 U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) conside rs the factors set out in 
U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
The determinations in each sunset review conducted by the USITC and Commerce are case 
specific. The results for all sunset reviews can be found on the USITC's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). From this website, Members can obtain, on a case by case 
basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation or termination of a countervailing 
duty or an anti dumping duty order.  
Commerce and USITC administer the U.S. laws governing antidumping and countervailing duty 
sunset reviews objectively and consistently, regardless of the duration of any particular order.  
30. (Page 57, Paragraph 3.91) The Appellate Body repo rt for DS 464 (US -Washing Machines) 
and the Panel report for DS 471(US -AD Methodologies(China)), making clear that the denial of 
offsets for non -dumped sales when aggregating the transaction specific comparison results 
(so-called "Zeroing") violates the se cond sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti -dumping Agreement. 
The outcome in the two cases has made it clear that Zeroing should be completely abolish as it is 
not permitted no matter what form it takes. Japan is of the view that no alternative methods 
should be applied to continue Zeroing practices. Japan would like to know the US's opinion on this 
point.  
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes the obligation of WTO Members to act in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreements and Members ' schedules of comm itments. Where the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopts a panel or Appellate Body report, which includes a finding 
that a measure implemented by a Member is not in conformity with a WTO Agreement, including 
commitments scheduled thereunder, that Member  should bring the challenged measure into 
conformity in accordance with provisions of the DSU and other WTO Agreements. In both of the 
disputes mentioned, the United States has stated that it intends to implement the DSB 
recommendations in a manner consist ent with U.S. WTO obligations.  
31. (Page 57, Paragraph 3.91) The Appellate Body report for DS 464 (US -Washing Machines) 
and the Panel report for DS 471(US -AD Methodologies(China)), making clear that the denial of 
offsets for non -dumped sales when aggregating t he transaction specific comparison results 
(so-called "Zeroing") violates the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti -dumping Agreement. 
The outcome in the two cases has made it clear that Zeroing should be completely abolish as it is 
not permitted no  matter what form it takes. Japan is of the view that no alternative methods 
should be applied to continue Zeroing practices. Japan would like to know the US's opinion on this 
point.  
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes the obligation of WTO Members to a ct in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreements and Members ' schedules of commitments. Where the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopts a panel or Appellate Body report, which includes a finding 
that a measure implemented by a Member is not in conformi ty with a WTO Agreement, including 
commitments scheduled thereunder, that Member should bring the challenged measure into 
conformity in accordance with provisions of the DSU and other WTO Agreements. In both of the WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 256 - 
 
  disputes mentioned, the United States has  stated that it intends to implement the DSB 
recommendations in a manner consistent with U.S. WTO obligations.  
32. (Page 57, Paragraph 3.91) With respect to the Byrd Amendment, the website of the U.S. 
Customs and Border Prote ction ( https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/adcvd/continued -
dumping -and-subsidy -offset -act-cdsoa -2000) shows the information on the disbursements for FY 
2015 as latest di sbursement. When will the U.S. finish the disbursement? Please show us the 
remaining amount of the revenues from anti -dumping and countervailing duties on goods imported 
from Japan to the United States before October 1, 2007, which has not yet been disburs ed to the 
U.S. industries.  
RESPONSE: The website of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection includes reports that provide 
information on (1) the CDSOA disbursements made for FY 2016 ( "FY 2016 Annual Disbursement 
Report ") and (2) the preliminary remaining do llar amounts available for CDSOA disbursement 
itemized by U.S. Department of Commerce investigation number. The reports can be found at: 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority -issues/adcvd/continued -dumping -and-subsidy -offset -act-
cdsoa -2000.  
33. (Page 60, Paragraph 3.97) According to the paragraph 3.97, RTA partners are excluded from 
the application of safeguard measures under certain circumstances i n NAFTA. Could U.S. clarify 
whether there are any RTAs where partners are excluded from the application of WTO safeguard 
measures? If any, could U.S. provide the details?  
RESPONSE: The United States has not entered into any RTAs that automatically exclude partners 
from the application of safeguard measures. A permissive exclusion is contained in the Australia, 
Peru, Singapore, CAFTA -DR, Korea, Colombia, Panama, and Jordan trade agreements.  
34. (Page 60, Paragraph 3.97) According to the paragraph 3.97, RTA part ners are excluded from 
the application of safeguard measures under certain circumstances in NAFTA. Could U.S. clarify 
whether there have been any cases where imports from U.S. were excluded from an application of 
WTO safeguard measures pursuant to such pro visions under the RTAs ever before? If any, could 
U.S. identify the cases?  
RESPONSE: U.S. exports were excluded from a measure imposed by Costa Rica following its 
investigation of imports of pounded rice based on the CAFTA -DR permissive exclusion. See 
G/SG /N/8/CRI/1 -G/SG/N/10/CRI/1 -G/SG/N/11/CRI/1 (dated 20 January 2015).   
35. (Page 60, Paragraph 3.100) According to the report by the Secretariat, no special safeguard 
investigations were initiated nor were measures maintained during the period under review. Plea se 
clarify whether U.S. has ever initiated or imposed this type of safeguard measure in the past not 
limited to this period of review. Also, please clarify whether U.S. has ever been imposed this type 
of safeguard measure. If there are any cases, please ex plain the measures, such as the product 
scope, the date of measure being taken and the period of the measure.  
RESPONSE: The USITC has initiated only one investigation under a transitional safeguard 
provision in a free trade agreement, in 1996, with respect  to broom corn brooms from Mexico 
under the provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USITC made an 
affirmative injury determination and recommended a remedy to the President; however, the 
President did not provide relief.  
36. (Page 60,  Paragraph 3.100) According to the report by the Secretariat, U.S. legislation on 
global safeguards was amended in 2015. Could U.S. indicate whether the legislation that 
implements special safeguard measures has also been amended?  Could U.S. please provide  us 
with the legislation, if any, the amendments as well?  
RESPONSE: As stated in the U.S. notification of the legislation (G/SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl/1 (dated 
20 July 2015)), the amendment applies to both global and bilateral safeguard actions.  
Question 37  
3.2.3  Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  
(Page 69, Paragraph 3.139)  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 257 - 
 
  37. According to "The natural Gas Act of 1938", natural gas export to countries that do not have 
free trade agreements with the U.S. is restricted, as it is only allowed after undergo ing special 
review and obtaining approval of the DOE. Japan would like to know the U.S. view on how this 
restriction is consistent with the WTO agreement.  
RESPONSE: To clarify, the Department of Energy 's authority to license U.S. natural gas imports 
and ex ports arises from the Natural Gas Act (NGA). By law, under 15 U.S.C § 717c, applications to 
export U.S. natural gas to countries with which the United States has Free Trade Agreements 
(FTAs) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas are deemed to be consistent with the 
public interest, and the Secretary of Energy must grant authorizations without modification or 
delay. The NGA directs DOE to evaluate applications to export U.S. natural gas to non -FTA 
countries. Under the NGA, DOE is required to grant applications for authorizations to export U.S. 
natural gas to non -FTA countries, unless the Department finds that the proposed exports will not 
be consistent with the public interest, or where trade is explicitly prohibited by law or policy.   
U.S. li censing of imports and exports of natural gas does not adversely affect U.S. trade partners 
and DOE procedures are administered consistent with WTO obligations. As of December 7, 2016, 
DOE had issued final authorizations for exports of LNG to non -FTA count ries totaling 16.30 billion 
cubic feet per day of natural gas. In 2015, global LNG trade was just over 30 billion cubic feet per 
day of natural gas. Additionally, DOE has approved 50 long -term applications to export 
domestically produced LNG from the lower -48 states equivalent to 49.38 billion cubic feet per day 
of natural gas to FTA countries. Finally, LNG export capacity of approximately 10 billion cubic feet 
per day of natural gas at five large -scale facilities with both FTA and non -FTA authorizations ar e in 
various stages of construction.  
In recent years, U.S. increased natural gas production, decreased imports, and increased exports 
have contributed to increased global supplies of natural gas, providing benefits to both the U.S. 
economy and contributin g to the energy security of net importing countries. Assuming the 
appropriate authorizations are in place, the decision about whether, where, and when LNG is to be 
exported is between the facility operator and its customers. Since U.S. LNG export facilitie s started 
operation earlier this year, most LNG export shipments have been shipped to non -FTA countries.  
Question 38  
3.3.3 Competition policy  
(Page 80, Paragraph 3.185)  
38. The FTC study "Patent Assertion Entity Activity," to which the report by the Secretari at 
refers, recommends that policymakers address PAE litigation asymmetries through procedural and 
substantive reform. We would like to know the state of progress in considering legislative and 
judicial reform based on this study.  
RESPONSE: The FTC study "Patent Assertion Entity Activity, " released in October 2016, offers four 
recommendations for legislative and judicial reform. Since it released the study, the FTC has 
engaged, and continues to engage, with a variety of stakeholders to present the findings and 
recommendations offered in the study. For example, see Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen 's 
remarks, "The FTC PAE Study in Context, " available at : 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/992533/ohlhausen_ -
_opening_remarks_pae_tech_policy_10 -20-16.pdf , and Commissioner Terrell McSweeny 's 
remarks,  "Opening Remarks of Commissioner Terrell McSweeny at the Public Policy Forum on the 
FTC Study on Patent Assertion Entities, " available at : 
https://ww w.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/991353/mcsweeny_ -
_opening_remarks_at_public_policy_forum_on_pae_report_10 -13-16.pdf . 
Questions 39 -41 
3.3.5 Government Procurement  
(Page 85, Para. 3.205  ; Page 85, Para. 3.217  ; Page 86, Para. 3.198)  
39. (Page 85, Paragraph 3.205) According to paragraph 3.205, Federal agencies, as well as 
states and other sub -federal bodies may maintain lists of qualified suppliers for their (selective) 
procurement. Japan would like to know whether inclusion in such lists be th e precondition of WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 258 - 
 
  certain kind of tenderign and whether such lists include qualified foreign suppliers, including 
Japanese suppliers.  
RESPONSE: For Federal procurements, suppliers can qualify during the tendering process if time 
permits. See FAR 9.202. The  Federal government does not regulate or track sub -federal 
procurement systems. For procurements covered by U.S. GPA obligations, foreign suppliers that 
satisfy the conditions for participation and qualification requirements are eligible to be included on 
such lists.  
40. (Page 85, Paragraph 3.217) According to paragraph 3.127, recently the U.S. implemented 
the rule that a federal excise tax of 2% to be applied to government purchases of goods and 
services from foreign entities not party to an international proc urement agreement. It seems that 
this regulation has directly negative impact on purchase by the government entities from foreign 
suppliers and effective procurement. Japan would like to know the U.S. view on this matter.  
RESPONSE: By the terms of section 301 of Public Law 111 -347, to which the question refers, no 
tax will be applied to Federal procurement payments for goods manufactured or produced or 
services provided in a country that is a party to an international procurement agreement with the 
United S tates. Additionally, the United States notes that section 301 of Public Law 111 -347 
expressly provides that "[t]his section and the amendments made by this section shall be applied 
in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international a greements. " 
41. (Page 86, Paragraph 3.198) Japan is concerned about the Buy American provisions in 
several laws of the U.S. Although there was an answer provided in 2014, Japan would like to 
inquire the rationale of the provisions once again. Japan requests th at 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 the international efforts against protectionism. In 
this context, Japan would like to know i f the U.S. has established or is planning any new laws with 
Buy American provisions since 2014.  
RESPONSE: The United States has one of the most open and transparent procurement systems in 
the world. Like every other GPA member the United States excludes ce rtain procurements. For 
instance, the Fixing America 's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) signed on December 4, 2015 
included restrictions attached to federal funds for transportation projects. However, these 
restrictions are consistent with both previo us surface transportation authorization acts and U.S. 
obligations and coverage in the WTO GPA. The United States is committed to ensuring its covered 
procurements are conducted consistent with U.S. international obligations.  
Questions 42 -43  
3.3.6 Intellec tual property rights  
(Page 86, Para. 3.255; Page 103, Para. 3.277)  
42. (Page 86, Paragraph 3.255) With regard to measures addressing "frivolous litigation," 
including 7 legislative recommendations and 5 executive actions announced on the website 
referred to b y the link in footnote 235, Japan would like to reconfirm the current legislative 
situation in the U.S. Since we understand that the U.S., in the previous review, has stated that the 
discussion on patent litigation reform legislation relating to abusive pa tent litigation was ongoing, 
please provide the updated information, if any.  
RESPONSE: Discussions are expected to continue on this issue in front of the U.S. Congress.  
43. (Page 103, Paragraph 3.277)  With regard to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Japan  
would like to reconfirm the current situation in the U.S., regarding the pilot program for faster 
investigation resolution, which was launched in June 2013. Since we understand that the U.S., in 
the previous review, has stated that the USITC would evaluat e this pilot program in fiscal year 
2015, please provide the updated information, including the result of the evaluation, if any.  
RESPONSE: In accordance with its Performance Plan, in FY 2015, the USITC has been assessing 
the early disposition pilot progra m to assess: (1) the length of time the pilot program cases are 
taking in the expedited phase; (2) the overall length of the investigation; and (3) whether any 
other investigations on the presiding ALJs' dockets were impacted by the expedited investigation . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 259 - 
 
  These criteria are important in assessing whether investigations are in fact expedited by pilot 
program proceedings and whether the strain on resources from this expedited process will impact 
the expeditious resolution of other investigations. The review  in FY 2015 and FY2016 revealed the 
ALJs are completing the pilot proceedings on time, if not early. For the three investigations 
completed on the merits during the evaluation period using the 100 -day process, Certain Products 
Having Laminated Packaging, L aminated Packaging, and Components Thereof, Inv. 
No. 337-TA-874, Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing Same, 
Inv. No. 337 -TA-949, and Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof , Inv. 
No. 337-TA-994, the expe dited process impacted the ALJs' schedules differently. In Laminated 
Packaging , the ALJ had to delay issuing a final initial determination in another concurrent 
investigation to accommodate the expedited schedule of the designated issue. The expedited 
process in Audio Processing Hardware  and Portable Electronic Devices  did not impact other 
investigations on the ALJ's docket.  
The USITC has seen indications that the existence of the pilot program has led to some potential 
complaints not being filed, and some complaints being more carefully drafted and/or supplemented 
during the pre -institution period. The following examples are illustrative: on one occasion a 
complainant revised a security interest agreement pre -institution to avoid a possible IP ownership 
issue; on another occasion a complainant provided additional information on importation to avoid 
being placed in the 100 -day program; and one complainant withdrew the complaint altogether 
during the preinstitution period. The Commission's experience with thes e attendant impacts of the 
pilot program have been echoed by the lawyers practicing before the USITC as discussed hearing 
before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 
Internet (a transcript is available a t: https://judiciary.house.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/114 -
67 99782.pdf ).  
Questions 44 -46 
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2 The 2014 Farm Act  
(Page 111, Para. 4.17; Page 112; P ara 4.18; Page 115, Para. 4.28)  
44. (Page 111, Paragraph 4.17)  The report says the crop insurance in the United States is the 
largest agricultural insurance program in the world and its average annual cost is US$8.2 billion 
from 2008 to 2014. Please share the  prospects of the cost after 2015, while the prices of some 
crops are declining.  
RESPONSE: Current farm programs are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 2018 
crop year. USDA monitors expenditures and projects costs, in part to prepare domestic support 
notifications as appropriate and to ensure consistency with WTO obligations. Notifications will be 
submitted when complete.  
45. (Page 112, Paragraph 4.18)  The U.S.GAO and other studies suggest some ideas to cut the 
federal cost of the crop insurance. D oes the U.S. Government plan to review and amend the crop 
insurance program, for example the reintroduction of decoulpled payments?  
RESPONSE: Current farm programs are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 2018 
crop year. We remind Members that T PRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration and Congress come into place.  
46. (Page 115, Paragraph 4.28)  Based on the Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP), the 
Government would purchase milk when  the national production margin is lower than the base level 
and donate it to low -income households. This means that the Government intervenes the milk 
markets regardless of the actual price and user demand. Therefore, the DPDP would be considered 
market d istortive. Please explatin the view of the United States.  
RESPONSE: Per the terms of the Dairy Product Donation Program, in specified circumstances, FSA 
purchases dairy products at prevailing market prices. These purchases would be in types and 
quantities determined in consultation with the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and public 
and private non -profit organizations serving low -income populations. The DPDP program will be 
reported in the appropriate domestic support notification.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 260 - 
 
  Question 47  
4.1.4 Levels of support  
(Page 118, Paragraph 4.46)  
47. Chart 4.3 shows that non -product -specific support has significantly dropped since FY2012. 
This would be resulted from the re -classification of the crop insurance premium subsidy that 
reported as non -product -specific support in FY1995 to 2011and product -specific subsidy in FY2012 
and 2013. Please explain the reasons for this change. In addition, please indicate how PLC and 
ARC established in 2014 Farm Act would be classified into product -specific or non -product -specific 
with reasons.  
RESPONSE: Prior to 2008, the United States notified net indemnities as non -product specific 
producer support. In part, the United States notified crop insurance support as non -product 
specific because basic provisions of the crop insur ance program are generic and broadly available 
to a wide and growing range of commodities. Although insurance plans are written on a 
commodity -specific basis, the rates for premium support are not commodity -specific and apply 
equally to all commodities ins ured under a particular insurance policy. In other words, as a general 
matter, the same support is available at the same percentage across crops. In preparing its 2012 
notification the United States undertook a review of its notification of its crop insura nce program. 
As a result of that review, the United States determined that the current U.S. crop insurance 
program is appropriately classified as product -specific support, because, in part, changes to the 
program 's operation made it technically feasible to  accurately report crop insurance support by 
individual commodities.  
ARC and PLC programs will be reported in the appropriate domestic support notifications.  
Questions 48 -49  
4.2 Services  
4.2.1 Financial Services  
48. (Page 120, Paragraph 4.80) Since regulator y environment on conducting insurance business 
in the U.S. varies across states, in order for the insurance business to operate throughout the 
U.S., an insurance company is required to obtain an operator's licence and apply product 
authorization for each s tate. These are significant entry barriers for foreign insurance companies. 
Japan would like to know what the U.S. is considering for harmonization/unification of regulatory 
environment across states. Please explain concrete plans or schedule, if there is any. 
RESPONSE: Foreign participation in the U.S. insurance market is very robust, and we disagree 
with the premise that the existing market access requirements are "significant entry barriers " for 
foreign insurance companies. In 2015, the United States imp orted $30.6 billion more in insurance 
services than it exported. In addition, the U.S. affiliates of foreign insurance firms had sales of 
$69.5 billion in 2013, exceeding by $4.7 billion the sales of affiliates of U.S. firms in foreign 
markets. We are not aware of plans to unify regulations across states.  
49. (Page 120, Paragraph 4.84)  Some states impose discriminatory regulation on foreign 
insurance companies. Some states impose residency requirement to representatives and/or 
employees of foreign insurance co mpanies, and in some cases, foreign insurance companies are 
requested to prepare more statutory deposit than insurance companies in that state. Japan thinks 
these discriminatory regulations should be removed. Please explain what the U.S. is considering 
about this issue, and the outlook for future deregulation.  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed with respect to any changes in regulation.  
Questions 50 -51 
4.2.2 Telecommunications  
(Page 135, Para. 4.118; Page 135, Para. 4.121)  
50. (Page 135, Paragraph 4.118)  According to the report by the Secretariat, the FCC must 
conduct a public interest analysis when evaluating applications to receive authorization to exceed 
the 25% foreign -ownershi p benchmark. When evaluating the public interest, what indicators are WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 261 - 
 
  used? In addition to that, what is the concrete name of the regulation/policy that modified after 
the "de facto policy"?  
RESPONSE: A U.S. wireless licensee may not exceed the 25 percent statutory benchmark on 
foreign ownership in 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4) if the FCC finds that it would not be in the public 
interest to allow such foreign ownership. The licensee must request FCC approval of its foreign 
ownership under section 310(b)(4) by filin g a petition for declaratory ruling and obtain FCC 
approval before the foreign ownership exceeds 25 percent. In evaluating the foreign ownership 
petition, the FCC will assess, in each particular case, whether the foreign interests presented for 
approval by  the licensee are in the public interest, consistent with the Commission 's section 
310(b)(4) policy framework. The FCC will consider whether the licensee or its proposed foreign 
owners have a history of violating FCC rules and policies or of anticompetitiv e actions. The public 
interest analysis under section 310(b)(4) also considers any national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy or trade policy concerns raised by the proposed foreign investment. Since the 
inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant h as ever been denied a common carrier wireless license 
under the FCC's public interest analysis.  
In 2013, the FCC adopted rules for approval of foreign ownership greater than the 25 percent 
statutory benchmark set out in 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4). Previously th e procedures for obtaining a 
foreign ownership ruling under section 310(b)(4) were established by precedent. A copy of the FCC 
Order is available at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pu blic/attachmatch/FCC -13-50A1.pdf . 
51. (Page 135, Paragraph 4.121)  When the telecommunication providers choose bandwidth 
control out of necessity, how the "bright -line" rules and "no unreasonable 
interference/disadvantage" standard evaluate the case? At that t ime, what is the decision criteria 
(including indicators)?  
RESPONSE: The bright -line rules prohibit three specific practices, and the no -unreasonable 
interference/disadvantage standard gives the FCC the flexibility to address other practices that 
may inter fere with fair, fast, and open Internet access.  
The Open Internet Order provides a non -exclusive list of factors that the FCC will consider in 
making its case by case assessment of whether a practice is consistent with the no unreasonable 
interference/disa dvantage standard. The factors listed are: end -user control; competitive effects; 
consumer protection; the effect on innovation, investment, or broadband deployment; free 
expression; whether the practice is application agnostic; and best practices and tech nical 
standards.  
Questions 52 -53 
4.2.3 Transport  
(Page 138, Paras. 4.136; 4.145)  
52. (Page 138, Paragraph 4.136)  While most U.S. airports with commercial services are publicly 
owned either by states or local governments, or local authorities, some Buy America n provisions 
are applied to airport infrastructure projects when they are financed under the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP). The Buy American Preferences require that all steel and 
manufactured goods used in AIP -funded projects be produced in the U.S. J apan is concerned that 
such policies would be a hindrance to corporate activities and Japan would like to know the 
consistency with the WTO Agreement.  
RESPONSE: The Buy America requirements of the Airport Improvement Program are attached to 
grants used by government -owned airports to undertake procurements for governmental 
purposes.  
53. (Page 138, Paragraph 4.145)  Cabotage is treated as an exception of WTO, but the Jones Act 
(the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) restricts entries by countries except for the U.S. Co nsidering 
the situation of such restrictions, the U.S. should expand exception of the restrictions under the 
Jones Act. Please provide the view of the U.S. Government on the conformity of this bill to the 
WTO principles, and the prospect of the future cont inuation.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 262 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Restrictions on domestic cabotage remain common among WTO members. The U.S. 
cabotage regime continues to be an important means of ensuring the availability of experienced 
seafarers and maintaining domestic shipbuilding capability, which  are important national security 
objectives.  
FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/345)  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICE BY MEASURE  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
Question 1 
Page 57, Paragraph 3.91  
1. The DSB adopted its recommendations and rulings that found the U.S. statutory provision 
regarding "all others rate" to be inconsistent with the Anti -Dumping Agreement in August 2001, 
over 15 years ago. Although the U.S. took c ertain measures to implement part of the DSB 
recommendations, the remaining part has not yet been implemented. At the time of last Trade 
Policy Reviews, the U.S. showed the view that it would work with the U.S. Congress with respect 
to appropriate statutor y measure to resolve this matter. The Government of Japan again requests 
the recommendation be fully implemented immediately. And Japan would like to know what steps 
the U.S. government had taken during this two years and intends to take to complete full 
implementation together with the Congress.  
RESPONSE:  The United States recognizes the obligation of WTO Members to act in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreements and Members ' schedules of commitments.  Where the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopts a  panel or Appellate Body report, which includes a finding 
that a measure implemented by a Member is not in conformity with a WTO Agreement, including 
commitments scheduled thereunder, that Member should bring the challenged measure into 
conformity in accor dance with provisions of the DSU and other WTO Agreements.  The United 
States has stated that it intends to implement the DSB recommendations in a manner consistent 
with U.S. WTO obligations.  
Replies to Advanced Questions from Japan  
Question 2  
(answer to Q5 )  
2. Are there any regulatory bases for oral advance rulings?  
RESPONSE: A ruling is defined as a written statement that interprets and applies the Customs laws 
and related laws to a specific set of facts.  Moreover, CBP regulations provide that oral opinio ns or 
advice given by CBP personnel are not binding.  Please see 19 CFR 177.1 at the following link for 
more information: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg /CFR-2011-title19 -vol2/pdf/CFR -2011-title19 -
vol2-sec177 -1.pdf.  
Questions 3 -6 
(answer to Q8)  
3. According to the website of CBP on the report 
(https://help.cbp.gov/a pp/answers/detail/a_id/280/~/binding -ruling -requests ), there are four 
branches in NCSD, which are:  
a. The Metals and Machinery Branch  
b. The Agricultural and Chemicals Branch  
c. The Textiles and Apparel Branch  
d. The Miscellaneous Products Branch.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 263 - 
 
  How man y officials are there in each brancies? Are officials who belong to these branches only in 
charge of making responses to requested advance rulings?  
RESPONSE: There are approximately 78 officials distributed among the four branches, and they 
have a variety of other responsibilities in addition to issuing advance rulings.  For example, they 
employ their product expertise and knowledge of the Customs laws in providing technical advice to 
CBP offices and other U.S. government agencies.  These officials also provi de training to CBP 
officers and the trade community.   
4. Are all branches of NCSD located in New York? Can applicants visit the branches in person 
and make inqueries?  
RESPONSE:  The Branch Chiefs are located in New York.  The staff is primarily located in Ne w York, 
with other staff located in field locations.  Applicants may visit the Division in person if requested 
and if sufficient time allows for the prompt issuance of a ruling; however, such in -person visits are 
rare. Generally, persons seeking a ruling ei ther submit paper ruling letter requests by mail, or 
submit electronic ruling requests through the CBP.gov website.  
5. Does each branch of US Customs office have a department which is in charge of 
classification? How does each branch of US Customs office d eal with difficult cases relating to 
classification at declarations?  
RESPONSE:  Import Specialists within the ten Centers for Excellence and Expertise (part of the 
Office of Field Operations) classify merchandise at the time of entry.  These Import Specialis ts may 
seek informal advice from the NCSD relating to difficult classification issues.  
6. If there is a department which is in charge of classification in each branch of US Customs 
offices, what is the assignation between the NCSD like?  
RESPONSE:  The ten Centers for Excellence and Expertise classify mer chandise at the time of 
entry. The NCSD (which is part of Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade) has aligned its National 
Import Specialist (NIS) staff with the Centers.  For further information on CBP 's Centers for 
Excellence and Expertise, please see the following link: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/centers -
excellence -and-expertise -information .  
Question 7  
(answer to Q25)  
7. We understand that one of the purposes of the US's new MPF system is to maintain the 
exsisting level of trade facilitation and rapid release of goods as stated in the US's answer. 
However, we still wonder how the U.S. will ensure the consistency of the n ew system with GATT 
Article 8, which limits fees and charges imposed in connection with importation or exportation to 
the approximate cost of services rendered. Please provide us with some data or information that 
show different levels of services are actu ally rendered depending on the value of goods.  
RESPONSE:  As noted, CBP conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of trade data in 
developing the proposed new MPF system.  In addition, information regarding CBP costs in 
processing merchandise can be fo und in budget documents : https://www.dhs.gov/dhs -budget .  
Question 8  
(answer to Q33)  
8. Is this the only case where imports from U.S. were excluded from a WTO safeguard? If not, 
please provide a case list and the detailed information of all cases in the same mannar as 
described in the reply to Japan's advanced question 33.  
RESPONSE:  Yes, to the best of our knowledge, this is the only WTO safeguard investigation that 
has excluded US exports based on a RTA permis sive exclusion.  
Replies to Advanced Questions from Australia  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 264 - 
 
  Question 9  
(answer to Q2)  
According to the report by the Secretariat, only 4.1 % of the total value of public procurement 
published in the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) in 2011 was awarded direc tly to cross -border 
foreign suppliers. How does the EU evaluate this figure? Also, does the EU implement any concrete 
measures to increase the percentage of cross -border procurement?  If not, does the EU have any 
intention to implement such measures in the future?  
RESPONSE:  This question appears to be directed to the EU.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 265 - 
 
   
KAZAKHSTAN  
Secretariat Report – United States (S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 3.3.5.4. Government Procurement – Set Asides and Preferences (3.219)  
1. According to paragraph 3.219 of the Trade Pol icy Review of the United States prepared by 
the WTO Secretariat, set asides and preferences are provided for small business, veteran -owned 
small business, small disadvantaged (SDBs), HUB Zone business and women -owned small 
businesses. Could the U.S. Delega tion clarify if set asides and preferences are limited only to 
American companies and legal entities registered in the U.S. or are also available to foreign 
companies operating on the territory of the U.S.?  
RESPONSE:  Through regulations of the Small Busine ss Administration, federal rules define a small 
business concern to be a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in 
the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a 
significant contrib ution to the US economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, 
materials or labor. The entity must also qualify as small under size standards promulgated by the 
Small Business Administration.  
Question 2  
Section 4.2.2 Telecommunications (4.11 8) 
2. As states in paragraph 4.118 of the Report prepared by the WTO Secretariat the FCC must 
conduct a public interest analysis when evaluating applications to exceed the 25% limitation on 
foreign ownership in telecommunications operating company. Could the US delegation elaborate 
more on the methodology and criteria of this analysis?  
RESPONSE:  47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4) provides that the foreign ownership of a U.S. wireless licensee 
may not exceed the 25 percent statutory benchmark if the FCC finds that it would not be in the 
public interest to allow such foreign ownership.  
A licensee must request FCC approval of its foreign ownership under section 310(b)(4) by filing a 
petition for declaratory ruling and obtain FCC approval before t he foreign ownership exceeds 
25 percent. In evaluating the foreign ownership petition, the FCC will assess, in each particular 
case, whether the foreign interests presented for approval by the licensee are in the public 
interest, consistent with the FCC 's section 310(b)(4) policy frame work. The FCC will consider 
whether the licensee or its proposed foreign owners have a history of violating FCC rules and 
policies or of anticompetitive actions. The public interest analysis under section 310(b)(4) also 
considers any national security, law  enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy concerns raised by 
the proposed foreign investment.  
Since the inception of the WTO, no foreign applicant has ever been denied a common carrier 
wireless license under the FCC's public interest analysis.  
Questio n 3 
Anti-Dumping Duty  
According to the Article 11.1 of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 an anti -dumping duty shall remain in force only as long as 
and to the extent necessary to counteract dum ping which is causing injury.  
3. Since there were no exports of silicomanganese originating from Kazakhstan to the U.S. 
market starting from 2002, we would like to learn if the U.S. authorities intend to lift the 
anti-dumping duty in respect of the mentioned  good in the near future?  
RESPONSE:  In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or an antidumping 
duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 266 - 
 
  reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. Intern ational Trade Commission (USITC) considers the 
factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission considers these factors in the 
context of the record of the five -year review; it establishes a new record for each five -year review 
of an ord er. In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty 
order 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 U.S. Departme nt of Commerce (Commerce) 
considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
Interested parties should put any information they believe is relevant for the USITC and 
Commerce to consider on the administrative record of the applicable sunset review.   
Question 4  
PNTR  
4. Kazakhstan allows freedom of emigration and fully complies with the Jackson -Vanik 
provision and in the past numerous attempts have been undertaken by the Kazakhstani side to 
push for exclusion of Kazakhstan  from the list of countries under the said Amendment. Following 
the accessions of Kazakhstan to the WTO, are there any plans by the U.S. Congress to pass a 
legislation that will remove Kazakhstan from the Jackson -Vanik Amendment, and thus extend 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR).  
RESPONSE: At this time, there is no legislation before the 114th U.S. Congress that would extend 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Kazakhstan. However, the 115th U.S. Congress begins in 
January.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 267 - 
 
   
KOREA , REPUBLIC OF  
Secreta riat Report – United States (S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 3.1.8. Standards and Other Technical Requirements (3.104)  
3.104. …The NTTAA directs federal agencies to use standards developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies as a means to carry o ut objectives. The NTTAA codifies existing 
guidance provided in Circular A -119, which directs federal agencies in the elaboration of technical 
regulations and in their procurement activities to rely on "voluntary consensus standards ", rather 
than developin g "government unique standards ", unless this approach would be inconsistent with 
law or otherwise impractical. Circular A -119 also encourages federal regulatory agencies to 
participate in standards developing organizations (SDOs).  
1. Circular A -119, paragraph  4.a states that voluntary consensus standards bodies include both 
domestic and international organizations. Does the U.S. Government recognize the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) as a voluntary consensus standards body as described in 
Circular A -119? 
RESPONSE : The United States considers the both the International Electrotechnical Commission 
(IEC) and the National Fire Protection Association (see Question 2, below) to be voluntary 
consensus bodies, as described in Circular A -119. Consequent ly, the standards developed by those 
organizations, among others, can be selected by U.S. regulators in the implementation of technical 
regulations.  
Question 2  
2. The Revised WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), Article X, paragraph 2.b 
provides tha t "In prescribing the technical specifications for the goods or services being procured, 
a procuring entity shall, where appropriate:… base the technical specification on international 
standards, where such exist… " However, U.S. federal and state entities covered by the Revised 
GPA are effectively preventing innovative foreign lightning protection systems (LPS 's) that meets 
international standards such as IEC 62305 and IEC 61643 from entering U.S. government 
procurement market because controlling U.S. feder al and state laws and regulations designate 
U.S. domestic standards such as NFPA 780 as the sole mandatory technical specification applicable 
to U.S. federal and state entities when they purchase and/or install LPS 's. NFPA 780 on one hand 
and IEC 62305 and  IEC 61643 on the other are directly competitive and substitutable to each 
other because the former is a standard for LPS 's based on traditional Franklin rods while the latter 
are for more recently developed, innovative LPS 's. How the U.S. Government will bring federal and 
state procurement practices as well as laws and regulations to be consistent with its GPA 
obligations to prescribe the technical specifications for LPS 's being procured to be based on 
international standards, in particular IEC 62305 and I EC 61643? The following are U.S. federal and 
state laws and regulations in question:  
 40 U.S.C. § 3312 Compliance with nationally recognized codes  
 PBS-P100, "Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, " issued by the U.S. General 
Services Adminis tration in March 2014, paragraphs 1.3.1, 1.4.5, 6.4, 6.5.2.1, 6.5.2.6, and 
6.5.12.1  
 UFC 3 -575-01, "Unified Facilities Criteria: Lightning and Static Electricity Protection System, " 
jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engine ers, Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command, and Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment 
on July 1, 2012, paragraphs 1 -1, 1-2, 1-5, 2-1.2, 3 -1, 3-2.1, 3 -3, 3-4, 3-5.9, and 3 -5.11 
 NWSM 30 -4106, "Lightning Protection, Grounding, Bonding, Shielding , and Surge Protection 
Requirements, " issued by the National Weather Service of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration under the U.S. Department of Commerce, paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 
1.4, 2.7.2, 2.7.5, 2.7.5.1, 2.7.5.3, 2.7.5.4, 2.7.6.1, 2.7.8, 2. 7.8.1, 2.7.8.5, 2.7.9.2, 2.7.9.3, 
and 2.16, and Appendix A, C, D, and I.  
 29 C.F.R. § 1910.109(i)(6)(ii) Explosives and blasting agents  
 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1051 1,3 -Butadiene, Appendix A, Section V, paragraph E  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 268 - 
 
   2010 California Electrical Code, effective since January 1, 2011, §§ 89.101.1, 89.101.2, 
89.101.3, 205.106, 500.4, 505.4, 620.37, and 810.18  
 New Jersey Administrative Code (2015), §§ 5:23 -3.1(c),(d), 5:23 -3.2(a), and 
5:23-3.2(d)12vi  
 "Design Guidelines: Electrical, " issued by the Port Authority of New Yor k and New Jersey 
(updated on December 30, 2014), paragraphs 4.2.3.R and 4.11.1  
RESPONSE:  The United States notes that NFPA is an international standard and its use is 
consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO GPA.  
Question 3  
Section 3.3.3 Competition Policy ( 3.178)  
3.178. Acts of government, including those limiting commercial activity, are exempted from 
federal anti -trust legislation, where authorized as a matter of state policy.170 Limited immunity 
also applies to specific aspects of agriculture, fis heries, and insurance. In relation to international 
trade, the Webb -Pomerene Export Trade Act may allow associations of otherwise competing 
businesses to engage in the collective exports of goods provided there are no anticompetitive 
effects, or injury to competitors, within the United States. The Export Trading Company Act (1982) 
also creates a procedure whereby persons engaged in export may obtain, under certain 
circumstances, an export certificate of review providing, inter alia , for limited antitrust 
immunity.171 The Shipping Act (1984) allows international ocean carriers to engage in pricing 
arrangements (liner conferences) unless these are contested by the Federal Maritime Commission.  
3. Para 3.178 stipulates that specific aspects of agriculture, fisherie s, and insurance are 
exempted from federal anti -trust legislation. Then, what is the reason that insurance is exempted 
from anti -trust legislation?  
RESPONSE : The McCarran -Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011 -15, is a legislative exemption for 
insurers from U.S.  federal antitrust laws provided that (1) the challenged practice is part of the 
"business of insurance, " and (2) the practice is regulated by State law. Acts or agreements of 
boycott, coercion or intimidation are not exempted. The Act recognizes that insu rance is regulated 
by the individual U.S. states (and is subject to state antitrust laws) and that cooperative 
ratemaking efforts may be necessary to the business of insurance. The U.S. Supreme Court 
decisions in Group Life & Health Inc. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979), and Union Labor 
Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119 (1982), discuss the legislative purposes of the 
McCarran -Ferguson Act and clarify the parameters of the exemption it provides from the federal 
antitrust laws. Further deta il on the application of U.S. antitrust law to insurance and U.S. antitrust 
agencies ' activities in the area can be found in the U.S. submission to OECD on Competition and 
Related Regulation Issues in the Insurance Industry , available at : 
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us -submissions -oecd-and-other -internation al-
competition -fora/1998 --Competition%20and%20Related%20Regulations.pdf . 
Question 4  
Section 3.3.3. Competition Policy (3.178)  
4. Article 3.178 stipulates that Webb -Pomerene Export Trade Act may allow associations of 
otherwise competing businesses to engage i n the collective exports of goods. Does that mean 
cartels of export trade are allowed provided there are no anticompetitive effects 'within the U.S. ' 
even if competition is being restricted in foreign markets?  
RESPONSE : The Webb -Pomerene Act provides a li mited antitrust exemption for the formation and 
operation of associations of otherwise competing businesses to engage collectively in export sales. 
It does not provide any immunity from prosecution under foreign antitrust laws.  
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 two. Information on 
Webb -Pomerene Act Filings can be found at : https://www.ftc.gov/policy/reports/webb -pomerene -
act-filings . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 269 - 
 
  Question 5  
Section 3.3.3. Competition Policy (3.178)  
5. Are there any cases that have been exempted from anti -trust legislation according to this 
article?  
RESPONSE: Yes, there are c ases in which U.S. courts have found that an exemption described in 
this Article applied. For example, in relation to the acts of government referenced in the first 
sentence of Article 3.178, defendants have succeeded in asserting "state action " defenses a gainst 
federal antitrust claims when they can show they meet the strict criteria for such a defense set 
forth in U.S. Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). The U.S. 
antitrust agencies have a strong interest in ensuring t hat such a defense is applied properly and 
not overly broadly, and the antitrust agencies will challenge such a defense where appropriate and 
engage in advocacy where necessary to ensure proper application. For example, the U.S. Supreme 
Court, in North Car olina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission , affirmed 
the FTC 's position that a state may not give private market participants unsupervised authority to 
suppress competition even if they act through a formally designated "state agency ." The North 
Carolina dental board 's members, primarily dentists, were drawn from the very occupation they 
regulate, and they barred non -dentists from offering competing teeth whitening services to 
consumers. The Court 's decision makes clear that state age ncies constituted in this manner are 
subject to the federal antitrust laws unless the state actively supervises their decisions. The 
Court 's decision affirms a 2013 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit upholding 
a 2011 Decision and Ord er by the FTC that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners 
illegally thwarted lower -priced competition by engaging in anticompetitive conduct to prevent non -
dentists from providing teeth whitening services to consumers in the state. The FTC reje cted the 
Dental Board's claim that the Board 's conduct is protected from federal antitrust scrutiny by the 
state action doctrine. See: https://www.ftc.gov/news -events/press -releases/2015/02/statement -
ftc-chairwoman -edith-ramirez -us-supreme -court-ruling .  
Regarding advocacy activities, the FTC issued a staff report in 2003, Report of the State Action 
Task Force, which identifi ed concerns and recommended clarifications. See: 
https://www.ftc.gov/reports/report -state-action -task-force-recommendations -clarify-reaffirm -
original -purposes -state. The Agencies have also submitted amicus briefs to courts considering the 
state action doctrine. See, e.g., Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as 
Amici Curiae supporting Plaintiffs -Appellee s, in Teladoc, Inc. et. Al., v. Texas Medical Board, Et. Al. 
(5th Cir.), available at : https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/890846/download . Further detail on the 
"state action " doctrine in U.S. federal antitrust law and the antitrust agencies ' efforts to ensure it is 
properly applied is available in the Note by the United States on the OECD Roundtable on 
Competitive Neutrality in Competition Enforcement, DAF/COMP/WD(2015)42, available at : 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us -submissions -oecd-other-international -
competition -fora/cn_united_states.pdf .  
PART III: Other Questions  
Question 6  
Fisheries Management  
6. What is the proportion of overfished stocks among the major fish stocks in the US?  
RESPONSE : According to the 2015 Status of Stocks report, 16 percent of U.S. fish stocks are 
classified as overfis hed. The report can be found at:  
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2015/2015_status_of_sto
cks_updated.pdf . 
Question 7  
Fisheries Management  
7. Will US describe the systems used for the recovery of the fish stocks? Please describe in 
detail the status and method of the management systems.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 270 - 
 
  RESPONSE : Each U.S. Fishery Management Plan must include Status Determination Criteria which 
specifies the biomass level where a stocks ability to produce maximum sustainable yield on a 
continuing basis is jeopardized. This overfished level is referred to as the minimum stock size 
threshold (MSST). When a stock 's bioma ss falls below the MSST level, it is considered 
"overfished. "  
Per the Magnuson -Stevens Act and our National Standard Guidelines, if a stock is overfished, the 
relevant Regional Fishery Management Council must implement a rebuilding plan which rebuilds 
the stock in as short a time possible, not to exceed ten years, subject to certain exceptions. A 
typical rebuilding plan allows fishing to continue, but at a reduced level, so that the stock 's 
biomass will increase to a level that supports maximum sustainable  yield. Annual catch limits must 
be set at a level to prevent overfishing and rebuild the stock by the time specified in the rebuilding 
plan. Rebuilding plans are reviewed at least every two years to determine whether the plans are 
making adequate progress  towards rebuilding the stock.  
More detailed information about the U.S. approach to rebuilding overfished stocks can be found in 
our National Standard Guidelines found at:  
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/ns1_revisions.html . 
Information about U.S. stocks that are currently in rebuilding plans can be found here:  
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/rebuilding_plans.html . 
Question 8  
Fisheries Subsidies  
8. Could US describe the type and amount of fisheries subsidies provided during the year 
2013-2015?  
RESP ONSE: The most recent subsidy notification of the United States covers the fiscal years 
2013-2014 (see, G/SCM/N/284/USA; November 18, 2104). We expect the next notification, 
covering the fiscal years 2015 -2016 to be submitted in June of 2017.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 271 - 
 
   
LAO, PEOPLE 'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBL IC OF  
Report from the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Questions 1 -2 
Table A2.2. Selected US notifications to the WTO, Services LDC Waiver, p. 157  
1. As outlined in the LDCs ' collective request submitted pursuant to the Bali Decision on 
operati onalization of the services waiver, LDCs face burdensome and even prohibitive obstacles on 
accessing services markets due to documentary, administrative and other requirements related to 
visas, work permits, residence permits, recognition of professional q ualifications, accreditation and 
other. As the US services waiver notification does not address these non -market access concerns, 
does the US have any plans or intention to facilitate such requirements to improve access for 
service suppliers from LDCs?  
RESPONSE: The share of LDCs in global services exports doubled between 2005 and 2015, and 
the United States is very interested in developing viable strategies to continue and accelerate that 
growth. Removing reasonable regulation to help protect consumers, en sure service quality, and 
protect the integrity of our borders is not a viable pathway. We look forward to working with LDCs 
to identify and implement pragmatic policy options.  
2. In line with para. 1.4 of the Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015 on the 
Implementation of Preferential Treatment in Favour of Services and Service Suppliers of Least 
Developed Countries and Increasing LDC Participation in Services Trade, does the United States 
intend to provide specific technical assistance and capacity -buildin g measures to help service 
suppliers from LDCs utilize the preferences granted? Any transparency sessions and efforts aimed 
at raising understanding and orienting LDC service suppliers to such benefits would be 
instrumental for increasing their participati on in the services trade.  
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to providing technical assistance to help the 
development of services suppliers and services trade in LDCs. In 2015, the United States 
government provided over $170 million in assistance to  LDCs in the development of business and 
other services, banking and financial services, and trade policy and regulations.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 272 - 
 
   
MALAYSIA  
Government Report – United States (G/350)  
Question 1  
Section 7. Trade and the Environment (7.5)  
7.5. In APEC, the United  States continued to work closely with other economies to ensure full 
implementation of APEC leaders' 2011 commitment to reduce tariffs on environmental goods to 
5% or less by the end of 2015. To date, that commitment has resulted in the reduction of dutie s 
on hundreds of tariff lines in the Asia -Pacific region, impacting billions of dollars of trade in clean 
technologies. In 2016, the United States launched an initiative under APEC's regulatory 
cooperation advancement mechanism (ARCAM) aimed at facilitatin g trade and investment in 
sustainable materials management (SMM) solutions. This effort will catalogue APEC economy 
definitions of key terms (e.g. municipal solid waste, recyclable material, renewable energy) that 
impact trade and investment in SMM solutio ns as a first step towards addressing the barriers these 
definitions occasionally create.  
1. Appreciate if United States could elaborate about the initiative introduced under APEC's 
regulatory cooperation advancement mechanism (ARCAM) aimed at facilitating t rade and 
investment in sustainable materials management (SMM)?  
RESPONSE: The ARCAM initiative to facilitate trade and investment in sustainable materials 
management (SMM) solutions is designed to identify definitional barriers to trade and investment 
in this sector in the APEC region. Differences in national definitions for terms like "municipal solid 
waste " and even "renewable energy " can hinder trade and investment in recycling and 
waste -to-energy technologies and services. This project is designed to id entify these oftentimes 
unintended barriers, while offering guidance to APEC economies on how to structure SMM -related 
definitions in a way that supports trade and investment in SMM solutions.  
Question 2  
Section 7. Trade and the Environment (7.9)  
7.9. Through the APEC Experts Group on Illegal Logging and Associated Trade, the United States 
worked with other Asia -Pacific economies on efforts to combat illegal logging and associated trade. 
This work included developing a definitional understanding of what con stitutes illegal logging and 
associated trade, and establishing a reporting template for each economy to report on its laws and 
regulations that are within the scope of the agreed definition. Additionally, the United States is 
working bilaterally with Chin a to enhance efforts to combat illegal logging and associated trade.  
2. Malaysia welcomes elaboration on the references used in developing a definitional 
understanding of what constitutes illegal logging and associated trade?  
RESPONSE: The APEC Experts Grou p on Illegal Logging and Associated Trade developed a 
common understanding of what constitutes illegal logging and associated trade through a dialogue 
within the group over a period of approximately two years. Malaysia actively participated in the 
developm ent of this understanding. The definitional understanding is available on the Expert 
Group 's website: http://www.apec.org/Groups/SOM -Steering -Committee -on-Economic -and-
Technical -Cooperation/Working -Groups/Illegal -Logging -and-Associated -Trade.aspx . 
Government Report – United States (G/350)  
Question 3  
Section 4, WTO Agreements and Initiatives (4.5)  
4.5. On 14 September 2016, the United States and 12 other WTO members announced their intent 
to negotiate a plurilateral fisheries subsidies agreement to address the urgent challenges facing 
global fisheries. Our goal is to eliminate harmful subsidies, incl uding those subsidies that WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 273 - 
 
  contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, and subsidies linked to illegal, unreported and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing.  
3. Appreciate if the US could share their expectation of the Plurilateral Fisheries Subsidies 
Agreement as well as expectations by the next Ministerial Conference?  
RESPONSE: As set out in the September 14, 2016 Joint Statement, the United States and other 
participants in the plurilateral Fisheries Subsidies Agreement (FSA) negotiations are seeking to 
negotiate an am bitious, high standard agreement, with the goal of eliminating harmful fisheries 
subsidies, including those subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, and subsidies 
linked to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We will also seek to  strengthen the reporting 
and transparency of fisheries subsidies, and enhance cooperation to help developing countries to 
build their capacity to implement these types of subsidy disciplines. At the same time, we will 
continue to work with all WTO Members  to make progress toward a multilateral outcome in the 
WTO. We believe this plurilateral initiative will provide new momentum on an issue that has 
long-stalled in the WTO, primarily because of linkages to unrelated issues that some WTO 
Members have made. P articipants in the FSA are aiming to conclude an agreement by MC11. The 
Joint Statement is available at: https://ustr.gov/ab out-us/policy -offices/press -office/press -
releases/2016/september/obama -administration -undertaking . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 274 - 
 
   
MEXICO  
Informe del Gobierno de Estados Unidos (WT/TPR/G/350):  
Pregunta 1. WT/TPR/G/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe del Gobierno; 2 EL ENTORNO 
ECONÓMICO Y C OMERCIAL DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS; 2.1 Políticas comerciales:  
Página 5, párrafo 2.1.  La OMC sigue siendo el foro fundamental para liberalizar el comercio 
multilateral, fortalecer el sistema multilateral de comercio basado en normas y hacer cumplir las 
normas  comerciales mundiales, y sirve de importante baluarte contra el proteccionismo. Los 
Estados Unidos están resueltos a preservar y potenciar el papel de la OMC. Dado que 
aproximadamente el 80% de la economía mundial y un 95% de la población mundial se encue ntra 
fuera de sus fronteras, los Estados Unidos están comprometidos a abrir los mercados extranjeros 
mediante la negociación de acuerdos comerciales, ya sean de carácter multilateral, regional, 
bilateral o plurilateral, así como a mantener la integridad de  los acuerdos comerciales vigentes y 
hacer cumplir sus derechos en virtud de esos acuerdos.  
México Pregunta 1:  ¿Cómo piensa la delegación de Estados Unidos cumplir con su compromiso de 
mantener la integridad de los acuerdos comerciales vigentes que ha nego ciado, ante las retóricas 
anti-comercio que se han venido proclamando en ese país?  
RESPONSE: The United States takes very seriously its rights and obligations under all of its trade 
agreements.  
Preguntas 2 y 3. WT/TPR/G/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe del Go bierno; 4 EVOLUCIÓN 
DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2014; 4.1 Acuerdos e iniciativas de la OMC:  
Página 14, párrafo 4.5. El 14 de septiembre de  2016, los Estados Unidos y otros 12 Miembros de 
la OMC anunciaron su intención de negociar un acuerdo plurilateral  sobre las subvenciones a la 
pesca para abordar los problemas urgentes con que se enfrentan las pesquerías mundiales. Su 
objetivo es eliminar las subvenciones perjudiciales, incluidas aquellas que contribuyen a la 
sobrepesca y el exceso de capacidad, y las  vinculadas a la pesca ilegal, no declarada y no 
reglamentada (pesca INDNR).  
México pregunta 2:  Diversos estudios han demostrado que los subsidios al diesel, que representan 
la mayor parte de los apoyos otorgados al sector pesquero, se encuentran entre los  más dañinos 
para los recursos marinos y que, por lo tanto, este tipo de subsidios contribuyen al contribuyen 
exceso de capacidad y a la sobrepesca. Se sabe también que dicho taño se produce 
independientemente de si dichos subsidios son específicos u horiz ontales –dado que todos los 
subsidios que reducen el costo de las operaciones de las pesquerías y aquellos que aumentan los 
ingresos hacen a las empresas más rentables, resultando ello, directa o indirectamente, en el 
aumento excesivo de la capacidad de pe sca, lo que redunda en la sobreexplotación de los 
recursos. En este contexto, ¿Cómo piensa abordar Estados Unidos el problema de los subsidios 
horizontales para contribuir efectivamente a la solución de la urgente problemática que enfrentan 
las pesquerías mundiales?  
RESPONSE: We recognize that fuel subsidies and horizontal subsidies more generally have long 
been a point of contention in WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies. As noted, the United States 
and a number of other WTO Members recently announced their intention to negotiate disciplines 
on fisheries subsidies. Participants have met several times to organize their work. Negotiations are 
expected to commence in 2017.  
México pregunta 3:  ¿Más allá de las limitaciones (en la definición) que presenta el actual Acuerdo 
sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias de la OMC, qué medidas está pensando 
implementar Estados Unidos para cumplir con el Objetivo de Desarr ollo Sostenible de, para el 
año 2030, eliminar todo tipo de subvención que contribuya a la sobr epesca y a la sobrecapacidad? 
Este objetivo está citado en la Declaración de anuncio de la iniciativa plurilateral a la que se hace 
referencia en el párrafo 4.5. de su informe de Gobierno.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 275 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States does not maintain subsidies that contri bute to overfishing or 
overcapacity, and, as noted, is working with other WTO Members in an effort to ensure that other 
Members meet target 14.6 of the Sustainable Development Goals.  
Preguntas 4 a 6. WT/TPR/G/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe del Gobierno; 4 E VOLUCIÓN 
DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2014; 4.1 Acuerdos e iniciativas de la OMC:  
Página 15, párrafo 4.8. Desde la entrada en vigor de los Acuerdos de la Ronda Uruguay en 1995, 
un aspecto central de la política comercial de los Estados Unidos ha sido pro mover la aplicación 
efectiva y a su debido tiempo de los compromisos contraídos en el marco de la OMC. Los Estados 
Unidos creen que es importante, no solo para los intereses comerciales estadounidenses sino para 
todo el sistema de la  OMC, lograr que todos los Miembros cumplan sus compromisos. Las diversas 
manifestaciones de esta política van desde una participación activa y constructiva en las 
deliberaciones de los comités de la OMC hasta la utilización de los distintos procedimientos de que 
se dispone en e l marco del mecanismo de solución de diferencias de la Organización. La política 
comercial de los Estados Unidos trata de respaldar y promover el cumplimiento de las normas de 
la OMC en que se basa el sistema internacional de comercio.  
Página 15, párrafo 4 .10. Para asegurar el cumplimiento de los Acuerdos de la OMC, los 
Estados  Unidos han sido uno de los países del mundo que ha recurrido con más frecuencia a los 
procedimientos de solución de diferencias de la OMC. Desde la creación de la Organización en 
1994, los Estados Unidos han presentado 117 reclamaciones en la OMC, y hasta ahora han 
obtenido decisiones favorables en  78 de ellas, de las que 31 se resolvieron favorablemente de 
manera amistosa y otras  47 mediante procedimientos de los grupos especiales y el Órgano de 
Apelación de la OMC. Los Estados Unidos han obtenido soluciones y decisiones favorables 
prácticamente en todos los sectores, con inclusión de las manufacturas, la propiedad intelectual, la 
agricultura y los servicios.  
México pregunta 4:  En su Informe de Gobierno, Estados Unidos refrenda su compromiso con el 
cumplimiento de las normas de la OMC en que se basa el sistema internacional de comercio, 
incluyendo los procedimientos en el marco del mecanismo de solución de diferencias. ¿Piensa 
Estados Unidos dar cumplimiento pronto a los casos aún pendientes de ello?  
RESPONSE: We refer Mexico to the various DSB statements by the United States.  
México pregunta 5:  ¿En tanto que uno de los usuarios más importantes de dicho mecanismo, 
cuáles son los desafío s que ve Estados Unidos en el mecanismo de solución de diferencias ante el 
aumento de casos y qué propuestas tiene para enfrentarlos?  
RESPONSE: This is not a matter of U.S. trade policy, but a matter for all Members to discuss. We 
would note that Members h ave agreed in the Dispute Settlement Understanding that the aim of 
the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to disputes between Members. 
We look forward to discussing with Mexico and other Members means to reinforce that goal.  
México pregunta 6:  ¿Cómo piensa Estados Unidos que podría hacerse más ágil y eficiente el 
funcionamiento del mismo?  
RESPONSE: This is not a matter of U.S. trade policy, but a matter for all Members to discuss. We 
would note that Members have agreed in the Disp ute Settlement Understanding that the aim of 
the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to disputes between Members. 
We look forward to discussing with Mexico and other Members means to reinforce that goal.  
Preguntas 7 y 8. WT/TPR/G/ 350 • Estados Unidos; Informe del Gobierno; 4 EVOLUCIÓN 
DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2014; 4.3 Acuerdos e iniciativas comerciales 
bilaterales; 4.3.1 Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre los Estados Unidos e Israel:  
Página 24, párrafo 4.55. En enero de  2016, los Estados Unidos e Israel examinaron fórmulas para 
emprender iniciativas conjuntas con objeto de aumentar el comercio y las inversiones bilaterales. 
Durante la reunión, los Estados Unidos e Israel empezaron a examinar un plan de trabajo para 
suprimir los  obstáculos aún existentes al comercio bilateral, en particular en lo relativo a la 
agricultura y al régimen de aduanas, entre otras materias. Las dos partes también han avanzado WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 276 - 
 
  en diversas cuestiones relativas al acceso a los mercados, como las normas, l a clasificación 
aduanera y los reglamentos técnicos.  
México pregunta 7:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos proporcionar detalles adicionales sobre el progreso 
alcanzado con Israel en relación con las normas y reglamentos técnicos?  
RESPONSE: In 2012, Israel amended its  standards law to expand recognition of standards that 
could be accepted for products imported into Israel. This allowed the Israeli Ministry of Economy 
(MOE) to encourage acceptance of international standards as a way to deregulate, increase 
competition a nd support SMEs within the Israeli market. In addition, Israel signed a number of 
MOUs with testing and inspection organizations to allow products to be tested to international 
standards in the country of production, rather than by Standards Institute in I srael (SII). Some of 
these MOUs are with U.S. testing organizations, and it is expected that this will level the playing 
field for imports into the Israeli market.  
The USG has worked steadily with relevant Israeli bodies on the implementation of the 
amend ments to the standards law. In 2014, SII requested assistance from USG and U.S. standard 
setting organizations in identifying 220 equivalent U.S. standards (mostly for commodities and 
consumer goods) which might be adopted by SII.  To date, the U.S. has pro vided details on 189 of 
the 220 standards requested; the remaining standards are mostly those prepared by smaller 
standard development organizations.  
México pregunta 8:  ¿Cuáles son los objetivos específicos perseguidos a través de la colaboración 
entre Es tados Unidos e Israel en términos de reglamentos técnicos y normas relacionados con el 
comercio de mercancías?  
RESPONSE: Accepting U.S. and other standards are a way to deregulate, increase competition, 
and support SMEs in the Israeli market. Additionally,  Israel 's agreement to allowing testing and 
inspection of products to international standards in the country of production, rather than SII, is 
expected to level the playing field for imports into the Israeli market.   
Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC (WT /TPR/S/350):  
Preguntas 9 a 11. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN; 2.2 Objetivos y formulación de la política 
comercial; 2.2.1 Objetivos de la política comercial:  
Página 34, párrafo 2.8. L a TPA de  2015 actualiza otros objetivos de negociación específicos de TPA 
anteriores. El comercio electrónico pasa a ser el comercio digital de mercancías y servicios y 
corrientes de datos transfronterizas. Por lo que respecta al comercio de mercancías, se  añadió un 
texto nuevo para tener en cuenta las cadenas de valor mundiales y alentar su utilización. En 
cuanto al comercio de servicios, el objetivo de negociación específico es la liberalización por todos 
los medios, con inclusión de un acuerdo plurilater al. En el sector de la agricultura, los Estados 
Unidos pretenden establecer disciplinas adicionales sobre la utilización de las medidas sanitarias y 
fitosanitarias y las indicaciones geográficas.10 La TPA de  2015 también abarca la transparencia en 
la utiliz ación de los contingentes arancelarios.  
México pregunta 9:  ¿Por lo que respecta al comercio de mercancías, de qué manera pretende 
Estados Unidos que se tengan en cuenta las cadenas de valor mundiales y se aliente su utilización 
a través de la Autoridad de Promoción del Comercio (TPA)? ¿Podría proporcionar ejemplos 
concretos de propuestas de disposiciones de Acuerdos Comerciales Internacionales en esta 
materia?  
RESPONSE: Through Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Congress authorized the President to 
negotiate trade agreements that seek, among other objectives, "to expand competitive market 
opportunities for exports of goods from the United States and to obtain fairer and more open 
conditions of trade, including through the utilization of global value chains." T his objective could be 
met in FTAs through commitments that liberalize and facilitate the movement of both intermediate 
                                                
10 Los Estados Unidos consideran que el uso indebido de las medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias y las 
indicaciones geográficas representa un obstáculo para sus exportaciones.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 277 - 
 
  and finished goods, such as broad, comprehensive and ambitious tariff elimination and rules of 
origin that take into account regional pr oduction chains.  
México pregunta 10:  Con relación al comercio de servicios, ¿de qué manera plantea la Autoridad 
de Promoción del Comercio  (TPA) abordar la liberalización del Movimiento temporal de personas 
físicas (o naturales) (Modo 4), tomando en cuenta que se menciona como objetivo de negociación 
"la liberalización por todos los medios"? ¿Esta nueva autoridad comercial permitirá negociar 
compromisos en este Modo de suministro?  
RESPONSE: As regards trade in services, the 2015 Bipartisan Congressional Trad e Priorities Act 
("Act") does not prescribe negotiating objectives of the basis of individual modes of supply. With 
respect to the temporary entry and stay of natural persons (i.e., immigration -related measures), 
the Act, through amendments effected in the  Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 
2015, prescribes a negotiating objective for the United States to "ensure that trade agreements do 
not require changes to the immigration laws of the United States or obligate the United States to 
grant acce ss or expand access to visas issued under " provisions of U.S. immigration law.  
México pregunta 11:  ¿Cuáles son las disciplinas adicionales sobre la utilización de las medidas 
sanitarias y fitosanitarias que contempla la Autoridad de Promoción del Comercio (TPA) de 2015?  
RESPONSE: Consistent with the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation, the United 
States intends to secure more open and equitable market access through robust rules on sanitary 
and phytosanitary measures that encourage the adoption  of international standards and require a 
science -based justification be provided for a sanitary or phytosanitary measure if the measure is 
more restrictive than the applicable international standard; improve regulatory coherence, 
promoting the use of syst ems-based approaches, and appropriately recognizing the equivalence of 
health and safety protection systems of exporting countries; require that measures are 
transparently developed and implemented, are based on risk assessments that take into account 
relevant international guidelines and scientific data, and are not more restrictive on trade than 
necessary to meet the intended purpose; and improve import check processes, including testing 
methodologies and procedures, and certification requirements, while recognizing that countries 
may put in place measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health in a manner consistent 
with their international obligations, including the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures . 
Pregu ntas 12 y 13. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN; 2.4 Régimen de inversión:  
Página 40, párrafo 2.40. Durante el período objeto de examen, el régimen de inversión extranjera 
en los Estados U nidos no ha variado. En líneas generales, el régimen es abierto y liberal, aunque 
se aplican algunas restricciones, principalmente por razones de carácter prudencial o de seguridad 
nacional (cuadro 2.2). Las restricciones a la participación extranjera se a plican en su mayor parte 
en esferas específicas, como, por ejemplo: las actividades relacionadas con la energía atómica; los 
derechos de paso para oleoductos; la extracción de carbón y determinados minerales o la 
prospección petrolera; y determinadas activ idades pesqueras. Por norma general, los Estados 
Unidos otorgan trato nacional a las inversiones extranjeras; cabe señalar algunas limitaciones por 
lo que respecta a los requisitos para recibir financiación pública para actividades de investigación y 
desar rollo (I+D) y los préstamos de emergencia para la agricultura, así como los préstamos, las 
garantías y los seguros contra riesgos políticos para la inversión.  
México pregunta 12:  ¿Cuáles son las razones de carácter prudencial, distintas a las de seguridad 
nacional, que le permiten a Estados Unidos restringir la inversión extranjera? ¿Podría dar algunos 
ejemplos?  
RESPONSE: The United States is not aware of which "prudential " reasons the WTO Secretariat 
intended to refer to in paragraph 2.40.  
México pregunta 13: ¿En qué actividades pesqueras Estados Unidos restringe la inversión 
extranjera?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 278 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Vessels of five net tons or more used in fishing activities on navigable waters of the 
United States or in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone generally must be regi stered (documented) 
with the United States Coast Guard. To obtain a certificate of documentation with a fishery 
endorsement, a vessel must meet certain requirements, inclu ding that it be owned by a 
U.S. citizen, or by a U.S. corporation, partnership, or tr ust in which 75 percent of the equity 
interest is owned by citizens of the United States. A joint venture or association may meet the 
citizenship requirement if each of its members is a U.S. citizen.  
Pregunta 14. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de l a Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros; 
3.1.1.1  Medidas de facilitación del comercio; 3.1.1.1.1 Ventanilla única:  
Página  45, párrafo 3.6. En la Orden Ejecutiva 13659 sobre racionalización de los procesos de 
exportación e importación para las empresas estadounidenses, emitida por el Presidente en 
febrero de 2014, se fijó de plazo hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2016 para complet ar el Sistema de 
Datos sobre el Comercio Internacional (ITDS) como servicio de ventanilla única. En virtud de la 
Orden Ejecutiva se estableció asimismo el Consejo Ejecutivo Interinstitucional para las 
Operaciones en Frontera (BIEC), con el objetivo de desa rrollar políticas y procedimientos para 
aumentar la coordinación entre los organismos de gestión de las fronteras, incluidos los 
organismos competentes en materia de aduanas, seguridad en el transporte, salud y seguridad, 
medidas sanitarias y fitosanitaria s, medio ambiente y comercio. La alta dirección del BIEC ha 
estado supervisando la labor de los organismos en tres comités encargados respectivamente de la 
gestión del riesgo, la coordinación de procesos y las actividades exteriores.  
México pregunta 14:  Respecto a la ventanilla única de comercio exterior, se agradecerá conocer en 
qué momento se planea tener completamente funcionando el sistema.  
RESPONSE: Core functionality for the processing and release of merchandise will be functional by 
December 31, 201 6. Further functionality not related to the release of merchandise, but that is 
expected to enhance the trade environment for both the government and the private sector, will 
deployed over 2017. See the attached link for further details : 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/ace -mandatory -use-dates . 
Pregunta 15. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medi das que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos a duaneros; 
3.1.1.1  Medidas de facilitación del comercio; 3.1.1.1.1 Ventanilla única:  
Página 45, párrafo 3.7, nota al pie de página 6. En total, las autoridades estadouniden ses emplean 
casi 200 formularios diferentes para la importación y la exportación. Los principales formularios 
son el manifiesto de entrada (formulario 7533 del CBP) o, subsidiariamente, la solicitud y permiso 
especial para entrega inmediata (formulario 346 1 del CBP), que se deben presentar en los 15 días 
siguientes a la llegada al puerto de entrada; y la declaración de importación resumida (formulario 
7501 del CBP), que se debe presentar en la entrada para calcular la estimación de los derechos de 
importaci ón. 
México pregunta 15:  El sistema de Estados Unidos sigue siendo complejo muestra de ello es que 
"las autoridades estadounidenses emplean casi 200 formularios diferentes para la importación y la 
exportación ". ¿Existen planes en Estados Unidos para simplif icar y reducir el número de 
formularios? De ser el caso, ¿cuándo se prevé que se realice una revisión y una reducción?  
RESPONSE: The review, simplification, and reduction of documents has already occurred. After 
December 31, 2016, except for a few documen ts in limited circumstances, no paper documents for 
the entry and release of merchandise into the United States will be required. All information from 
the forms in the report will be replaced by data elements, or will be accepted by digital imaging, 
except  for limited circumstances. See : https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/ace -november -1-
pga-forms . The United States remains committed to further streamlining information and repo rting 
requirements.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 279 - 
 
  Preguntas 16 a 18. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.6 Prohibiciones, restricciones y prescr ipciones 
especiales de importación; 3.1.6.1 Prohibiciones y restricciones:  
Página 63, párrafo 3.58. En junio de  2014, el Presidente estableció un grupo de trabajo encargado 
de elaborar recomendaciones encaminadas a mejorar la coordinación y aplicar un mar co general 
de lucha contra la pesca INDNR y el fraude en el sector de los productos marinos. El 15  de marzo 
de 2015, el grupo de trabajo presentó un plan de acción para aplicar 15 recomendaciones.11 Dos 
de ellas se refieren al establecimiento de un programa  basado en el riesgo que permita rastrear los 
productos marinos nacionales e importados desde el punto de captura o producción hasta su 
entrada en el mercado estadounidense . En febrero de  2016, la Administración Nacional de los 
Océanos y la Atmósfera (Serv icio de Pesca de la NOAA) publicó una propuesta de norma para que 
el público presentara observaciones, y tenía previsto publicar una norma definitiva en septiembre 
de ese mismo año. La norma propuesta establecería prescripciones en materia de notificación (a 
través de la Plataforma Comercial Automatizada (ACE)), aplicables a los importadores 
estadounidenses, con respecto a las importaciones de una serie de especies prioritarias.12 Esa 
norma se centra en las importaciones porque, por lo que se refiere a las e species prioritarias 
seleccionadas para la fase inicial del programa, ya se está recopilando información equivalente 
sobre los productos nacionales a través de programas existentes. El importador tendrá que 
mantener registros de la cadena de custodia del p roducto hasta el punto de entrada en el mercado 
estadounidense y ponerlos a disposición del Servicio de Pesca de la NOAA previa solicitud. La 
norma no establece nuevas prescripciones en materia de etiquetado.13 
México pregunta 16:  El párrafo 3.58, Estados U nidos señala que para enfrentar la pesca ilegal, la 
Administración Nacional de los Océanos y la Atmósfera (NOAA) publicó un proyecto de norma que 
establece que el importador tendrá que mantener registros de la cadena de custodia del producto 
hasta el punto  de entrada en el mercado de Estados Unidos y ponerlos a disposición de esa 
Administración. ¿Podría Estados Unidos señalar si dicha norma ya entró en vigor?  
RESPONSE:  NOAA  Fisheries  published  a final rule establishing  a Seafood  Import  Monitoring  
Program  on December  9, 2016.  The Rule can be found  here:  
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ts/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/magnuson -stevens -fishery -
conservation -and-management -act-seafood -import -monitoring -program . The final rule will become  
effective  on January  8, 2017,  however  compliance  with reporting  and recordkeeping  requirements  
in the rule for priority  species  other  than shrimp  and abalone  is delayed  until January  1, 2018.  The 
effective  date for wild-caught  and aquaculture -raised  shrimp  and abalone  is stayed  until 
commensurate  requirements  have been established  for domestic  aquaculture -raised  shrimp and 
abalone  production.  At such time, NOAA  Fisheries  will announce  a compliance  date for shrimp  and 
abalone,  allowing  for a reasonable  period  of time for implementation.   
México pregunta 17:  ¿Cuáles son las especies prioritarias que se incluyen en dic ha norma y los 
criterios para determinar prioritarios dichos productos?  
RESPONSE:  The priority  species  are: Abalone,  Atlantic  Cod, Blue Crab (Atlantic),  Dolphinfish  
(Mahi  Mahi),  Grouper,  King Crab (red),  Pacific  Cod, Red Snapper,  Sea Cucumber,  Sharks,  Shrimp, 
Swordfish,  Albacore,  Bigeye,  Skipjack  and Yellowfin  tuna, Bluefin  tuna. The list of "Priority " species  
is a list of seafood  species  identified  as particularly  vulnerable  to IUU fishing  and/or  fraudulent  
activities  and for which  this first-phase  of the Seafood  Import  Monitoring  Program  is directed.  This 
list and the principles  used to identify  these  species  were established  through  an extensive  public  
comment  process.  The Task Force  Action  Plan calls for the program  to be expanded  to include  all 
seafood . Further  information  can be found  here:  
https://www.federalregister.gov/document s/2015/10/30/2015 -27780/presidential -task-force-on-
combating -illegal -unreported -and-unregulated -iuu-fishing -and-seafood . 
                                                
11 Iniciativa del Presidente para luchar contra la pesca ilegal,  no declarada y no reglamentada (INDNR) y 
el fraude en los productos marinos. Informe consultado en: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf . 
12 Ello inc luiría la presentación de información sobre la captura, el desembarque y la cadena de custodia 
del producto hasta el punto de entrada en el mercado estadounidense.  
13 Medidas y anuncios: Recomendaciones 14 y 15. Consultado en: 
http://www.iuufishing.noaa.gov/RecommendationsandActions/RECOMMENDATION1415/February2016Proposed
RuleforSeafoodTraceabilityProgram.aspx . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 280 - 
 
  México pregunta 18:  ¿Puede confirmar Estados Unidos que no existe diferencia entre la 
información solicitada a las importaciones a tra vés de dicha norma y la requerida a los nacionales 
por algunos programas existentes?  
RESPONSE: While the final rule is focused on imports, it is part of a larger traceability program 
that includes domestic fish and fisheries products. For the priority spe cies to which this rule 
applies, equivalent information is already being collected at the point of entry into commerce for 
the products of U.S. domestic fisheries pursuant to various federal and/or state fishery 
recordkeeping and reporting programs. The ef fective date for wild -caught and aquaculture -raised 
shrimp and abalone is stayed until commensurate requirements have been established for 
domestic aquaculture -raised shrimp and abalone production. At such time, NOAA Fisheries will 
announce a compliance da te for shrimp and abalone, allowing for a reasonable period of time for 
implementation.  
Preguntas 19 a 21. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directame nte a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de 
salvaguardia; 3.1.7.1 Legislación y aplicación:  
Página 65, párrafo 3.68. En particular, la Unidad de Asuntos relacionados con los Derechos 
Antidumping y Compensatorios de la ITA es res ponsable de la aplicación de la legislación de los 
Estados Unidos en materia de derechos antidumping y compensatorios. Realiza investigaciones en 
respuesta a solicitudes recibidas por el USDOC de ramas de producción nacionales y/o sindicatos. 
También lleva  a cabo los procedimientos subsiguientes conocidos como exámenes administrativos, 
en los que se determina el derecho efectivamente exigible a los importadores. La Unidad de 
Aduanas, encuadrada en la Unidad de Asuntos relacionados con los Derechos Antidumpi ng y 
Compensatorios, sirve de enlace con el Servicio de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras de los 
Estados Unidos (CBP) a la hora de tratar de asuntos relacionados con la percepción de derechos 
antidumping o compensatorios y de cuestiones de posible fraude e n relación con los 
procedimientos en materia de derechos antidumping y compensatorios.14 
En relación con el párrafo 3.68, cuando un sindicato solicita una investigación en materia de 
derechos antidumping o compensatorios:  
México pregunta 19:  ¿Cómo se confor ma la rama de producción naci onal de acuerdo con el 
artículo  4.1 del Acuerdo Antidumping y el artículo 16 del Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas 
Compensatorias?  
RESPONSE: US law expressly states that "a certified union or group of workers which is 
repres entative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United 
States of a domestic like product " may have interested party status for filing AD/CVD petitions 
where those who support the petition fulfill the industry support req uirements.  
México pregunta 20:  En caso de que una o más empresas en las que laboran trabajadores de 
dicho sindicato sean también importadoras de la mercancía que se pretende sujetar a la 
investigación, ¿cómo tomará en cuenta la autoridad a esa situación en  relación con la 
conformación de la rama de producción nacional?  
RESPONSE: The decision of whether or not to disregard the views of parties involved in the 
production of the domestic like product is taken into account when one or more of those parties 
opposes the petition. In such a scenario, the administering authority may disregard the position of 
domestic producers of the domestic like product.  
México pregunta 21:  ¿Cómo se cumple el umbral de representatividad conforme al artículo 5.4 del 
mismo Acuerdo?  
RESPONSE: The requirements for industry support are consistent for unions and for companies.  
                                                
14 Información en línea del USDOC. Consultado en: http://trade.gov/enforcement/operations/ . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 281 - 
 
  Preguntas 22 y 23. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de 
salvaguardia; 3.1.7.1 Legislación y aplicación:  
Página 66, párrafo 3.70. En general, el USDOC inicia las investigaciones antidumping y sobre 
derechos compensatorios a instancias d e los peticionarios y sobre la base de solicitudes por 
escrito; está facultado para iniciar investigaciones por propia iniciativa, pero rara vez lo hace. Las 
peticiones de investigación deben presentarse simultáneamente a la ITA y la USITC. Una rama de 
producción estadounidense que solicite la iniciación de una investigación antidumping o en materia 
de derechos compensatorios debe proporcionar un fundamento razonable para creer o sospechar 
a) que un determinado producto es objeto de dumping y/o de subvenció n, b) que la rama de 
producción nacional ha sufrido "daño importante o amenaza de daño importante", y c) que existe 
una relación causal entre ambos hechos. Se pueden iniciar al mismo tiempo investigaciones 
antidumping y en materia de derechos compensatorio s sobre el mismo producto.  
México pregunta 22:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos dar un ejemplo de alguna investigación iniciada por 
propia iniciativa?  
RESPONSE: The United States has not self -initiated an AD/CVD investigation since becoming a 
member of the WTO.  
México pregunta 23:  ¿Podrían los EUA aclarar si existe alguna diferencia entre proporcionar el 
"fundamento razonable ", referido en el párrafo en cuestión para poder iniciar una investigación, y 
presentar las "pruebas pertinentes " a las que se refieren los artí culos 5.2 del Acuerdo Antidumping 
y 11.2 del Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias para el mismo efecto?  
RESPONSE: The information above erred in using the term "reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect " which does not appear in U.S. law for purposes of initiating anti -dumping or 
countervailing duty proceedings. To clarify, under Article 5.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and 
Article 11.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, an application shall 
include evidence of the ele ments set out in those particular articles. The relevant provisions state 
that "[s]imple assertion, unsubstantiated by relevant evidence, cannot be considered sufficient to 
meet the requirements of this paragraph [Article 5.2 of the ADA or Article 11.2 of the SCM 
Agreement, as appropriate]. " They also provide that the "application shall contain such information 
as is reasonably available to the applicant " with respect to each of the enumerated elements. The 
same requirement exists in U.S. law for initiation  of anti -dumping and countervailing duty 
proceedings. Sections 1671a and 1673a of 19 U.S.C., as amended, pertaining to countervailing 
and antidumping duty petitions, respectively, require that the petition "alleges the elements 
necessary for the imposition  of the duty ... and which is accompanied by information reasonably 
available to the petitioner supporting those allegations. "  
Preguntas 24 a 26. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR ME DIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de 
salvaguardia; 3.1.7.1 Legislación y aplicación:  
Página 66, párrafo 3.73. La ITA utiliza dos tipos de métodos de cálculo de los derechos 
antidump ing: i) economía de mercado; y ii)  economía que no es de mercado. En ambos casos, la 
ITA compara los precios vigentes en los Estados Unidos con un valor normal. No obstante, la 
determinación del valor normal varía en función de si la ITA está tratando con una economía de 
mercado o una economía que no es de mercado. En los cálculos para economías de mercado, la 
ITA basa el valor normal en los costos y los precios reales de la empresa en el mercado de 
comparación, que puede ser el país de origen del declarant e o un tercer país apropiado. Si la ITA 
no encuentra un mercado de comparación apropiado, basa el valor normal en el valor 
reconstruido, que es un precio sustitutivo reconstruido sobre la base del costo . En los cálculos de 
los derechos antidumping para eco nomías no de mercado, el valor normal incluye los factores de 
producción de la empresa valorados en un país de sustitución apropiado.  
Página 69, párrafo 3.79. Entre las modificaciones introducidas, la Ley sobre la eficacia de la 
aplicación de las normas co merciales de los Estados Unidos dispone expresamente que la USITC WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 282 - 
 
  no podrá determinar que no existe daño importante o amenaza de daño importante para una rama 
de producción en los Estados Unidos simplemente porque esta sea rentable o porque sus 
resultados hayan mejorado recientemente. También introdujo modificaciones con respecto al 
concepto de valor reconstruido al establecer que, si existe una situación especial del mercado de 
manera que el costo de los materiales y de la fabricación u otras operaciones d e elaboración de 
cualquier tipo no refleje con exactitud el costo de producción en el curso de operaciones 
comerciales normales, la autoridad administradora podrá utilizar otro método de cálculo . Por lo 
que se refiere a los precios y costos en economías qu e no son de m ercado, se modificó el 
artículo  773(c) de la Ley Arancelaria de  1930 mediante la adición de una disposición que confiere a 
la autoridad investigadora la facultad discrecional de no tener en cuenta valores del precio o del 
costo sin hacer ningu na investigación adicional si ha determinado que existieron subvenciones a la 
exportación de disponibilidad general o casos específicos de subvenciones con respecto a esos 
valores del precio o del costo, o si estos fueron objeto de una orden de imposición de derechos 
antidumping.  
México pregunta 24:  ¿Cuál es el fundamento jurídico de calcular el valor normal reconstruido 
basándose en un precio sustituto?  
RESPONSE: For a market economy, the basis for using a constructed normal value as a form of 
normal value  is found at 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(e), as amended, which describes the elements of 
value to be included, in parallel with Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The use of 
constructed value may occur if home market or third country prices are unavailabl e or such prices 
are found to have been made outside the normal course of trade. For non -market economies, the 
normal value may be calculated based on the company 's production factors (consumption 
quantities) as valued by an appropriate value from a surrog ate country.  
México pregunta 25:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar la metodología?  
RESPONSE: Under 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(e), as amended, constructed value is based on the cost 
of materials and of fabrication, an amount for selling general and administrative e xpenses, and an 
amount for profit. Under 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(c), as amended, the normal value may be 
calculated based on the company 's production factors (consumption quantities) as valued by an 
appropriate value from a surrogate country.  
México pregunta  26: ¿Lo anterior implica que no se consideren los costos de producción en el país 
de origen?  
RESPONSE: For non -market economies, under 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(c), as amended, the normal 
value may be calculated based on the company 's production factors (consu mption quantities) as 
valued by an appropriate value from a surrogate country. Because a respondent 's consumption 
quantities are required for this calculation, this methodology relies on the quantity component of 
the respondent 's production costs; however,  the value component is obtained from a surrogate 
country. In certain limited instances, where significant amounts of a respondent 's inputs are 
imported from a market economy, Commerce has relied on the reported costs of those inputs in 
calculating the nor mal value, when appropriate.  
Preguntas 27 a 29. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compen satorias y de 
salvaguardia; 3.1.7.1 Legislación y aplicación:  
Página 67, párrafo 3.74. Las investigaciones antidumping y en materia de derechos 
compensatorios pueden suspenderse, en determinadas circunstancias, sobre la base de un acuerdo 
para interrumpir las exportaciones, o para eliminar el efecto perjudicial. Con respecto a las 
investigaciones antidumping, en virtud de los acuerdos de suspensión, los exportadores que 
representen sustancialmente la totalidad de las importaciones del producto objeto de inv estigación 
pueden convenir en interrumpir las exportaciones o aceptar compromisos relativos a los precios. 
En el caso de las economías no de mercado, los acuerdos de suspensión antidumping pueden 
combinar compromisos relativos a los precios con elementos a dicionales a fin de evitar la 
contención de la subida de los precios o la subvaloración de los mismos. En el caso de las 
investigaciones sobre derechos compensatorios, el gobierno que presuntamente conceda la WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 283 - 
 
  subvención puede convenir en eliminarla, neutra lizar totalmente la subvención neta o interrumpir 
o limitar las exportaciones de la mercancía a los Estados Unidos. Cualquier acuerdo suscrito con un 
Miembro de la OMC considerado una economía de mercado para suspender una investigación 
antidumping puede c onllevar únicamente compromisos relativos a los precios. Los acuerdos en 
relación con una investigación en materia de derechos compensatorios pueden entrañar también 
restricciones cuantitativas.  
México pregunta 27:  El texto del párrafo 3.74 parece indicar que, en el caso de los Miembros de la 
OMC cuyas economías operan bajo principios de mercado, no es posible celebrar "acuerdos para 
interrumpir las exportaciones ". ¿Podrían los Estados Unidos confirmar si eso es correcto?  
RESPONSE: There does not appear to be a basis for the quotation in the text of paragraph 3.74.  
México pregunta 28:  ¿Podrían Estados Unidos indicar si ha utilizado este tipo de acuerdo? En caso 
afirmativo, ¿podrían Estados Unidos explicar en qué consiste dicho acuerdo, dando información 
acerca del tipo de cláusulas que contiene?  
RESPONSE: See reply above.  
México pregunta 29:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos indicar cuales son esos "elementos adicionales " que 
se pueden combinar con los compromisos relativos a los precios en los acuerdos de suspensión, e n 
el caso de las economías no de mercado?  
RESPONSE: Any additional elements related to a price undertaking would depend on the facts and 
circumstances at issue.  
Pregunta 30. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y P RÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de 
salvaguardia; 3.1.7.1 Legislación y aplicación:  
Páginas 67 y 68, párrafo 3.76. El artículo 751(c) de la Ley Arancelar ia de 1930 de los Estados 
Unidos, modificada por la  URAA, obliga al USDOC y la USITC a iniciar exámenes por extinción a 
más tardar 30 días antes del quinto aniversario de la publicación de una orden de imposición de 
derechos antidumping o compensatorios o un acuerdo de suspensión en el Federal Register. En el 
examen por extinción se debe determinar si sería probable que la revocación de la orden diera 
lugar a la continuación o la repetición del dumping o las subvenciones susceptibles de 
compensación (por el  USDOC) y del daño importante a la rama de producción nacional (por la 
USITC). Las iniciaciones son automáticas. El USDOC ha aplicado una política de notificación de los 
exámenes por extinción en el Federal Register con un mes de antelación, para informar a las 
partes interesadas de los exámenes por extinción cuya iniciación esté prevista para el mes 
siguiente. Los exámenes por extinción se centran en órdenes específicas (referentes a un país y a 
un producto), pero pueden agruparse en una investigación; los  acuerdos de suspensión son 
también objeto de exámenes por extinción.15 Al determinar si sería probable que la revocación de 
una orden o la terminación de una investigación suspendida diera lugar a la continuación o la 
repetición del dumping, el USDOC tiene  en cuenta los márgenes establecidos en las 
investigaciones y/o exámenes realizados durante el período del examen por extinción, así como el 
volumen de importación en los períodos anterior y posterior a la emisión de la orden o la 
aceptación del acuerdo de  suspensión. También puede tener en cuenta otros factores económicos 
si las partes interesadas pueden demostrar justificación suficiente.  
México pregunta 30:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos aclarar si los exámenes por extinción se inician 
automáticamente, independi entemente de que las partes interesadas manifiesten que no tienen 
interés en el mismo con posterioridad a la notificación que hace el USDOC en el Federal Register  
con un mes de antelación al inicio?  
RESPONSE: The requirements for participation by a domesti c interested party in a sunset review, 
and the consequences of non -participation are contained in 19 C.F.R. sec. 351.218(d).  
                                                
15 Las normas y procedimientos que debe seguir el USDOC para los exámenes por extinción figuran 
en 19 CFR, a rtículos 351.218. El procedimiento específico para los exámenes por extinción de la USITC se 
establece en 19 CFR, artículos 207.60 -69. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 284 - 
 
  Preguntas 31 y 32. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDID AS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de 
salvaguardia; 3.1.7.1 Legislación y aplicación:  
Página 69, párrafo 3.79. Entre las modificaciones introducidas, la Ley sobre la eficacia de la 
aplicación de las normas comerciales de los Estados Unidos dispone expresamente que la USITC 
no podrá determinar que no existe daño importante o amenaza de daño importante para una rama 
de producción en los Estados Unidos simplemente porque esta sea rentable o  porque sus 
resultados hayan mejorado recientemente. También introdujo modificaciones con respecto al 
concepto de valor reconstruido al establecer que, si existe una situación especial del mercado de 
manera que el costo de los materiales y de la fabricació n u otras operaciones de elaboración de 
cualquier tipo no refleje con exactitud el costo de producción en el curso de operaciones 
comerciales normales, la autoridad administradora podrá utilizar otro método de cálculo. Por lo 
que se refiere a los precios y  costos en economías que no son de mercado, se modificó el artículo 
773(c) de la Ley Arancelaria de 1930 mediante la adición de una disposición que confiere a la 
autoridad investigadora la facultad discrecional de no tener en cuenta valores del precio o de l 
costo sin hacer ninguna investigación adicional si ha determinado que existieron subvenciones a la 
exportación de disponibilidad general o casos específicos de subvenciones con respecto a esos 
valores del precio o del costo, o si estos fueron objeto de u na orden de imposición de derechos 
antidumping.  
México pregunta 31:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos indicar qué otros métodos de cálculo ha utilizado en 
casos donde existe una situación especial del mercado, de manera que el costo de los materiales y 
de la fabricac ión u otras operaciones de elaboración de cualquier tipo no refleje con exactitud el 
costo de producción en el curso de operaciones comerciales normales?  
RESPONSE: Any analysis of whether a particular market situation exists will depend on the facts 
and ci rcumstances the administering authority has before it on the administrative record. The 
United States has not yet made a determination that a "particular market situation " exists under 
the amended statutory provisions.   
México pregunta 32:  Al respecto de l a última parte del párrafo 3.79, en caso de que se determine 
que NO existieron subvenciones a la exportación de disponibilidad general o casos específicos de 
subvenciones con respecto a esos valores del precio o del costo, o si estos fueron objeto de una 
orden de imposición de derechos antidumping, ¿la autoridad sí realizaría una investigación 
adicional? En caso afirmativo, ¿qué es lo que se investigaría? ¿qué fuentes de información se 
utilizarían?  
RESPONSE: U.S. law does  not require an additional investiga tion. 
Pregunta 33. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones;  3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de 
salvaguardia;  
Página 72, párrafo 3.89. En los tres últimos años, los Estados Unidos suscribieron dos nuevos 
acuerdos de suspensión: uno con México en 2014, relativo al azúcar, y otro con Ucrania en 2013, 
sobre determinadas tuberías para perforación petrolera. A finales de  2015 estaban en vigor 
siete acuerdos de suspensión, con la Argentina  (1), México (2), la Federación de Rusia (2) y 
Ucrania (2), relativos al jugo de limón, los tomates frescos, el azúcar, las planchas de acero al 
carbono y el uranio, y las tuberías para p erforación petrolera, respectivamente. Cuatro de los 
acuerdos conllevan compromisos relativos a los precios, uno establece límites a la exportación y 
los demás establecen límites a la exportación combinados con un compromiso relativo a los 
precios.16 En los  ejercicios fiscales 2013 a 2015 se llevaron a cabo 230 exámenes administrativos 
de derechos antidumping.  
México p regunta 33:  Al respecto de la última parte del párrafo 3.89, observamos en el 
párra fo 3.74 se indica que " [c]ualquier acuerdo suscrito con un Miembro de la OMC considerado 
                                                
16 Documento G/ADP/N/280/USA de la OMC, de 11 de marzo de  2016.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 285 - 
 
  una economía de mercado para suspender una investigación antidumping puede conllevar 
únicamente compromisos relativos a los precios ". No obstante, la última parte del párrafo 3.89 
indica que, para finales de 2015, existían acu erdos de suspensión que establecen límites a la 
exportación combinados con un compromiso relativo a los precios, en casos de países Miembros de 
la OMC. Al respecto, ¿podrían explicar los Estados Unidos esa aparente contradicción?  
RESPONSE: It appears that the information in the Secretariat 's Report was in error and should be 
corrected as follows:  
In the last three years, the United States has signed new suspension agreements in two instances: 
first, with Mexico in 2014 regarding sugar (AD and CVD) and secon d, an AD agreement with 
Ukraine in 2014 regarding certain types of pipes used for oil drilling (OCTG). At the end of 2015, 
seven AD and one CVD suspension agreements were in force: one (1) with Argentina on lemon 
juice; three (3) with México on sugar and f resh tomatoes; two (2) with the Russian Federation on 
cut-to-length carbon steel plate and uranium; and two (2) with Ukraine on OCTG and cut -to-length 
carbon steel plate. Six of the agreements involve price undertakings, and two establish export 
limits. Fr om fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2015, 230 administrative anti -dumping duty reviews 
were conducted.  
Preguntas 34 a 37. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que af ectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.8 Normas y otras prescripciones técnicas:  
Página 75, párrafo 3.102. El Instituto Nacional de Normalización de los Estados Unidos (ANSI) es 
una organización privada sin fines lucrativos que coordina y administra el sistema de normas 
consensuales voluntarias del sector privado en los Estados Unidos. El ANSI es el órgano 
estadounidense miembro de la Organización Internacional de Normalización (ISO) y la Comisión 
Electrotécnica Internacional (CEI) a través del Comité  Nacional de los Estados Unidos. Unas 245 
organizaciones de normalización acreditadas por el ANSI preparan las normas nacionales de los 
Estados Unidos, que son una modalidad de normas consensuales voluntarias. Esas organizaciones 
de normalización acreditad as han patrocinado más de 11.000 normas nacionales de los Estados 
Unidos. Para mantener su acreditación en el ANSI, las organizaciones de normalización acreditadas 
deben cumplir los "Requisitos Fundamentales del ANSI"17 a fin de asegurarse que se sigue el 
procedimiento reglamentario en la preparación, aprobación, revisión, reafirmación y retirada de 
normas nacionales de los Estados Unidos. Las prescripciones básicas del procedimiento de 
elaboración de normas nacionales de los Estados Unidos son las siguiente s: utilización de medios 
de comunicación adecuados para facilitar una amplia participación; seguimiento de un proceso 
abierto a la participación de todos los afectados directa y materialmente por la actividad ; 
mantenimiento de un equilibrio de intereses si n predominio exclusivo de una categoría de 
intereses, un particular o una organización; coordinación y armonización para solucionar conflictos 
potenciales; establecimiento de un mecanismo de apelación de fácil acceso; adopción de 
decisiones por consenso; y  cumplimiento de la política del ANSI en materia de patentes. 
Los Requisitos Fundamentales del ANSI contienen principios de normalización aceptados a nivel 
mundial y aplicados por la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones, la Organización 
Internacional de Normalización y la Comisión Electrotécnica Internacional, entre otras 
instituciones . Las normas nacionales de los Estados Unidos pueden referirse a productos, procesos, 
servicios, sistemas o personal.  
México pregunta 34:  ¿Al referirse a la "utilización de medios de comunicación adecuados para 
facilitar una amplia participación ", podría dar algunos ejemplos específicos del uso de medios de 
comunicación?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Standards Strategy published by ANSI suggests special attention should be 
given to using new communications technology, such as the Internet, teleconferencing and other 
new modes of communication to facilitate contacts with non -U.S. stakeholders (particularly in 
newly developing markets) and enhance their participation in standards -related activities.  In 
addition, print media, personalized contacts, notification at public events, website announcements 
and web conferencing are among some of the other communication mechanisms used.  
                                                
17 Información en línea del ANSI. Consultada en: 
https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20Natio nal%20Standards/Pr
ocedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2016_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 286 - 
 
  México pregunta 35:  ¿Cada parte interesada ( "stakeholder ") puede participar en el proceso de 
normas consensuales voluntarias ( "voluntary consensus standards " (VCS)), sin importar su 
nacionalidad?  
RESPONSE: Yes. A "voluntary consensus standard " is a type of standard developed through a 
process which must be open to  interested parties, and which must provide meaningful 
opportunities for parties to participate on a non -discriminatory basis.   
México pregunta 36:  ¿Cuáles son los requisitos que deben cumplir las personas que participen en 
el proceso del Instituto Naciona l de Normalización de los Estados Unidos (ANSI)?  
RESPONSE: For clarity, we note that ANSI does not develop standards. For the criteria ANSI 
utilizes to assess accreditation for an organization, please see the document, "ANSI Essential 
Requirements: Due pro cess requirements for American National Standards, " which is available at : 
http://www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements . 
México pregunta 37:  ¿Estados Unidos considera que el CODEX Alimentarius es una o rganización 
que desarrolla o contiene los principios de normalización aceptados a nivel mundial y aplicados por 
la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones (ITU, por sus siglas en inglés), la Organización 
Internacional de Normalización (ISO, por sus sigla s en inglés) y la Comisión Electrotécnica 
Internacional (IEC, por sus siglas en inglés), entre otras instituciones?  
RESPONSE: Under the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, 
Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Artic les 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the WTO Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade (G/TBT/1/Rev.12) , any body that follows the principles of openness, 
transparency, impartiality, consensus, coherence, and the development dimension can develop 
international standards . Any standard that is developed in accordance with the principles set out in 
the Committee Decision should be treated as an international standard.  
Pregunta 38. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COM ERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.8 Normas y otras prescripciones técnicas:  
Página 76, párrafo 3.104. Las leyes federales prohíben expresamente la participación de cualquier 
organismo público estadounidens e en actividades relacionadas con las normas que creen 
obstáculos innecesarios al comercio exterior de los Estados Unidos.18 Además, los organismos 
federales están obligados a velar por que las mercancías importadas reciban un trato no menos 
favorable que e l dispensado a los productos nacionales similares en lo que respecta a las 
actividades relacionadas con las normas. La NTTAA impone a los organismos federales la 
obligación de utilizar normas desarrolladas o adoptadas por los organismos consensuales 
volunt arias como medio para alcanzar los objetivos establecidos. Además, codifica las directrices 
vigentes establecidas en la Circular  A-119, en la que se dan instrucciones a los organismos 
federales para que, al elaborar reglamentos técnicos y llevar a cabo sus  actividades de 
contratación, se basen en "normas consensuales voluntarias", en lugar de desarrollar "normas 
gubernamentales específicas", a menos que ese enfoque sea incompatible con la legislación o 
inviable por otras razones. En la Circular  A-119 se ali enta también a los organismos de 
reglamentación federales a participar en las organizaciones de normalización acreditadas.  
México pregunta 38:  ¿En caso de que haya una norma internacional de las organizaciones que 
contengan los principios de normalización aceptados a nivel mundial (como ISO, IEC, ITU, por sus 
siglas en inglés) y exista también una norma consensual voluntaria (VCS, por sus siglas en inglés) 
con alcance idéntico o similar al del reglamento técnico desarrollado por alguna agencia o 
institución  nacional, cuál norma internacional sería más probable que Estados Unidos utilice como 
base para elaborar su reglamento técnico? ¿La norma consensual voluntaria (VCS) o la norma 
elaborada por algún organismo internacional de normalización (como ISO, IEC o ITU)?  
RESPONSE: Circular A -119 does not direct agencies to use standards developed by specific 
organizations, but instead directs agencies in lieu of using government -unique standards to use 
standards developed through a process that includes the following  attributes or elements: 
                                                
18 19 U.S.C. 2532.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 287 - 
 
  Openness, Balance, Due process, Appeals process, Consensus. In addition, A -119 provides further 
guidance to agencies on the selection of appropriate standards. Section 5(a) outlines some of the 
factors agencies should consider when  determining which standards are most appropriate. 
Additional guidance is provided to agencies under Section 5(h), which details the WTO TBT 
obligations agencies must adhere to regarding the use of standards, and under Section 5(i), which 
provides guidance  on using or recognizing standards used by trading partners.  
Pregunta 39. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secre taría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.8 No rmas y otras prescripciones técnicas:  
Página 78, párrafo 3.111. Las atribuciones legales del USTR en materia de política comercial 
quedan fuera del alcance de la Orden Ejecutiva 13609, ya que se ejercen en el APEC, en el Comité 
OTC de la OMC y en el marco  de los acuerdos bilaterales de libre comercio, entre otros ámbitos. 
Muchos de los acuerdos bilaterales de libre comercio suscritos por los Estados Unidos contienen 
disposiciones comunes en las que se reafirman las obligaciones contraídas por las partes en  virtud 
del Acuerdo OTC; la adhesión a los principios de la Decisión del Comité OTC del 13 de noviembre 
de 2000; el reconocimiento mutuo de los procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad; la 
transparencia; la colaboración en lo que respecta a las norma s, los reglamentos técnicos y los 
procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad; y el intercambio de información.  
México pregunta 39:  ¿Tiene Estados Unidos intención de adoptar disciplinas más ambiciosas a las 
establecidas por el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio de la OMC (o disposiciones 
"OTC plus ") en las negociaciones futuras de sus Acuerdos de Libre Comercio, o se espera que 
continúe reafirmando el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are ret rospective reviews.  
Preguntas 40 y 41. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones; 3.1.9 Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanit arias; 
3.1.9.1 Marco jurídico e institucional básico:  
Página 79, párrafo 3.114, nota al pie de página 117. En marzo de  2015, México planteó una 
preocupación acerca de la revisión propuesta de las tasas de usuario de los servicios de 
cuarentena e inspecció n agropecuarias, en particular debido a que las tasas revisadas impondrían 
costos considerablemente más elevados a los productos agropecuarios transportados hasta los 
Estados Unidos en camiones comerciales.  
México pregunta 40:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos compar tir información actualizada de los costos de 
sus servicios de cuarentena e inspección agropecuarias, tanto para los productos transportados 
por vía terrestre como para aquellos transportados por vías aérea y marítima?  
RESPONSE: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) identified its costs relative to 
all fees in its final rule for the agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) fee published in 2015. 
APHIS used activity -based costing to ensure that the costs used for each of the AQI fees refl ects 
the true costs of the services provided for each fee area so that there would be no cross 
subsidization. The final rule can be found at : https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= APHIS -
2013-0021-0251. 
México pregunta 41:  ¿Podría indicar los esfuerzos que ha emprendido para reducir esos costos?  
RESPONSE: The United States greatly values its extensive cooperation with Mexico and carefully 
considers the impact of all regulatory actio ns to ensure they complement our nations ' joint work to 
safeguard North America 's agricultural and natural resources. While it was necessary to adjust our 
user fees to ensure adequate resources for agriculture inspection at U.S. ports of entry, we worked 
diligently to understand and minimize their impact on businesses both here in the United States 
and in Mexico. For example, we reduced the commercial truck crossing rate from the proposed 
$8.00 to $7.55 and the air passenger fee from our proposed $4.00 rate  to $3.96 after receiving 
stakeholder feedback. We further reduce costs of trade with Mexico by waiving inspections through 
the National Agriculture Release Program.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 288 - 
 
  The United States takes its international commitments seriously and works to ensure that 
measures affecting traders, including fee increases, comply with our international trade 
obligations. We are committed to reviewing our costs on a regular basis and will make subsequent 
adjustments as needed in our fee rates to ensure they remain consistent  with the costs of 
delivering port of entry inspection services.  
Preguntas 42 y 43. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importacione s; 3.1.9 Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias; 
3.1.9.2 Administración de Productos Alimenticios y Farmacéuticos (FDA):  
Página 82, párrafo 3.123. La FDA ha desarrollado un Instrumento de Evaluación de la 
Comparabilidad Internacional (ICAT) para evalu ar los sistemas de inocuidad alimentaria, de los 
interlocutores comerciales de los Estados Unidos, incluido el marco jurídico y las estrategias de 
reglamentación del sector alimentario.19 La FDA probó experimentalmente el proyecto de ICAT en 
colaboración co n Nueva Zelandia para firmar, en diciembre de  2012, un acuerdo en virtud del cual 
las instituciones nacionales respectivas (la FDA de los Estados Unidos y el  Ministerio de Industrias 
Primarias de Nueva Zelandia) reconocieron que sus sistemas de inocuidad a limentaria eran 
comparables entre sí. En mayo de  2016, la FDA firmó un segundo acuerdo de reconocimiento de 
sistemas con el Organismo Canadiense de Inspección de Alimentos y el Departamento de Salud del 
Canadá.20 Actualmente, la FDA participa en procesos si milares de reconocimiento de sistemas con 
Australia y la Comisión Europea. La FDA y las autoridades competentes en materia de inocuidad 
alimentaria de otros países preparan los acuerdos de reconocimiento de sistemas en relación con 
sus actividades nacional es para aumentar la cooperación normativa, el recurso a las inspecciones 
de las instalaciones alimentarias basadas en el riesgo y el seguimiento de brotes de enfermedades 
transmitidas por los alimentos. El reconocimiento de sistemas no otorga acceso al mer cado de los 
Estados Unidos. Los importadores de productos alimenticios abarcados por esos acuerdos pueden 
beneficiarse de las prescripciones modificadas de la norma FSVP, que son menos estrictas que las 
prescripciones generales de esa norma.  
México pregunt a 42 : ¿Además de obtener el reconocimiento de un sistema de inocuidad 
alimentaria qué otros requisitos deben cumplirse para tener acceso al mercado de Estados Unidos?  
RESPONSE: Food safety systems recognition is not a requirement for imported foods to ente r the 
U.S. market. Domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture/process, pack or hold food for 
consumption in the United States must be registered with FDA and importers of FDA -regulated 
food must provide prior notice of their shipments to the United S tates. Imported food must also 
meet applicable requirements of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as well as applicable FDA 
regulations.  
México pregunta 43:  ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre las prescripciones generales de la norma de 
programas de verificación de proveedores extranjeros (FSVP) y las prescripciones modificadas de 
la norma FSVP aplicables a los acuerdos de reconocimiento de sistemas de inocuidad alimentaria?  
RESPONSE: Pursuant to 21 CFR 1.513 added by the FSVP rule, modified requirements are applied 
to importers under the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs if they import certain food items 
from a country with an officially recognized or equivalent food safety system. If importers 
document that a foreign supplier is under the regulatory oversight o f a country whose food safety 
system is recognized as comparable by FDA, through an assessment under FDA 's systems 
recognition program, importers are exempt from the requirements of 21 CFR 1.504 -1.508.  
                                                
19 El ICAT tiene 10 elementos esenciales: base normativa (incluidos los controles preventivos), 
formación/recursos humanos, programas de inspección,  evaluación de programas/programa de auditoría de 
inspecciones, enfermedades y brotes relacionados con los alimentos, cumplimiento y ejecución (incluido el 
análisis de verificación), relaciones sectoriales y comunitarias, recursos de programas, comunicacio nes y 
armonización internacionales y apoyo de laboratorios.  
20 Información en línea de la FDA. Consultada en: 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm498611. htm. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 289 - 
 
  Pregunta 44. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.2 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las exportaciones; 3.2.3 Prohibiciones, restricciones y licencias de 
exportación; 3.2.3.1 Iniciativa de Reforma del Sistema de Control de las  Exportaciones 
(Iniciativa ECR):  
Página 88, párrafo 3.143. En 2009, el Presidente Obama puso en marcha la Iniciativa ECR para 
revisar y reformar el sistema de control de las exportaciones. La revisión llevó a la conclusión de 
que el actual sistema era exc esivamente complejo y fragmentado y debía actualizarse para 
responder a un entorno económico y tecnológico cambiante. El objetivo de la reforma no es reducir 
o suprimir los controles de las exportaciones, sino más bien lograr una mejor asignación de los 
recursos para mejorar esos controles en el caso de los productos más sensibles. Las prescripciones 
en materia de exportación para determinados productos menos sensibles se han flexibilizado.  
México pregunta 44:  ¿Cuáles son los productos menos sensibles a los  que hacen referencia al final 
de párrafo y en que consiste la citada flexibilización?  
RESPONSE: A core element of the Export Control Reform initiative is streamlining U.S. Munitions 
List (USML) categories and adding items that the President determines do  not warrant control 
under the USML to the Commerce Control List (CCL). The defense articles that continued to 
warrant control under the USML are generally those that provided the United States with a critical 
military or intelligence advantage. All other items are to become subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The Federal Register Notices for the proposed and final 
rules amending the USML and the CCL are available at: 
https://bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1566 -ecr-dashboard -10-12-16/file . These rules 
were developed after extensive interagency discussions (including the Departments of Defense, 
State, and Commerce) and in teragency review of public comments submitted on the proposed 
rules.  
Preguntas 45 y 46. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.2 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las exportaci ones; 3.2.4 Apoyo y promoció n de las exportaciones; 
3.2.4.1  Estructura institucional:  
Página 89, párrafo 3.146. Varios organismos o departamentos gubernamentales mantienen 
programas específicos de apoyo o promoción de las exportaciones. El Comité de Coord inación para 
la Promoción del Comercio (TPCC), que abarca 20 organismos federales con programas 
relacionados con la exportación, es el principal órgano gubernamental para la coordinación de las 
actividades de promoción y financiación de las exportaciones. En el pasado, el TPCC publicaba un 
informe anual denominado Estrategia Nacional de Exportación (NES), en el que se establecían 
prioridades y se informaba sobre las actividades de los organismos miembros. Sin embargo, no se 
han publicado nuevos informes des de 2012, año en que el informe se centró en la Iniciativa 
Nacional de Exportación (NEI) y la reducción de los obstáculos comerciales a las exportaciones 
estadounidenses. Para septiembre de  2016 estaba prevista la publicación de un nuevo 
informe  NES. 
México  pregunta 45:  ¿Qué documento ha reemplazado al informe anual "Estrategia Nacional de 
Exportación " (NES)?  
RESPONSE: No document has replaced the National Export Strategy (NES) Report.  
México pregunta 46:  ¿Para cuándo se prevé que se publique el nuevo inform e NES y, en su caso, 
en dónde está disponible?  
RESPONSE: Publication of the new NES Report is anticipated this month (December 2016). It will 
be available at: www.trade.gov/publications . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 290 - 
 
  Pregunta 47. WT/TPR /S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.2 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las exportaciones; 3.2.4 Apoyo y promoció n de las exportaciones; 
3.2.4.1  Estructura institucional:  
Páginas 89 y 90, párrafo 3.147. El Consejo de Exportaciones del Presidente (PEC) reúne a 
representantes del sector privado, del Congreso, de la Conferencia de Alcaldes de los Estados 
Unidos y de la Asociación Nacional de Gobernadores, así como a funcionarios de la  Administración. 
EL PEC asesora y formula recomendaciones al Presidente (en forma de cartas) sobre cuestiones 
relacionadas con el comercio de exportación. En total, el PEC ha remitido 59 cartas al Presidente 
desde septiembre de  2010. En su reunión de dicie mbre de  2015, el Consejo adoptó una carta en la 
que se enunciaban las prioridades de acción para 2016. Entre las recomendaciones del PEC a la 
Administración del Presidente figuraban las siguientes: lograr que el Congreso ponga en aplicación 
cuanto antes el  Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico; acelerar el ritmo de las negociaciones 
relativas a la Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión (ATCI) y al Tratado Bilateral sobre 
Inversiones con China; acelerar los esfuerzos para concluir un nuevo marco de seguridad con la 
UE; impulsar las negociaciones relativas a un acuerdo sobre el comercio de servicios y, en la OMC, 
a un acuerdo sobre bienes ambientales; asegurar la entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre 
Facilitación del Comercio lo antes posible con una cob ertura amplia, en particular de países en 
desarrollo; establecer un mecanismo de revisión del crédito para las pequeñas y nuevas empresas 
en expansión y prorrogar la iniciativa de crédito estatal a las pequeñas empresas hasta 2022; 
poner en vigor los regla mentos de aplicación de la Ley de Innovación y Oportunidades Laborales y 
la Ley de Reautorización de la Asistencia para el Ajuste al Comercio; y ampliar las actividades de 
divulgación y formación destinadas al sector manufacturero, tales como la celebració n del Día de 
las Empresas Manufactureras y las prácticas empresariales para profesores y consejeros de 
orientación. Además, el PEC felicitó a la Administración por su amplia Iniciativa de Reforma del 
Sistema de Control de las Exportaciones y recomendó que se siguieran simplificando las 
prescripciones en materia de licencias y cumplimiento, incluidos los reglamentos armonizados 
entre todos los organismos que participan en el control de las exportaciones y la utilización de un 
formulario común de solicitud de  licencia accesible a través de un portal de solicitud público. En 
junio de  2016, el PEC celebró una reunión por teleconferencia y adoptó una carta con 
recomendaciones sobre las políticas de los Estados Unidos con respecto a Cuba. La siguiente 
reunión del PEC estaba prevista para el 14 de septiembre de  2016.  
México pregunta 47:  En el párrafo 3.147 señala que el Consejo de Exportaciones del Presidente 
tenía prevista una reunión para el 14 de septiembre. ¿Podría Estados Unidos compartir los 
resultados de dich a reunión?  
RESPONSE: In its final meeting, the PEC adopted key recommendations that emphasize the 
immediate need to work with Congress to approve the Trans -Pacific Partnership agreement. In a 
letter to President Obama on behalf of the Council, PEC Chair a nd Chairman/CEO of Xerox 
Corporation Ursula Burns stated that the private sector members of the PEC believe that the 
"single most important step the United States Government can take to promote increased U.S. 
exports and the continued recovery and growth o f the U.S. economy is to secure passage of TPP 
this year. " Citing increased market access abroad, comprehensive tariff elimination, enhanced IP 
protections, and strengthened labor and environmental protections, the PEC noted that TPP 
represents an importan t symbol of American commitment and leadership in the Asia Pacific, 
promoting geopolitical stability and offering positive direction for international relations.  
Pregunta 48. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.2 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las exportaciones; 3.2.5 Financiación, seguro y garantías de las 
exportaciones; 3.2.5.2 Programas de crédito a la exportación de la Administración de 
Pequeñas Empresas (SBA):  
Página  93, párrafo 3.161.  Los solicitantes de créditos a la exportación de la SBA deben presentar 
los correspondientes planes de exportación, con inclusión de datos históricos, proyecciones e 
información escrita sobre la probabilidad de incremento de las ventas de exportación. La SBA no 
es propiamente un banco. Por consiguiente, las condiciones específicas de sus préstamos se 
negocian entre el prestatario calificado y un prestamista aprobado por la SBA. Para poder 
beneficiarse de un préstamo de la SBA no se exige  que el empréstito tenga una cuantía mínima. 
Por su parte, la SBA garantiza los préstamos (hasta 5 millones de dólares EE.UU.) previo pago de WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 291 - 
 
  una tasa, que se calcula en función del plazo de vencimiento y de la cantidad garantizada. La tasa 
de garantía es pagada inicialmente por el prestamista.  
Página 93, párrafo 3.162. La Oficina de Comercio Internacional de la SBA administra varios 
programas en cuyo marco se ofrece financiación a las pequeñas empresas que exportan o tienen 
previsto exportar (cuadro 3.13).  La Ley de Empleo en las Pequeñas Empresas de  2010 aumentó el 
atractivo del Programa de Préstamos para el Comercio Internacional al incrementar el límite de 
garantía del 75% aplicado generalmente al 90% del préstamo aprobado. En el marco de ese 
programa pu eden tomarse prestados hasta 5 millones de dólares EE.UU. para invertirlos en activos 
fijos, utilizarlos como capital circulante o refinanciar una deuda existente.21 El Programa de Capital 
Circulante para la Exportación ofrece hasta 5 millones de dólares EE .UU. para financiar las 
transacciones de exportación, desde la orden de compra hasta el cobro. El mecanismo de 
préstamo a la exportación más sencillo ofrecido por la SBA es el Programa de Préstamos Urgentes, 
en cuyo marco los créditos se aprueban en 36 hor as. El Programa, que concede financiación por un 
importe máximo de 500.000 dólares EE.UU., permite a los prestatarios utilizar sus propios 
procedimientos y formularios. No pueden concederse préstamos a empresas que exporten a un 
país extranjero prohibido, por ejemplo, Cuba, el Irán, la República Popular Democrática de Corea, 
el Sudán y Siria.22 
México pregunta 48:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar la compatibilidad de los programas de crédito 
a la exportación de la Administración de Pequeñas Empresas con el ar tículo 3 del Acuerdo sobre 
Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias?  
RESPONSE: SBA loan programs do not provide subsidies as defined by the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, since the cost to a borrower can be significantly higher 
than a con ventional, commercial loan. A $1 million guaranty on an International Trade Loan, for 
example, would cost the borrower an additional $35,000 for a guaranty fee paid to the SBA, in 
addition to the interest rate and servicing fees negotiated between the borr ower and lender.  
Pregunta 49. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.2 Subvenciones y otras ayudas oficiales:  
Página 97 , párrafo 3.175. Al igual que otros Miembros de la OMC, los Estados Unidos notifican sus 
programas de subvenciones a la OMC, sin perjuicio de la condición jurídica de esas subvenciones 
en lo que se refiere a la especificidad, o de que puedan ser recurridas  o estar sujetas de otra 
manera al Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias. La última notificación sobre 
subvenciones abarca los ejercicios fiscales de  2013 y 2014. Si se prescinde del sector 
agropecuario, la inmensa mayoría de las subvenciones  federales se destinan al sector de la energía 
(cuadro 3.15). Además, en el ámbito subfederal se aplican diversas medidas de apoyo 
relacionadas con la energía, y en particular con las energías renovables (cuadro A3.4).  
[…] 
Fuente:  Documento G/SCM/N/284/USA  de la OMC, de 18 de noviembre de  2015.  
México pregunta 49:  El artículo 25.1 del Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias 
prevé que los informes se presenten "no más tarde del 30 de junio de cada año "; sin embargo, el 
documento G/SCM/N/284/USA f ue notificado a la OMC el 2 de noviembre de 2015 y publicado el 
18 de noviembre de 2015. ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar la razón de la demora en el 
cumplimiento de sus obligaciones?  
RESPONSE: The subsidy notification of the United States was delayed due to coordination issues 
with state government entities.  
                                                
21 También pueden acogerse al Programa de Préstamos para el Comercio Internacional las empresas 
perjudicadas por la competencia de las importaciones.  
22 Banco de Exportación -Importación de los Estados Unidos, Lista de Limitaciones por Países, nota 7.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 292 - 
 
  Pregunta 50. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.2 Subvencione s y otras ayudas oficiales:  
Página 98, párrafo 3.176. La notificación también facilita información sobre los cerca de 620 
programas de subvenciones de ámbito estatal que existen. Aunque se han proporcionado datos 
sobre los costos asociados a algunos de est os programas de subvenciones, en el caso de los 
programas de subsidios subfederales no existe una estimación global de las cantidades concedidas 
o los ingresos dejados de percibir.  
México pregunta 50:  En el informe se indica que "en el caso de los programa s de subsidios 
subfederales no existe una estimación global de las cantidades concedidas o los ingresos dejados 
de percibir ". ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar el por qué existe esa falta de información y, por 
tanto, de transparencia? ¿Existen acciones de Es tados Unidos encaminadas a incluir en su 
notificación los subsidios subfederales?  
RESPONSE: As noted, the United States ' subsidy notification includes information on over 600 
state programs. For some of these programs, exact expenditure amounts were not a vailable. This 
is often due to the nature of the program. For example, records of sales tax exemptions may not 
be maintained as funds are not distributed under the program; rather, sales taxes otherwise due, 
simply are not paid. Often states do not maintai n records of the amount of sales tax exempted 
from payment.  
Through the years, the United States has provided progressively more detailed sub -federal subsidy 
information through enhanced coordination with sub -federal government entities. We will continue 
this work in the process of compiling our next subsidy notification.   
Pregunta 51. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3 .3 Política de competencia:  
Páginas 98 y 99, párrafo 3.177. El marco de la política de competencia de los Estados Unidos no 
ha experimentado prácticamente ningún cambio desde hace muchos años. La legislación federal 
sobre competencia (es decir, la legislac ión antimonopolio) está compuesta por tres leyes 
fundamentales: la Ley Sherman (1890), que prohíbe los monopolios y las restricciones del 
comercio; la Ley Clayton (1914), que prohíbe las fusiones y adquisiciones que reducen la 
competencia; y la Ley de la C omisión Federal de Comercio  (1914), que prohíbe los métodos de 
competencia desleal y las prácticas desleales o engañosas. La Ley Robinson Patman (1936) y la 
Ley Hart -Scott-Rodino de Mejoras de la Legislación Antimonopolio (1976) modificaron la Ley 
Clayton,  prohibiendo determinadas prácticas discriminatorias y exigiendo en el caso de las grandes 
fusiones y adquisiciones, notificaciones detalladas y la fijación de plazos para llevar a cabo las 
transacciones.23 Además, la mayor parte de los estados disponen de su propia legislación 
antimonopolio, a menudo basada en las leyes federales. Las decisiones judiciales y los 
procedimientos administrativos que interpretan la legislación existente también son elementos 
importantes para el desarrollo de la política de comp etencia de los Estados Unidos.  
México pregunta 51:  ¿De qué manera se evita y/o se resuelven las contradicciones entre la 
legislación antimonopolio Federal y las diversas legislaciones antimonopolio locales?  
RESPONSE: Conflicts in Federal antitrust law and  various local antitrust laws are rare in the 
United States because the majority of states with antitrust laws have statutory provisions that are 
comparable to the federal antitrust laws and modeled after them.  Many states also have 
harmonization statutes,  which require some deference to federal precedent in applying state 
antitrust law. See, e.g., VA. CODE ANN. 59.1 -9.17 (Virginia).  In other states, courts have adopted 
a policy of deferring to federal antitrust precedent in interpreting state antitrust law s. See, e.g., 
Anheuser -Busch, Inc. v. Abrams, 520 N.E.2d 535,539 (N.Y. 1988).  However, in the rare cases that 
there is a conflict, the federal antitrust laws do not preempt state antitrust laws.  See California v. 
ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1890).  As a result, the more restrictive provision would control 
the legality of the conduct.  
                                                
23 El umbral de transacción a partir del cual es necesaria la notificación de las fusiones y adquisiciones 
propuestas se ajusta anualmente en función de las variaciones del PIB estadounidense.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 293 - 
 
  Pregunta 52. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el  comercio; 3.3.3 Política de competencia:  
Página 99, párrafo 3.178. Los actos de gobierno, incluidos los que limitan la actividad comercial, 
no están sujetos a la legislación federal antimonopolio si están autorizados por una política 
estatal.24 También est án parcialmente exentos determinados aspectos relacionados con la 
agricultura, la pesca y los seguros. Por lo que se refiere al comercio internacional, la Ley Webb -
Pomerene de Comercio de Exportación prevé la posibilidad de que las asociaciones de empresas  
que normalmente compiten entre sí se agrupen para realizar ventas de exportación colectivas, 
siempre que la operación no tenga efectos contrarios a la competencia o cause un daño a los 
competidores dentro de los Estados Unidos. La Ley de Empresas de Comer cio de Exportación 
(1982) prevé asimismo un procedimiento en virtud del cual las personas que se dedican a la 
exportación pueden obtener, en determinadas circunstancias, un certificado de examen para la 
exportación que les concede, entre otras cosas, una i nmunidad limitada frente a las leyes 
antimonopolio.25 En virtud de la Ley del Transporte Marítimo  (1984) los transportistas marítimos 
internacionales pueden participar en acuerdos de precios (conferencias marítimas) si no lo 
impugna la Comisión Marítima Fed eral. 
México pregunta 52:  ¿En qué casos y durante cuáles plazos puede la Comisión Marítima Federal 
impugnar los acuerdos de precios (conferencias marítimas) de los transportistas marítimos 
internacionales?  
RESPONSE: The Federal Maritime Commission (Commiss ion) may reject such an agreement 
within 45 days after the required filing if the Commission finds that it does not meet the statutory 
requirements of the Shipping Act of 1984. See 46 U.S.C. §40304(c). The Commission may also 
contest such an agreement at a ny time after the filing or effective date if the agreement violates 
the Act. See 46 U.S.C. §41302(a). One basis for contesting the agreement is the Commission 's 
determination that an "agreement is likely, by a reduction in competition, to produce an 
unrea sonable reduction in transportation service or an unreasonable increase in transportation 
cost." See 46 U.S.C. §41307(b)(1).  
Pregunta 53. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 3 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3. 3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.5 Contratación pública; 3.3.5.1 Panorama general y 3.3.5.2 
Marco institucional y jurídico:  
Página 105, párrafo 3.193. Según el informe " Federal Contract Actions and Dollars " del Sistema de 
Datos sob re Contratación Federal (FPDS), que refleja el valor en dólares de los contratos 
adjudicados por entidades del Gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos, el valor de los contratos 
públicos adjudicados por el gobierno federal en los Estados Unidos en el ejerci cio fiscal de  2015 fue 
de 439.900 millones de dólares EE.UU. Los contratos públicos adjudicados por el Departamento de 
Defensa durante el mismo período fue de 274.500 millones de dólares EE.UU.; otros organismos y 
entidades adjudicaron contratos por valor de 164.800 millones de dólares EE.UU.26 No se dispone 
de datos sobre las cifras correspondientes a los estados o las localidades que permitan una 
comparación con estos datos.  
Página 106, párrafo 3.198. La principal disposición legislativa sigue siendo la Le y de Promoción de 
la Compra de Productos Estadounidenses ( Buy American Act ), de 1933, que obliga al Gobierno 
federal a comprar productos nacionales; y la Ley de Acuerdos Comerciales de  1979, que permite al 
Presidente otorgar exenciones del cumplimiento de las prescripciones discriminadoras en materia 
de compras (por ejemplo, las disposiciones de la Ley de Promoción de la Compra de Productos 
Estadounidenses), designar a los países con derecho a esas exenciones y prohibir la contratación 
                                                
24 Además, la jurisprudencia sobre la "doctrina de la acción estat al" exime del cumplimiento de la 
legislación antimonopolio las prácticas anticompetitivas de los órganos estatales y los municipios autorizadas 
por una política o ley estatal claramente articulada, así como las de las personas privadas, siempre que tengan 
autorización legal para ello y estén sujetas a la supervisión activa del Estado.  
25 Actualmente (septiembre de  2016) hay 47 entidades titulares de un certificado que presentan 
información al Departamento de Comercio.  
26 Federal Procurement Data System, " Federal Contract Actions and Dollars ". Consultado en: 
https://www.fpds.gov/  [8 de agosto de  2016].  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 294 - 
 
  en el caso de países no designados. Los Estados Unidos notificaron a la OMC su legislación básica 
sobre contratación pública y la legislación por la que se daba cumplimiento a lo dispuesto en el 
ACP en 1998.27 En la legislación de los Estados Unidos, el ACP se aplica a nivel fe deral 
principalmente por medio de la Ley de Acuerdos Comerciales, modificada. El ACP se aplica 
mediante leyes y reglamentos en cada uno de los 37 estados que participan en él.  
México pregunta 53:  En relación con el párrafo 3.193 y en concordancia con el pá rrafo 3.198, 
¿cómo opera el Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública (ACP) bajo leyes y reglamentos de cada uno 
de los 37 estados que participan en el ACP, ya que no se cuenta con la información como refiere el 
párrafo 3.193, aun cuando bajo las disposiciones de l ACP se debería contar con dicha información?  
RESPONSE: The United States ' most recent statistical submission (for the year 2010) to the GPA 
Committee can be found in document GPA/108/Add.9, which is publicly available. The submission 
contains an estimate d value of total procurement for the 37 U.S. states covered by the GPA which 
looks at capital outlays as well as operational expenses (minus compensation). For the year 2010, 
the combined total estimated procurement of the 37 U.S. states covered by the GPA  is 
$627,818,477,000.  
Regarding information on the laws and regulations of the 37 U.S. state covered by the GPA, the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative maintains a web portal with links to the 
government procurement laws, regulations, and pro cedures for each state consistent with its 
obligations to ensure information is made publicly available. The website is available at : 
https://ustr.g ov/issue -areas/government -procurement/additional -information -on-US-Procurement . 
The United States would welcome Mexico's accession to the WTO GPA to continue to discuss 
aspects of sub -central coverage under the agreement.  
Pregunta 54. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estad os Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 3 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.5 Contratación pública; 3.3.5.1 Panorama general y 3.3.5.2 
Marco institucional y jurídico:  
Página 10 5, párrafo 3.195. El FPDS de los Estados Unidos, que mantiene la Administración de 
Servicios Generales (GSA) bajo la dirección de la Oficina de Gestión y Presupuesto dependiente de 
la Oficina de Política Federal de Contratación Pública (OFPP), contiene inf ormación estadística 
sobre la contratación pública de los principales organismos a escala federal. La GSA opera a través 
de múltiples sistemas electrónicos de contratación que sirven de apoyo para reunir y difundir 
información sobre los contratos públicos federales de los Estados Unidos, por ejemplo, sobre las 
adjudicaciones, el desempeño de los contratistas y su integridad, con un punto de acceso único 
para las oportunidades de contratación, que se conoce como Federal Business Opportunities 
(FedBizOpps) .28 En diciembre de  2015, los Estados Unidos presentaron a la OMC estadísticas sobre 
la contratación pública relativas al año 2009.29 En cuanto a la contratación pública a escala central 
únicamente (Gobierno federal), la comunicación informaba de 330.586 adjudi caciones de contratos 
y acciones por encima del valor de umbral realizadas por entidades abarcadas por el ACP y 
relativas a bienes y servicios abarcados por el ACP, por un valor total de 175.000 millones de 
dólares EE.UU. y 6.741 contratos de construcción por encima del valor de umbral, por un valor 
total de 29.100 millones de dólares EE.UU.30 Estas cifras reflejaban las obligaciones en el marco de 
los contratos adjudicados en el ejercicio fiscal de  2009 además de las opciones ejecutadas en años 
posteriores y que representaban el auténtico valor de las oportunidades. Las anteriores 
comunicaciones estadísticas hacían referencia a valores superiores debido a la utilización de una 
metodología diferente.  
Página 107, párrafo 3.202. Los organismos del Gobierno fede ral están obligados (con algunas 
excepciones) a publicar en la página FedBizOpps  avisos de las oportunidades de contratación 
propuestas que excedan de 25.000 dólares EE.UU. al menos 15 días antes de la invitación a 
presentar ofertas.  Los posibles proveedor es tendrán por lo menos 30 días a partir de esa fecha 
para presentar ofertas. Cuando se trata de la adquisición de artículos comerciales y de contratos 
cuyo valor sea igual o inferior a 100.000 dólares EE.UU. pueden establecerse calendarios más 
                                                
27 Documento GPA/23 de la OMC, de 15 de julio de  1998.  
28 La dirección del sitio Web es: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=main&mode=list&tab=list . 
29 Documento GPA/104/Add.8 de la OMC, de 7 de diciembre de  2015.  
30 Documento GPA/104/Add.8 de la OMC, de 7 de diciembre de  2015.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 295 - 
 
  cortos y ap licarse procedimientos simplificados. Cuando la contratación corresponda al ámbito del 
ACP o de un acuerdo de libre comercio, deberá establecerse en ge neral un plazo no inferior a 
40 días. Los gobiernos estatales abarcados por el ACP están obligados a anun ciar en sus 
publicaciones las invitaciones a licitar y deberán ajustarse a los plazos establecidos en el ACP. 
Además de los anuncios de los contratos proyectados, algunos estados publican sus planes de 
contratación.  
México pregunta 54:  Con base en lo menci onado en el párrafo 3.195, ¿cuáles son esas 
excepciones que se señalan en el párrafo 3.202, y cuál es el motivo de ello, ya que como se refiere 
en el párrafo 3.195 una de las características del FedBizOpps  es que funciona como un punto único 
de acceso elec trónico para todos los organismos del Gobierno Federal en materia de 
contrataciones?  
RESPONSE: A significant exception is that only procurements expected to exceed $25,000 are 
required to be published on FedBizOpps. Please see subpart 5.1 of the Federal Ac quisition 
Regulation for additional information regarding the publication requirements for procurements.  
Pregunta 55. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afecta n a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual; 3.3.6.3 Patentes:  
Página 120, párrafo 3.250. La USPTO recibió 589.410 solicitudes de patentes en 2015.31 Durante 
el período objeto de examen, el número de patentes concedidas por la USPTO se mantuvo estable, 
pero aumentó con respecto a años anteriores. En 2015, la USPTO concedió un total de 298.407 
patentes de utilidad, ligeramente menos que las 300.677 concedidas en 2014 pero más que las 
277.835 concedidas en  2013 y las 253.155 conce didas en 2012. El porcentaje de patentes de 
origen extranjero concedidas por la USPTO ha aumentado a lo largo de los últimos años; en el 
ejercicio fiscal 2015 representaron el 52% de las solicitudes totales.32 
México pregunta 55:  Respecto al Plan Estratégic o general para 2014 – 2018 ( "Strategic Plan for 
2014-18") ¿En qué consisten las tres metas que se mencionan? ¿Cómo se mejoran los tiempos en 
el tema de patentes y marcas?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO 's 2014 –2018 Strategic Plan outlines three goals:  
Goal I - Optimiz e Patent Quality and Timeliness, Goal II - Optimize Trademark Quality and 
Timeliness, and Goal III - Provide Domestic and Global Leadership to Improve Intellectual Property 
Policy, Protection, and Enforcement Worldwide.  
Goal I objectives include: refine o ptimal patent pendency, increase efficiencies and patent 
examination capacity to align with the optimal patent pendency, increase international cooperation 
and work sharing, continue to enhance patent quality, ensure optimal information technology (IT) 
service delivery to all users, continue and enhance stakeholder and public outreach, and maintain 
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's (PTAB's) ability to provide timely and high -quality decisions. 
Goal II objectives include: maintain trademark first action pe ndency on average between 2.5 –3.5 
months with 12 months pendency, maintain high trademark quality, ensure optimal IT service 
delivery to all users, continue and enhance stakeholder and public outreach, and enhance 
operations of the Trademark Trial and Appe al Board (TTAB). Goal III objectives include: provide 
leadership and education on IP policy and awareness, and provide leadership and education on 
international agreements and policies for improving the protection and enforcement of IP rights.  
The USPTO al so maintains a separate management goal to achieve organizational excellence. The 
management goal objectives include: leverage IT investments to achieve business results, 
continue to build and maintain a flexible, diverse, and engaged workforce, enhance in ternal and 
external relations, secure sustainable funding to deliver value to fee -paying customers and the 
public, and establish regional (formerly satellite) offices and a regional presence.  
                                                
31 Información en línea de la USPTO. Consultada en:  
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm . 
32 Información en línea de la USPTO. Consultada en:  
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 296 - 
 
  Pregunta 56. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secret aría de la OMC; 3 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual; 3.3.6.3 Patentes:  
Página 121, párrafo 3.255. En junio de  2013, la Administración anunció una s erie de iniciativas 
basadas en las reformas de la Ley.33 Entre esas iniciativas figuraban las siguientes: a) una 
propuesta de norma de transparencia para asegurar que los registros de propiedad de patentes 
fueran exactos y estuvieran actualizados, y b) una iniciativa encaminada a aplicar técnicas y 
recursos de "externalización masiva" ( crowdsourcing ) para ampliar los medios de identificar el 
estado de la técnica pertinente al determinar la novedad de las invenciones reivindicadas.34 En 
febrero de  2014, la Adm inistración anunció tres nuevas medidas ejecutivas para promover la 
innovación y reforzar más la calidad y accesibilidad del sistema de patentes: a) externalización 
masiva de la identificación del estado de la técnica, para ayudar a los examinadores, los t itulares 
de patentes y los solicitantes de patentes a encontrar el "estado de la técnica" pertinente: la 
USPTO sometió a consultas públicas sus procedimientos de presentación de las solicitudes de 
patentes a terceros antes de su aprobación y perfeccionó es tos procedimientos basándose en la 
información recibida; b) expansión del Programa de Formación Técnica de Examinadores de 
Patentes, de la USPTO: la USPTO ha mejorado su programa de formación técnica para poner 
científicos e ingenieros al alcance de los ex aminadores de patentes con el fin de enseñarles la 
tecnología más reciente, los avances y las tendencias que se manifiestan en sus respectivas 
esferas; y c) asistencia gratuita y asistencia para la realización autónoma de los trámites de 
solicitud de paten tes: con objeto de mejorar la accesibilidad del sistema de patentes, la USPTO 
dedicará recursos educativos y prácticos para ayudar a los inventores que carezcan de 
representación legal a nombrar gratuitamente un coordinador, y contribuir a ampliar el progr ama 
de asistencia gratuita ya existente en aplicación de la Ley Leahy -Smith sobre Invenciones con 
objeto de que abarque los  50 estados.35 La USPTO ha nombrado un coordinador del programa de 
asistencia gratuita y los  50 estados han puesto en marcha un progra ma regional.  
México pregunta 56:  ¿En qué consiste y cuáles es procedimiento del "externalización masiva" 
(crowdsourcing ) ("Crowdsourcing Prior Act ") para ayudar a los examinadores de patentes para 
encontrar "Arte Previo " o el "estado de la técnica pertinen te"? 
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 122(e), provides a mechanism for third 
parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential 
relevance to the examination of a patent application with  a concise description of the asserted 
relevance of each document submitted. This allows non -applicants the ability to contribute to the 
quality of issued patents and brings the most relevant prior art to the examiner's attention as early 
as possible durin g prosecution to enhance examination effectiveness and efficiency. Such 
submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or 
(ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before t he date of a 
notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may 
prescribe.  
The USPTO hosted two roundtables in 2014 on the use of crowdsourcing to identify relevant prior 
art, and received written comments from  interested members of the public. Further information on 
preissuance submissions, the roundtables and other related matters can be found on the USPTO 
website at : https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third -party-preissuance -submissions . 
                                                
33 Comunicado de prensa de la Casa Blanca, de 4 de junio de  2013. Consultado en: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -office/2013/06/04/fact -sheet -white -house -task-force-high-tech-patent -
issues . 
34 Información en línea de la USPTO, " USPTO -led Executive Actions on High -Tech Patent Issues ". 
Consultada en: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp . 
35 Comunicado de prensa de la Casa Blanca, de 20 de febrero de  2014. Consultado en: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -office/2014/02/20/fact -sheet -executive -actions -answering -president -s-
call-strengthen -our-p. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 297 - 
 
  Pregunta 57. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 3 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el come rcio; 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual; 3.3.6.5 Marcas de 
fábrica o de comercio e indicaciones geográficas; 3.3.6.5.2 Indicaciones geográficas:  
Página 123, párrafo 3.261. Los Estados Unidos ofrecen protección a las indicaciones geográficas 
para tod o tipo de bienes y servicios a través de su sistema de marcas de fábrica o de comercio.36 
Los Estados Unidos, junto con otros países, han presentado una propuesta a los demás Miembros 
de la OMC para establecer un sistema multilateral de notificación y regis tro de las indicaciones 
geográficas de vinos y bebidas espirituosas en el contexto del párrafo 4 del artículo 23 del Acuerdo 
sobre los  ADPIC.37 
México pregunta 57:  ¿Cuál el procedimiento que se sigue para reconocer Indicaciones Geográficas 
extranjeras?  
RESP ONSE: All food stuffs and agricultural products, including cheeses and meat, wines and 
spirits, and a variety of other products of interest can qualify for protection in the United States. 
The United States protects geographical indications through its tra demark system as certification 
marks, collective marks and trademarks. The system recognizes prior -in-time trademark rights 
and requires that generic terms remain in the public domain for producers' and manufacturers' use 
to refer to their products. Geogra phic 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, and their use can be enjoined. The overall trademark system is cost -effective, 
expeditiou s and user -friendly. For example, under our system, unlike many other countries, 
USPTO has the administrative authority to act on its own initiative to review applications for mark 
protection and deny applications that would likely cause confusion with exi sting marks protected in 
our territory. The system is already used by a broad range of stakeholders, including SMEs as well 
as collective producer associations, large cooperatives, and geographic certification bodies. In fact, 
EU agricultural producers hol d over 25,000 U.S. mark registrations in the United States. 
Complementary protection is provided under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and its 
implementing regulations for wine and distilled spirits of both domestic and foreign origin. Further 
information can be found in the Lanham Act and Federal Alcohol Administration Act, among other 
measures.  
Pregunta 58. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 3 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS; 3.3 Medidas que afectan a l a 
producción y el comercio; 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual; 3.3.6.7 Derecho de 
autor:  
Página 125, párrafo 3.268. Los Estados Unidos son parte en el Convenio de Ginebra sobre los 
Fonogramas y en el Tratado de la OMPI sobre Interpretación o Ejecuci ón y Fonogramas, pero no 
en la Convención de Roma.  
México pregunta 58:  ¿Cuál es la razón por la que Estados Unidos de América no es Parte de la 
Convención de Roma?  
RESPONSE: The Rome Convention (1961) afforded protection for so -called neighboring rights 
protecting music performers, broadcasting organizations and phonogram producers. The 
United  States did not join the treaty for several reasons, including concerns that it afforded lesser 
protections than copyright and issues of subject matter and rights. Key  features of the Rome 
Convention were reflected many years later in the WTO TRIPS Agreement and, subsequently, the 
WPPT.   
                                                
36 Información en línea  de la USPTO. Consultada en: http://www.uspto.gov/ . 
37 Documentos de la OMC IP/C/W/386, de 8 de noviembre de  2002, y TN/IP/W/7/Rev.1, de 20 de junio 
de 2003.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 298 - 
 
  Preguntas 59 a 61. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS;  3.3 Medidas que afectan 
a la producción y el comercio; 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual; 3.3.6.7 Derecho 
de autor:  
Página 126, párrafo 3.272. La Ley de Derecho de Autor prevé varios tipos de licencias legales. Por 
lo general, se ofrece a las parte s interesadas la oportunidad de negociar las condiciones de la 
licencia; las autoridades fijan un derecho solamente si las partes no alcanzan un acuerdo. La Ley 
de Reforma de la Distribución de las Regalías de Derechos de Autor de  2004 y las modificaciones  
contenidas en la Ley de Correcciones Técnicas al Programa de los Jueces sobre Regalías de 
Derechos de Autor de  2006 reemplazaron a los Grupos Especiales de arbitraje sobre regalías de 
derecho de autor por Jueces sobre Regalías de Derecho de Autor (CRJ). L as disposiciones 
reglamentarias sobre licencias contenidas en la Ley de Derecho de Autor regulan la retransmisión 
de señales de televisión local y a distancia por operadores de sistemas de transmisión por cable y 
por satélite a quienes no pueden recibir es as señales. La facultad de expedir licencias 
reglamentarias para tales retransmisiones por satélite estaba previsto que expirara el 31 de 
diciembre de  2014. La Ley de Reautorización de la STELA de  2014 (PL 113 -200), promulgada el 
4 de diciembre de  2014, mo dificó el Título 17 para prorrogar hasta el 31 de diciembre de  2019 la 
licencia legal en virtud de la cual los operadores de sistemas de transmisión por satélite pueden 
retransmitir señales de televisión a distancia a quienes no pueden recibir esas señales  en su 
mercado local.38 
México pregunta 59:  De acuerdo con lo establecido en este párrafo, ¿cuántos tipos de licencias 
existen en la Ley de Derecho de Autor ( "Copyright Act ")? 
RESPONSE: This question appears to ask for more information on statutory licenses  affecting 
cable and satellite transmission systems. In the Copyright Act, there are three relevant sections: 
the statutory license for secondary transmissions by cable systems (section 111); the statutory 
license for secondary transmissions of distant tel evision programming by satellite carriers 
(secti on 119); and the statutory license for secondary transmissions of local television 
programming by satellite carriers (section 122). The availability of these statutory licenses is 
contingent upon compliance w ith the broadcast signal carriage rules administered by the Federal 
Communications Commission.  
México pregunta 60:  ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre estas licencias?  
RESPONSE: The cable statutory license, codified in section 111 of the Act and first enacted in 
1976, permits a cable operator to retransmit both local and distant radio and television station 
signals to its subscribers. The satellite carrier statutory license, codified in section 119 of the Act 
and first enacted in 1988, permits a satellite carrier to retransmit distant non -network and network 
television station signals to its subscribers for private home viewing. Section 122, enacted in 1999, 
permits satellite carriers to retransmit local television station signals into the stations ' local market 
upon compliance with reporting and other regulatory requirements.  
México pregunta 61:  ¿Cuál es el procedimiento para adquirir cada una de los diferentes tipos de 
licencia?  
RESPONSE: Cable systems must meet requirements for eligibility and must follow all 
requirements set forth in 17 USC 111, as well as related communication laws and regulations. 
Satellite carriers must meet requirements for eligibility and must follow all requirements set forth 
in 17 USC 119 and 122, as well as related communication laws and regulations.  
For further detail, the Copyright Office provides guidance on how eligible entities may file a 
Statement of Account under Section 111 at : https://www.copyright.gov/licensing/sec_1 11.html . 
The Copyright Office provides guidance on how eligible entities may file a Statement of Account 
under Section 119; see : https://www.copyright.gov/licensing/sec_119.html . 
                                                
38 Información en línea de la Oficina de Derecho de Autor de l os Estados Unidos. Consultada en: 
http://www.copyright.gov/title17 . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 299 - 
 
  Pregunta 62 . WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC; 4 
POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.1 Agricultura; 4.1.2 Ley de Agricultura de 
2014; 4.1.2.5 Seguro de las cosechas:  
Páginas 137 y 138, párrafo 4.17.  Los seguros de las cosechas han  registrado un importante 
crecimiento desde  1996, tanto en lo referente a la superficie de cultivo asegurada (aumento del 
60% desde  1998) como en lo referente al nivel medio de cobertura elegido (58% en 1996 y 75% 
en 2014). En el mismo período, las cuantía s aseguradas han aumentado de 35.000 millones a 
110.000  millones de dólares EE.UU., es decir más del 300%.39 Actualmente se considera que el 
Programa Federal de Seguro de las Cosechas es el mayor programa de seguro agrícola del 
mundo.40 No obstante, la exper iencia de los Estados Unidos ha demostrado que los agricultores 
han sido reacios a contratar seguros a menos que estuvieran subvencionados. La proporción de las 
primas pagadas por los agricultores se ha reducido del 74% a principios del decenio de  1990 al 
38% en los últimos años.41 Los costos anuales del seguro de las cosechas para el Gobierno Federal 
fueron en promedio de 8.200 millones de dólares EE.UU. de  2008 a 2014 (cuadro 4.5). Los 
principales elementos de la estructura de costos son las primas de segu ro subvencionadas y los 
reembolsos a las aseguradoras privadas de los gastos administrativos y de explotación en que 
hayan incurrido al suministrar los productos. Las compañías de seguros privadas operan con 
arreglo a un Acuerdo Uniforme de Reaseguro conce rtado con el Gobierno Federal.42 Dicho Acuerdo, 
que se renegocia periódicamente, permite al Gobierno y a las aseguradoras privadas compartir los 
resultados de los seguros suscritos.43 Dependiendo de la situación en materia de reclamaciones en 
cualquier año d ado, el acuerdo puede pues generar pérdidas técnicas (o beneficios técnicos) para 
el Gobierno.44 
Páginas 138 y 139, párrafo 4.18. La Oficina Gubernamental de Rendición de Cuentas de los 
Estados Unidos (GAO) publicó informes en 2012 y 2013 en los que sostení a que se podían recortar 
los costos federales mediante una reducción de las subvenciones de las primas otorgadas a todos 
los agricultores y/o topes para las subvenciones de las primas individuales.45 Además, en marzo 
de 2015 la GAO publicó un estudio en el que concluía que una reducción de las subvenciones de 
las primas otorgadas a los participantes de mayores ingresos podría traducirse en ahorros 
significativos sin afectar al 99% de los participantes.46 En estudios anteriores se ha aducido que el 
                                                
39 El aumento de las cuantías aseguradas se debe también al incremento de los precios de los productos 
básicos registrado desde  2006. Zulauf  C. y D. Orden (2015), "U.S. Crop Insurance Since 1996", farmdoc 
daily (5):129, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana -
Champaign, 16  de julio de  2015. Consultado en: http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd160715.pdf . 
40 Glauber J.W. (2015), Agricultural Insurance and the World Trade Organization , IFPRI Discussion 
Paper 01473. Consultado en: 
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/129733/filename/129944.pdf . 
41 Zulauf C. y D. Orden (2015), "U.S. Crop Insurance Since 1996", farmdoc daily  (5):129, Department 
of Agricultural  and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 16 de julio de  2015. 
Consultado en: http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd160715.pdf . 
42 En el Acuerdo Uniforme de Reas eguro se establecen, estado por estado, las condiciones comerciales 
del sector de los seguros.  
43 El actual Acuerdo Uniforme de Reaseguro entró en vigor en 2011 y se aplicará a los reaseguros hasta 
el ejercicio de 2017. En virtud de la Ley de Agricultura de  2014, toda renegociación del Acuerdo Uniforme de 
Reaseguro no tenga repercusión en el presupuesto.  
44 Aunque el Gobierno registró beneficios técnicos en cuatro de los siete años comprendidos entre 2008 
y 2014, las pérdidas derivadas de la sequía de  2012 tu vieron por resultado una pérdida acumulada a lo largo 
del período de 2.400 millones de dólares EE.UU., es decir, unos 340 millones de dólares EE.UU. anuales. En 
comparación, durante el período 2008 -2014 las compañías de seguros tuvieron unos beneficios téc nicos 
acumulados de 8.300 millones de dólares EE.UU., es decir, cerca de 1.200 millones de dólares EE.UU. (en 
promedio) anuales.  
45 GAO (2012), Crop Insurance: Savings Would Result from Program Changes and Greater Use of Data 
Mining , GAO -12-256, 13 de marzo  de 2012. Consultado en: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589305.pdf ; y 
GAO (2013), 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and 
Achieve Other Financial Benef its, GAO -13-279SP, 9 de abril de  2013. Consultado en: 
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653604.pdf . 
46 GAO (2015), Crop Insurance, Reducing Subsidies for Highest Income Participants Could Save Federal 
Dollars with Minimal Effect on the Program , GAO -15-356, 18 de marzo de  2015. Consultado en: 
http://gao.gov/assets/670/669062.pdf . La GAO estima que la eliminación de las subvenciones de las primas 
otorgadas  a los participantes de ingresos altos, es decir, aquellos con ingresos superiores a los límites 
aplicados en el marco de determinados programas agrícolas y de conservación, habría supuesto un ahorro para 
el Gobierno Federal de unos 290 millones de dólares  EE.UU. a lo largo de un período de cinco años 
(de 2009 a 2013).  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 300 - 
 
  programa de  seguro de las cosechas es ineficiente en comparación con otras formas de ayuda 
oficial, como los pagos desconectados.47 [Nota al pie de página 24] 
México pregunta 62:  En el párrafo 4.17 se destaca que los seguros de cosecha han registrado un 
importante cre cimiento desde 1996, tanto por superficie de cultivo como en el nivel de cobertura. 
También señala que el Programa Federal de Seguro de las Cosechas es el mayor del mundo. 
Finalmente, puntualiza que la proporción de las primas pagadas por los agricultores se ha reducido 
del 74% en los 90 's al 38% en los últimos años. Sin embargo, en el párrafo 4.18 se menciona que 
en estudios anteriores de la Oficina Gubernamental de Rendición de Cuentas de Estados Unidos se 
ha aducido que el programa de seguro de cosechas es ineficiente en comparación con otras formas 
de ayuda. En este sentido, ¿tiene Estados Unidos planes para modificar dicho programa, en 
particular para reducir el subido a las primas de seguros, de tal forma que sus agricultores paguen 
por primas en los n iveles de los principios de los noventas?  
RESPONSE: Current farm programs, including the Federal crop insurance program, are authorized 
under the 2014 Farm Act. We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look 
forward to keeping the Membershi p informed of any changes that may occur in a future Farm Bill.  
Preguntas 63 y 64. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.1 Agricultura; 4.1.2 Ley de 
Agricultura de 2014; 4.1.2.7 Azúcar:  
Páginas 139 y 140, párrafo 4.22. La finalidad del mecanismo de cupos de comercialización del 
azúcar es gestionar los suministros de manera que el precio del azúcar se mantenga por encima 
del nivel que causaría la cesión de la producción. Los cupos se basa n en la producción anterior y se 
establecen a nivel estatal en el caso del sector de la caña de azúcar y a nivel del elaborador en el 
del sector del azúcar de remolacha. Los cupos en su conjunto equivalen al 85% por lo menos de la 
demanda interna estimada para consumo humano. Los excedentes de azúcar no pueden venderse 
en el mercado para consumo humano, por lo que deben almacenarse a expensas del propietario. 
Dependiendo de las condiciones del mercado, el USDA puede ajustar al alza los cupos en el curso 
de una campaña de comercialización a fin de poner en circulación más azúcar en el mercado. 
Además, las situaciones de exceso de oferta se ven mitigadas por el Programa de Flexibilidad en la 
Utilización de Materias Primas, que contribuye a desviar el azúcar de l consumo humano a la 
producción de etanol.48 
México pregunta 63:  ¿Cuál es la razón de mantener reservado el 85% del mercado interno de 
azúcar para consumo humano en Estados Unidos para ser abastecido por la producción interna de 
azúcar de remolacha y de ca ña de ese país?  
RESPONSE: U.S. law requires that domestic sugar marketing allocations be established at a level 
not less than 85 percent of projected domestic consumption. The United States provides all import 
access consistent with its obligations under t he WTO and other trade agreements, and domestic 
farm legislation, including this provision, does not impede any import access for other countries 
under any U.S. trade commitments.  
México pregunta 64:  ¿Estados Unidos considera que esta política puede ser re flejada para el 
consumo de otro tipo de edulcorantes en otros Miembros de la OMC?  
RESPONSE: We cannot speculate as to potential legislation in other countries.  
                                                
47 [Nota al pie de página 24] Babcock B.A. y C.E. Hart (2006), "Crop Insurance: A Good Deal for 
Taxpayers?", Iowa Ag Review , 12(3):1 -10. Consultado en: 
http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_06/IAR.pdf ; Smith V.H. y J.W. Glauber (2012), 
"Agricultural Insurance in Developed Countries: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?", Applied 
Economic Perspectives and Policies , 34(3): 360 -390. Consultado en: 
http://aepp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/29/aepp.pps029.full.pdf+html ; y Goodwin B.K. y V.H. 
Smith (2 012), "What Harm Is Done by Subsidizing Crop Insurance?", American Journal of Agricultural 
Economics , 95(2): 489 -497. Consultado en: http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/2/48 9.full.pdf+html . 
48 El Programa de Flexibilidad en la Utilización de Materias Primas se estableció en virtud de la Ley de 
Productos Alimenticios, Conservación y Energía de  2008 y sigue vigente en virtud de la Ley de Agricultura 
de 2014.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 301 - 
 
  Pregunta 65. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secret aría de la OMC; 
4 POLÍTICAS COM ERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.1 Agricultura; 4.1.2 Medidas comerciales; 
4.1.3.2 Exportaciones:  
Página 144, párrafo 4.37. El Servicio Exterior de Agricultura (FAS) del USDA administra el 
Programa de Garantía de los Créditos a la Exportación (GSM -102) en nombre de la Corporación de 
Crédito para Productos Básicos (CCC). En el marco del Programa GSM -102, la CCC garantiza la 
financiación proporcionada por el sector privado estadounidense a instituciones financieras 
extranjeras aprobadas, principalmente en países en desarrollo, para la importación de alimentos y 
productos agrícolas básicos de los Estados Unidos. La garantía cubre normalmente el 98% del 
principal y una parte de los intereses. El plazo máximo del crédito es de 18 meses, pero puede 
variar de un país a ot ro.49 [Nota al pie de página 40] Los productos básicos que pueden beneficiarse de 
garantías de préstamos son productos a granel (cereales y semillas oleaginosas), bienes 
intermedios (por ejemplo, pieles, harina y productos de papel) y bienes de consumo elab orados de 
alto valor, como los alimentos congelados, la carne, la cerveza y el vino. Las garantías registradas 
al 31 de julio de  2016 ascendían a más de 1.600  millones de dólares EE.UU. y correspondían 
principalmente a las exportaciones de maíz amarillo (6 36 millones de dólares EE.UU.), habas de 
soja (325 millones de dólares EE.UU.), harina de soja (264 millones de dólares EE.UU.), trigo (171 
millones de dólares EE.UU.) y arroz (67  millones de dólares EE.UU.).  
México pregunta 65:  De conformidad con el párra fo 4.37, el plazo máximo aplicable del crédito es 
de 18 meses. Sin embargo, de conformidad con el pie de página 40, en virtud de la Ley de 
Agricultura de 2014, el plazo máximo puede llegar a los 24 meses, lo cual no estaría de 
conformidad con el párrafo 15 (a) de la Decisión Ministerial de Nairobi sobre Competencia de las 
Exportaciones. ¿Podría Estados Unidos señalar sus planes para poner esta legislación de 
conformidad con el párrafo 15(a) de la Decisión Ministerial de Nairobi?  
RESPONSE: The United States h as been operating the GSM -102 program in accordance with the 
elements of the Nairobi decision since prior to December 2015 and continues to do so.  
Pregunta 66. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.2 Servicios; 4.2.1 Servicios financieros; 
4.2.1.4 Servicios bancarios:  
Página 157, párrafo 4.72, La Ley de Actividades Bancarias Internacionales de  1978 es la norma 
por la que se rigen las operaciones de los bancos extranjeros en los Estados U nidos. La Ley 
dispone la concesión del trato nacional a los bancos extranjeros y les ofrece la posibilidad de 
establecer sucursales y agencias con licencia federal, además de oficinas con licencia en un estado. 
El artículo 173 de la Ley Dodd -Frank (Acceso de las instituciones extranjeras al mercado financiero 
de los Estados Unidos) modificó los artículos 7(d)(3) y 7(e)(1) de la Ley de Actividades Bancarias 
Internacionales y el artículo 15 de la Ley de la Bolsa de Valores de  1934 (véase infra). La Ley de 
Actividades Bancarias Internacionales modificada exige ahora explícitamente que la Junta de 
Gobernadores del Sistema de la Reserva Federal, al examinar la solicitud de establecimiento en los 
Estados Unidos de una oficina de un banco extranjero que represente un riesgo para la estabilidad 
del sistema financiero estadounidense, tenga en cuenta si el país de origen del banco extranjero 
ha adoptado, o está realizando progresos demostrables para adoptar, un sistema adecuado de 
reglamentación del sistema financiero a fin de mitigar ese riesgo. Las nuevas enmiendas también 
permiten que la Junta ordene el cese de las actividades de oficinas estadounidenses de dichos 
bancos extranjeros si no se verifican los citados criterios.  
México pregunta 66 : Respecto al análisis qu e realiza la Junta de Gobernadores del Sistema de la 
Reserva Federal al examinar una solicitud de establecimiento de una oficina de un banco 
extranjero que represente un riesgo para la estabilidad del sistema financiero estadounidense, 
¿podría Estados Unid os profundizar sobre el procedimiento, criterios y reglas que se utilizan para 
realizar dicha evaluación? ¿Particularmente, en qué consiste la evaluación que se hace del país de 
origen del banco extranjero?  
RESPONSE: The criteria for the Board to consider in making a determination to terminate the 
activities of the U.S. offices of foreign banks under section 7(e)(1) of the International Banking Act 
                                                
49 [Nota al pie de p ágina 40] En virtud de la Ley de Agricultura de  2014 se redujo de tres a dos años la 
duración máxima de las garantías de préstamos.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 302 - 
 
  (IBA) are set forth in section 7(e)(1) of the IBA, 12 U.S.C. 3105(e)(1), and may be found at:  
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE -2011-title12/html/USCODE -2011-title12 -chap32 -
sec3105.htm . 
Preguntas 67 y 68. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Sec retaría de la 
OMC; 4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.2 Servicios; 4.2.1 Servicios 
financieros; 4.2.1.4 Servicios bancarios:  
Página 159, párrafo 4.78. En junio de  2016, se aplicaron "pruebas de resistencia" a 33 sociedades 
holding bancarias con sede  en los Estados Unidos para medir el comportamiento del capital 
reglamentario de los bancos en una situación hipotética de grandes dificultades económicas, 
caracterizada por un empeoramiento de los resultados económicos y un descenso de la cotización 
de las acciones, junto con un rápido aumento del desempleo y la inflación. Se trata de la sexta 
ronda de pruebas de resistencia llevadas a cabo por la Reserva Federal desde  2009 y de la cuarta 
ronda emprendida en el marco de las normas previstas por la Ley Dodd -Frank. Las 33 empresas 
sometidas a prueba representan más del 80% de los activos bancarios nacionales.50 
México pregunta 67:  ¿Podría los Estados Unidos informar con mayor detalle en que consisten las 
"pruebas de resistencia " aplicadas a las sociedades cont roladoras o tenedoras de acciones 
("holding ") bancarias con sede en Estados Unidos?  
RESPONSE: The footnote cited in the Trade Policy Review at this internet address cites this paper: 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2016), Dodd -Frank Act S tress Test 2016: 
Supervisory Stres s Test Methodology and Results: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20160623a1.pdf . 
México pregunta 68:  ¿Qué agencia reguladora es la encargada de la realización de las pruebas y 
en dónde se publican los resultados obtenidos de las mismas?  
RESPONSE: The Federal Reserve conducts the tests. The footnote cited in the Trade Policy Review 
at this internet address cite s this paper: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(2016), Dodd -Frank Act Stress Test 2016: Supervisory Stres s Test Methodology and Results: 
https://www.fe deralreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20160623a1.pdf . 
Pregunta 69. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.2 Servicios; 4.2.3 Transporte; 
4.2.3.1  Transporte aéreo y aeropuertos; 4. 2.3.1. 1 Transporte aéreo, y 
4.2.3.1.2  Aeropuertos:  
Página 171, párrafo 4.132. Se mantienen las restricciones al cabotaje en los Estados Unidos, es 
decir, que sólo pueden prestar servicios de transporte aéreo interno compañías estadounidenses, 
que además d eben estar bajo el control de ciudadanos estadounidenses. Los ciudadanos 
extranjeros no pueden poseer más del 25% de las acciones con derecho a voto de una aerolínea 
que preste servicios en el país. Además, el presidente y al menos dos tercios de los miemb ros del 
Consejo de Administración y el resto del personal directivo de las compañías aéreas deben ser 
ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos. No obstante, en ciertos casos el Departamento de Transporte 
puede autorizar inversiones extranjeras totales superiores a l 25% del capital social, siempre que el 
control efectivo permanezca en manos de ciudadanos estadounidenses y que los Estados Unidos 
hayan suscrito un acuerdo de cielos abiertos con el país de origen del inversor extranjero. De 
hecho, el Departamento de Tr ansporte permite que ciudadanos extranjeros sean propietarios 
hasta el 49% de las acciones de una compañía aérea, siempre que el porcentaje superior al 25% 
corresponda a acciones sin derecho a voto. Las tripulaciones utilizadas en los servicios aéreos 
nacionales de transporte de pasajeros y carga deben ser nacionales de los Estados Unidos o 
extranjeros residentes.  
Páginas 171 y 172, párrafo 4.134. En virtud de la Ley "Fly America" (49 U.S.C. 40118), el 
transporte de pasajeros o carga financiado por el Gobie rno de los Estados Unidos debe ser 
realizado por compañías aéreas nacionales (o que utilicen un código compartido con una aerolínea 
                                                
50 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2016), Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2016: 
Supervisory Stress Test Methodol ogy and Results . Consultado en: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20160623a1.pdf . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 303 - 
 
  extranjera). En el ejercicio fiscal de  2015, en el marco de la Ley "Fly America", el Gobierno Federal 
adjudicó servicios a c ompañías aéreas estadounidenses por un valor estimado de 520 millones de 
dólares EE.UU. Sin embargo, esta restricción se puede suprimir cuando los Estados Unidos han 
concertado acuerdos bilaterales o multilaterales que permiten la prestación de esos servic ios por 
aerolíneas extranjeras. Actualmente hay cinco acuerdos bilaterales (que no contemplan códigos 
compartidos), firmados con Australia, el Japón, el Reino de la Arabia Saudita (solo para la carga), 
Suiza y la Unión Europea, que permiten recurrir en det erminadas circunstancias a compañías 
aéreas extranjeras para el transporte de pasajeros y carga financiado por el Gobierno Federal.51 
Página 174, párrafo 140. Los Estados Unidos han contraído compromisos en el marco del [Acuerdo 
General sobre el Comercio de  Servicios] AGCS respecto de las reparaciones y el mantenimiento de 
aeronaves y han consignado en su Lista de exenciones del trato NMF la venta y comercialización 
de servicios de transporte aéreo y la explotación y reglamentación de los servicios de reserv a 
informatizados.  
México pregunta 69:  Como señala el Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC, se mantienen las 
restricciones al cabotaje en ese sector. No obstante, en virtud de la Ley Fly America  se pude 
suprimir la restricción que se impone a uso de compañías  aéreas nacionales cuando se realice 
transporte de pasajeros o carga financiado por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos. También se 
informa que esta restricción se puede suprimir cuando los Estados Unidos han concertado 
acuerdos bilaterales o multilaterales.  Actualmente hay cinco acuerdo bilaterales firmados con 
Australia, Japón, Reino de Arabia Saudita (carga) Suiza y la Unión Europea. Quisiéramos saber en 
qué consisten estos acuerdos, cuáles son las obligaciones y derechos de los países contratantes, y 
la motivación para concertarlos exclusivamente con estos cinco países.  
RESPONSE: Provisions granting access to U.S. -Government procured transportation are contained 
in the bilateral Open Skies agreements with Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and t he 
European Union. Access to U.S. -Government procured transportation arose as an element in those 
agreements based on the individual circumstances of each negotiation. You may find the relevant 
provisions of the aforementioned agreements at the following a ddress: 
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/ . 
Preguntas 70 a 72. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC; 4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.2 Servicios; 4.2.3 Transporte; 
4.2.3.2 Transporte marítimo, servicios portuarios y construcción naval; 4.2.3.2.1 
Transporte marítimo:  
Páginas 174 y 175, párrafo 4.145. Con arreglo a la legislación relativa a la documentación de los 
buques (46 U.S.C. 121) y la legislación sobre cabotaje (4 6 U.S.C. 551), siguen aplicándose 
restricciones al transporte de cabotaje de pasajeros y mercancías. De conformidad con las leyes 
sobre cabotaje (como la Ley Jones y la Ley de Servicios de Barcos de Pasajeros de  1886), los 
servicios de transporte de pasaje ros y carga entre dos puntos de los Estados Unidos, directamente 
o a través de un puerto extranjero, están reservados a los buques matriculados y construidos en 
los Estados Unidos, que sean propiedad de una empresa nacional y en los que el 100% de los 
oficiales y el 75% de la tripulación son ciudadanos estadounidenses.52 El 2 de agosto de  2016, 
93 buques podían acogerse a la Ley Jones.53 La Ley Jones no impide a empresas extranjeras 
establecer compañías navieras en los Estados Unidos, siempre que cumplan los requisitos relativos 
a los empleados estadounidenses. Las empresas estadounidenses de propiedad extranjera también 
pueden poseer y explotar buques de pabellón estadounidense en sus servicios internacionales.  
                                                
51 Los derechos otorgados a las compañías aéreas extranjeras  en relación con los servicios de transporte 
contratados por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos en el marco de "acuerdos de cielos abiertos" no se aplican a 
los servicios de transporte obtenidos o financiados por el Secretario de Defensa o la secretaría de un 
departamento militar, es decir, no se aplican a los cuerpos armados del Departamento de Defensa ni a los 
civiles empleados por el Departamento, a menos que sus viajes sean financiados por un organismo que no 
dependa del Departamento de Defensa. Para más  información, véase la información en línea del Departamento 
de Estado, "Open Skies Agreement". Consultada en: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/index.htm . 
52 De conformidad con la legislación (46  U.S.C. 8103(b)(B)), los extranjeros no deberán representar 
más del 25% del número total de marineros no cualificados de un buque, y deberán haber sido admitidos 
legalmente en los Estados Unidos como residentes permanentes.  
53 Información en línea de la MAR AD, "MARAD Open Data Portal". Consultada en: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/resources/data -statistics/ . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 304 - 
 
  Página 177, párrafo 4.155. Los Estados Unidos no  han contraído ningún compromiso sobre el 
transporte marítimo en el marco del AGCS. Mantienen una exención al trato NMF en el marco del 
AGCS consistente en la imposición de restricciones a la realización de trabajos de carga/descarga 
por parte de las tripu laciones de embarcaciones extranjeras cuya propiedad y pabellón sean de 
países que restrinjan de manera análoga la realización de trabajos de carga/descarga por parte de 
tripulaciones estadounidenses de embarcaciones con pabellón estadounidense.  
Página 177 , párrafo 4.156. Los Estados Unidos han suscrito acuerdos bilaterales con el Brasil, 
China, Corea (Rep. de), la Federación de Rusia, Filipinas, el Japón y Viet Nam.54 
México pregunta 70:  Las restricciones al transporte marítimo, en particular las limitacion es de 
cabotaje, han sido una preocupación recurrente de los Miembros en todos los Exámenes de Política 
Comercial. ¿Podría Estados Unidos describir qué actividades relacionadas con el transporte 
marítimo pueden realizar las empresas extranjeras?  
RESPONSE: Generally maritime transport foreign companies may participate in activities as 
outlined in our bilateral agreements as noted in the response to #72. Specifically, subject to 
advance notice and inspection requirements, foreign operators may transport cargo and 
passengers between ports in the United States and ports of other countries. This includes 
discharging/loading cargo or passengers at multiple ports in the United States, provided no cargo 
or passengers are transported between U.S. ports. Additionally, provided that the transporting 
vessel 's flag state has a reciprocal provision, foreign operators may transport empty cargo vans, 
empty lift vans, empty shipping tanks, or associated equipment between ports in the United 
States, provided such articles are o wned or leased by the owner or operator of the transporting 
vessel and are transported for the owner/operator 's use in handling its cargo in foreign trade.  
México pregunta 71 : Estados Unidos no consignó ningún compromiso sobre transporte marítimo 
en el Acu erdo General sobre el Comercio de Servicios (AGCS). ¿Podría informar qué compromisos 
ha adquirido los Estados Unidos en otros acuerdos de libre comercio ratificados o en proceso de 
obtener la ratificación en esta materia?  
RESPONSE: With respect to maritime  services, the United States has taken full reservations for all 
obligations subject to scheduling in all of its free trade agreements.  
México pregunta 72:  ¿Podría informar en qué consisten los acuerdos bilaterales suscritos por 
Estados Unidos? ¿Cuáles son  las obligaciones y derechos que esos acuerdos otorgan a los países 
contratantes?  
RESPONSE: Our bilateral agreements generally affirm that each party may transport cargo and 
passengers between port of the two parties and between its own ports and ports of third countries, 
but specifically exclude the right to transport cargo and passengers between ports of the other 
party (i.e., cabotage).  The agreements generally provide the right to call at ports of the other 
party, subject to advance notice requirements,  and provide for favorable treatment of the other 
party 's vessels while in port.  In addition, each party generally agrees to recognize the vessel and 
crew member documents of the other party. Finally, the agreements generally provide that each 
party will p rovide all possible assistance to vessels of the other party that are in distress within 
their territorial sea.  
Pregunta 73. WT/TPR/S/350 • Estados Unidos; Inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC; 
4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.2 Servi cios; 4.2.3 Tran sporte; 
4.2.3.2  Transporte marítimo, servicios portuarios y construcción naval; 
4.2.3.2.4  Construcción naval y reparación de buques:  
Página 178, párrafo 4.161. Con arreglo a lo dispuesto en las leyes sobre cabotaje, solo los buques 
construidos en los astil leros nacionales pueden prestar servicios de navegación interna; se ha 
otorgado a los Estados Unidos una exención de las normas del GATT para las medidas que 
prohíben la utilización, venta o alquiler de buques construidos o reconstruidos en el extranjero c on 
fines comerciales entre puntos situados en aguas nacionales o en las aguas de una zona 
económica exclusiva. No se imponen restricciones a la inversión extranjera en astilleros o 
instalaciones estadounidenses para la reparación de buques, pero para los d iques flotantes solo se 
                                                
54 Información en línea de la MARAD, "International Agreement". Consultada en: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/about -us/international -activities/international -agreements/ . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 305 - 
 
  pueden conceder garantías de préstamo en el marco del Programa Federal de Financiación de 
Buques si son propiedad de ciudadanos estadounidenses.55 
México pregunta 73:  Con relación a la exención a las normas del GATT otorgada a los Es tados 
Unidos para las medidas que prohíben la utilización, venta o alquiler de buques construidos o 
reconstruidos en el extranjero, solicitamos a los Estados Unidos nos informe sobre las condiciones 
que hacen necesaria la puesta en práctica de la exención.  ¿Cuáles son las acciones que los Estados 
Unidos han instrumentado para modificar las condiciones prevalecientes que hacen que dicha 
exención sea necesaria?  
RESPONSE: U.S. objectives underlying the implementation of the exemption include ensuring a 
viable  shipbuilding industrial base is maintained in order to meet present and future national 
defense requirements. The prevailing security conditions in the world have not changed to an 
extent that would make the exemption unnecessary.  
Otras Preguntas:  
Pregunt as 74 y 75. WT/TPR/S/307 • Estados Unidos; Informe de la Secretaría de la 
OMC (para el Duodécimo Examen de las Políticas Comerciales de Estados Unidos 
(2014)); 4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES; 4.2 Servicios; 4.2.4 Servicios de 
salud, atención médica y seguros de salud; 4.2.4 .2 Régimen normativo; 
4.2.4.2.2  Regímenes de reglamentación del comercio; 4.2.4.2.2.1 Compromisos en el 
marco del AGCS:  
Página 160, párrafo 4.130. Los Estados Unidos son uno de los pocos Miembros de la OMC que han 
consignado compro misos sobre servicios de salud en el marco del AGCS. Esos compromisos 
abarcan la propiedad directa, la gestión y la explotación de hospitales y otros establecimientos de 
salud a comisión con sujeción al régimen siguiente de honorarios por el modo 1, sin co nsolidar por 
razones de viabilidad técnica; el modo 2, sin limitaciones al acceso a los mercados y con una 
limitación a la portabilidad de los seguros en virtud de la cual "el reembolso por parte del Gobierno 
Federal o estatal de los gastos médicos está li mitado a los establecimientos que hayan obtenido la 
licencia y el certificado correspondientes en los Estados Unidos o en un estado específico" ; el modo 
3, con una limitación que indica que "e l establecimiento de hospitales u otros establecimientos de 
atención de la salud, la compra de tipos específicos de equipo médico o el suministro de tipos 
específicos de procedimientos médicos pueden estar sujetos a límites cuantitativos basados en las 
necesidades ", así como tres limitaciones subfederales para los esta dos de Nueva York y Michigan56 
respecto del acceso a los mercados y ninguna limitación respecto del trato nacional; y el modo 4, 
sin consolidar, excepto lo indicado en los compromisos horizontales sobre el acceso a los mercados 
y sin limitaciones con respec to al trato nacional.  
México pregunta 74:  ¿Cuáles son los perspectivas y/o planes a futuro del gobierno de los Estados 
Unidos para permitir la portabilidad de los seguros médicos y así poder reducir los costos de los 
servicios de salud de sus ciudadanos?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed with respect to any changes in the future.  
México pregunta 75: ¿Los hospitales establecidos en el extranjero pueden obtener una licencia o 
certificado de Estados Unidos? En su caso, ¿cuáles son los criterios para ello?  
RESPONSE: Although licensure rules vary by state, in general only hospitals located in the state 
may be registered in that state.   
                                                
55 Véanse 46 U.S.C. 53701 y 46 U.S.C. 53706.  
56 A saber: "En Nueva York está prohib ida la propiedad por una persona jurídica de una empresa de 
explotación de hospitales, residencias de ancianos (incluidos los centros de atención médica a largo plazo) o 
centros de diagnóstico y tratamiento, así como la explotación por parte de sociedades personales de 
responsabilidad limitada de dichos establecimientos. Si la empresa explotadora tiene miembros que no sean 
personas físicas o se trata de una sociedad cuyas acciones son de propiedad de otra sociedad, debe 
establecerse una sociedad en Nueva Yo rk que actúe como empresa de explotación de un establecimiento de 
servicios a domicilio bajo licencia y un establecimiento de servicios médicos certificada. En Michigan y en 
Nueva York las organizaciones para el mantenimiento de la salud deben estar consti tuidas en dicho estado."  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 306 - 
 
  Preguntas 76 a 78. • Estados Unidos; Ley de F acilitación del Comercio y Aplicación 
Comercial 2015 (Ley Pública 114 -125)  
La Ley de Facilitación del Comercio y Aplicación Comercial de 2015 fue firmada por el presidente 
Obama el 24 de febrero de 2016.  
El capítulo VII de la mencionada ley se refiere a la s acciones que emprenderá Estados Unidos 
sobre tasas de cambio de moneda y políticas económicas con ciertos socios comerciales más 
importantes. La sección 701 de dicha ley establece que el Secretario presentará a Comités 
apropiados del Congreso un informe sobre las políticas macroeconómicas y las políticas cambiarias 
de cada país que sea un socio comercial importante de Estados Unidos:  
México pregunta 76 : ¿Se aprobaron ya reglamentaciones para la aplicación de las disposiciones 
contenidas tanto en el capítu lo VII de esta ley?  
RESPONSE: The semi -annual reports responsive to Section 701 describe their meth odologies, and 
can be found at: https://www.tre asury.gov/resource -center/international/exchange -rate-
policies/Pages/index.aspx . Below is a link to the latest report : https://www.treasury.gov/resource -
center/international/exchange -rate-policies/Documents/2016 -10-
14%20(Fall%202016%20FX%20Report)%20FINAL.PDF . 
México pregunta 77 : ¿Existe una definición de lo que significa un socio comercial importante para 
Estados Unidos ( "major trading partner ")? 
RESPONSE: The report focuses on the 12 largest trading partners of the United States, which 
account for 70 percent of U.S. trade in goods.  Below the top 12 trading partners, the amounts of 
trade fall off sharp ly. Treasury 's goal is to focus attention on the currency practices of those 
economies whose bilateral trade is the most significant to the U.S. economy, and whose policies 
are the most material for the global economy.  
México pregunta 78 : ¿Cuáles serán la s fuentes que tomarán las autoridades correspondientes para 
la preparación de este reporte?  
RESPONSE: The United States consults common data sources. Sources are cited in the 
semi-annual reports.  
Preguntas 79 a 83. • Estados Unidos; Norma Nacional para la Diseminación de Alimentos 
de la Bioingeniería (Lay Pública 114 -216).  
El 29 de julio del presente año, el Presidente Obama firmó la Ley que contiene disposiciones para 
instrumentación de una Norma Nacional para la Diseminación de Alimentos de la Bioingenier ía. 
Esta ley estaría destinada a dar a conocer al consumidor el contenido de alimentos de la 
bioingeniería, en productos alimenticios.  
Se conoce, que los productos que actualmente se comercializan con contenido de bioingeniería 
son: soya, maíz, algodón, re molacha azucarera, canola, alfalfa, papaya, calabaza y papas. De 
acuerdo con la referida ley, ¿existen alimentos en los que los productos mencionados sean 
ingredientes, y que estén exentos de diseminación de información que la propia ley establece?  
México pregunta 79:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar cuál es el estado actual de avance en la 
preparación de la reglamentación relativa a esta legislación?  
RESPONSE: The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is working on an implementation 
timeline to meet th e statutory deadlines established in Public Law 114 -216. This means issuing a 
Final Rule for bioengineered food disclosures by July of 2018. As a first step, the legislation 
prescribes that a study of the option for electronic disclosure be completed withi n one year of 
enactment, or July of 2017. AMS also plans to publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
and a proposed rule to solicit public comments.  
México pregunta 80:  ¿Podría Estados Unidos informar cuales son las acciones que las autoridades 
pertinentes están tomando para preparar la reglamentación respectiva?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 307 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Regarding enforcement, Public Law 114 -216 states that knowingly failing to disclose 
a food as bioengineered is a prohibited act. AMS will seek public comment on any proposed 
regulations regarding enforcement of the law as part of the process of developing the overall 
program.  
México pregunta 81:  ¿Estarían las importaciones de alimentos a Estados Unidos sujetas a esta 
reglamentación?  
RESPONSE: AMS plans to issue an Advance Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking seeking public 
comment on implementation of the Act, including how imports will be addressed. The Act defines 
"food," consistent with the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as intended for human 
consumption, which includes any food sold in the United States.  
México pregunta 82:  ¿Podría informar Estados Unidos cuáles son las labores de información que ha 
emprendido con otros Miembros de la OMC para dar a conocer esta legislación?  
RESPONSE: The United States will notify the Advanc e Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
proposed regulations to the WTO for member comment.  
México pregunta 83:  ¿Hay algún calendario que las autoridades pertinentes de Estados Unidos 
haya establecido para finalizar la preparación de la reglamentación relativa  a esta legislación?  
RESPONSE: Beyond the study of Electronic Disclosure outlined in question 1, AMS intends to 
publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This notice would ask the public to comment 
on a series of policy and technical questions. Onc e comments from the public have been reviewed 
and considered, AMS would aim to publish a proposed rule for public comment, with the ultimate 
goal of issuing a final rule for the program in July of 2018.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 308 - 
 
   
MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF  
Report by the United States (W T/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.2.1 Trade policy objectives (2.8)  
"The 2015 TPA updates other specific negotiating objectives from earlier TPAs. Electronic 
commerce becomes digital trade in goods and services and cross -border data flows. On trade in 
goods, new language was added to take into account and encourage the utilization of global value 
chains. Regarding trade in services, the specific negotiating objective calls for liberalization 
through all means, including a plurilateral agreement. In the agri culture sector, the United  States 
aims at establishing additional disciplines on the use of SPS measures and geographical indications 
(GIs). The 2015 TPA also covers transparency in the use of tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). " 
1. Please describe what additional dis ciplines will be envisaged to establish on the use of SPS 
measures and geographical indications (GIs) as per above paragraph.  
RESPONSE: Consistent with the 2015 Trade Promotion Authorit y (TPA) legislation, the 
United  States intends to secure more open and equitable market access through robust rules on 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures that encourage the adoption of international standards and 
require a science -based justification be provided for a sanitary or phytosanitary measure if the 
measure is more restrictive than the applicable international standard; improve regulatory 
coherence, promoting the use of systems -based approaches, and appropriately recognizing the 
equivalence of health and safety protection systems of exporting countries; require that measures 
are transparently developed and implemented, are based on risk assessments that take into 
account relevant international guidelines and scientific data, and are not more restrictive on trade 
than necessary to meet the intended purpose; and improve  import check processes, including 
testing methodologies and procedures, and certification requirements, while recognizing that 
countries may put in place measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health in a manner 
consistent with their internat ional obligations, including the WTO Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
For GIs, the United States intends to secure more open and equitable market access through 
eliminating and preventing the undermining of market acces s for United States products through 
improper use of a country's system for protecting or recognizing geographical indications, including 
failing to ensure transparency and procedural fairness and protecting generic terms.  
Question 2  
Section 3.1.5.1.1 Merc handise processing fee (3.46)  
"The Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement provisions prohibit the use of an ad valorem  fee 
for customs processing, which applies to the MPF, with a transition period for the United  States. 
CBP has undertaken an analysis t o develop a new MPF structure, and has begun sharing 
information with the public on the proposed new structure. " 
2. Please inform what were your findings arising from the Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) 
analysis mentioned above and how exactly is going to be  organised the new MPF structure based 
on the results? Will the same system be made effective regarding customs processing fees and is 
this going to happen at the same or different time?  
RESPONSE: Information about the development of a new MPF structure ca n be found here: 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016 -
Apr/MPF%20Briefing%20for%20External %20Stakeholders_April2016.pdf . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 309 - 
 
  MOROCCO  
Question 1  
Trade  policies  and practices  by measure  
Measures  directly affecting imports  3.1.4. 
Customs  duties  
1. Page 54, Paragraph 3.44: most quotas with a low utilization rate are attributed according to 
the order in which they were submitted. Can the U.S. explain the reason(s) for this low utilization 
rate, in particular for whole green olives, ripe green olives,  and stuffed olives in packaging?  
RESPONSE: The following fill rates for tariff -rate quotas for olives were  provided in the U.S. MA:2 
notification for 2013 (G/AG/N/USA/102).  
Description of products  Tariff item 
number(s) 
encompassed  in 
product description  Tariff quota 
quantity for 
period in 
question  In-quota 
imports 
during 
period  Quota Fill  
Green ripe olives  2005.70.02  730,000 (kg)  0 (kg)1, 5 0% 
Place packed stuffed olives  2005.70.16  2,700,000 (kg)  388,131 (kg)1 14.40%  
Green olives, other  2005.70.91  550,000 (kg)  533,862 (kg)1 97.10%  
As footnoted in the notification, the out -of-quota tariff duty rate for Green  ripe olives was lower 
than the in -quota tariff duty rate.  The TRQs for Place packed stuff olives  and Green olive, other 
were utilized in response to market demand for these products.  
Questions 2 -8 
3.1.8. Standards  and other technical requirements  
2. Page 73: Rules (OFR) that deal with access to standards and other documents referenced in 
draft federal regulation seek to make the more regulatory texts and standards (document 
summaries, details of published documents…) "reasonably accessible " for the interested  parties, 
including third countries. We believe that the effort made in this regard, while important, is 
insufficient insofar as the publications are not published in French. Given this concern, would it 
thus be possible to summarize the important points o f these standards and regulations in the 
French language in order to fully translate  the principle of free  access  to these documents?  
RESPONSE: The United States adheres to the highest standard of transparency.  Although the full 
text of U.S. federal regula tions are published in English, any TBT or SPS notifications of relevant 
regulations is of course subsequently translated into the other two official WTO languages, one of 
which is French.  To the extent there are further questions in response to the notifi cation, the 
United States WTO TBT inquiry point, operated by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), will answer all reasonable questions from other Members and interested 
parties and to provide documents relating to technical regulation s, standards, and conformity 
assessment procedures adopted or proposed within its territory.  Members of course can choose to 
translate any additional materials provided by NIST in whatever language they choose in order to 
further facilitate their understan ding of the relevant regulation.  
3. Page 74: How are observations  made during the regulatory process (the publishing of 
opinions and the compilation of third country comments) taken into consideration in the final rules,  
especially since  no feedback is provid ed? 
RESPONSE: Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), any substantive rule issued by a 
U.S. agency is normally subject to a "notice and comment " procedure be fore it can enter into 
force. As part of this procedure, a U.S. agency will issue a not ice of proposed rule -making that 
includes a summary of the relevant issues and actions under consideration; a rationale for why the 
rule is necessary or appropriate; and provides a date and mechanisms for the submission of 
comments from the public.  The age ncies also normally publish the regulatory text of the proposal 
in full.  The United States does not restrict the submissions of public comments to only U.S. 
nationals; any person in any country is permitted to submit comments.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 310 - 
 
  Once the comments are submitt ed, regulators are required to consider and analyze any significant 
comments timely received from all interested stakeholders, from any source, without 
discrimination.  
After comments have been received,  an agency must respond in a reasoned manner to commen ts 
received, clarify or even change the rule to address any substantive issues presented by the 
comments, explain how the agency resolved any significant issues raised in the comments, and 
show how that resolution led the agency to the ultimate rule.  To be  clear, the published agency 
response will respond to major criticisms in the comments and explain why the agency did not 
choose other alternatives – regardless of the origin of the commenter.   
4. Page 75, Paragraph  3.106:  How are observations  made  by third countries ' competent  
authorities  during  the regulatory  process  (the publishing  of opinions  and the compilation  of 
third country  comments)  taken  into consideration  in the final rules,  especially since  no feedback 
is provided?  
RESPONSE: See response to Questi on 3. 
5. Page 78, §3.117: In 2015, the FDA issued the health safety rule on fruits and vegetables as 
part of the enactment of the FSMA, which enters into force in January 2017. Given that the 
requirements set therein are difficult to satisfy practically speak ing (especially for developing 
countries), will the demand for exports of fruits and vegetables from Morocco to the United States 
be affected by this new rule? If so, since Morocco is linked to the USA. by an FTA, is it possible to 
request a delay or flexi bility in the application of this rule on imports from Morocco, and how 
should this request be submitted officially? Is there technical assistance to support professionals 
and public authorities?  
RESPONSE: Farms with less than $25,000 in average annual pro duce sales are exempt from the 
rule. Compliance dates for farms under the FDA Produce Rule range from January 2018 to January 
2020 depending on the average annual sales of the farm.  Technical assistance for the rule is being 
provided both by FDA and throug h the FSMA Produce Safety Alliance 
(https://producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/ ). 
If a foreign country concludes that meeting one or more of the rule 's requirements would be 
problematic in light of local growing conditions, the rule permits a country to submit a petition, 
along with supporting information, to FDA requesting a variance from one or more of the 
requirements of the rule.  The request for a variance must be submitted by the foreign compete nt 
regulatory authority for food safety and must demonstrate that the requested variance is 
reasonably likely to ensure the produce is not adulterated and provides the same level of public 
health protection as the corresponding requirement in the Produce R ule.  
The definition of "very small business " in the FDA Preventive Controls for Human Food Final Rule is 
based on total annual sales of human food by the business worldwide.  This threshold $1 million 
amount applies equally to foreign and US -based (i.e. do mestic) businesses.  The purpose of the 
definition is to allow for modified requirements for businesses with fewer resources, which is best 
determined through total worldwide annual sales regardless of the location of the business.  
6. Page 78, Paragraph 3.117:  Does compliance with the final standards for preventive checks 
on food products intended for human and animal consumption allow for flexibility only on the basis 
of a company 's size? For that reason, the "sales revenue " criterion used to distinguish small  
business that will be afforded delayed timelines is still very relative regarding a company in the 
USA. versus another in Africa. (We are hoping  for more  information on this  issue.)  
RESPONSE:  See response to Question 5.  
7. Page 78, §3.118: The Foreign Suppli er Verification Program (FSVP) aimed at food products 
intended for human and animal consumption that U.S. -based importers must follow raises several 
practical and legal questions. In fact, the annual checking of suppliers ' facilities  supposes that 
these  checks will  be conducted in the third country 's territory. Consequently, we are wondering 
about this mission 's possible links with the competent authorities of the third country. What legal 
steps might be taken in the event of a failure or breach at the national level in the third country?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 311 - 
 
  The issue of implementing  of these  checks  by an independent  third party gives rise to the 
question  of the nature  of the mechanisms  of independence  laid out, especially  since this 
concerns  a supranational  audit.  
RESPONSE: As provided under the FDA Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) Final Rule, 
an importer can rely on another entity (other than the foreign supplier) to determine and perform 
appropriate supplier verification activities, including annual on -site audits  of the supplier 's facility, 
so long as the importer reviews and assesses the relevant documentation.  Representatives of 
foreign governments are able to conduct onsite audits for FSVP purposes as long as they are 
qualified auditors (see 21 CFR 1.503(b)) an d they consider applicable FDA food safety regulations 
during their audit.  The rule provides for independence of qualified individuals conducting 
verification activities, specifically, there must not be any financial conflicts of interests that 
influence t he results of the verification activities and payment must not be related to the results of 
the activity.  
Page 78, §3.119:  Does the Voluntary  Qualified  Importer  Program  (VQIP)  encompass  foreign  
suppliers? Does  it include training sessions?  
RESPONSE: The Vo luntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) provides for expedited review and 
entry of imported foods from importers who achieve and maintain a high level of control over the 
safety and security of their supply chains.  This control includes importation of fo od from foreign 
suppliers who have been certified in accordance with FDA 's program for Accredited Third -Party 
Certification.  A VQIP importer can be located outside the United States.   
A VQIP importer must develop and implement a VQIP Quality Assurance Prog ram which lays out 
qualifications (e.g. knowledge, skills, and training) required for each employee responsible for 
implementing the program.  
Question 9  
3.1.8.  Standards and  other  technical  requirements/3.1.9  Sanitary  and phytosanitary  requirements  
General ly, because  U.S. food regulation  is scattered  through  several  federal  agencies,  it is 
impossible  to identify  regulations  for a particular  subject  or food product,  and monitoring  
regulatory  changes  by subject  or by product  becomes  almost  impossible.  The abs ence of  a help 
desk, with  a computerized database and  up-to-date information  (literally,  "dynamic  syntheses " 
in French)  concerning  U.S. food regulations,  renders  all tasks difficult  (examples  for comparison:  
the E.U.'s computerized  database  of MRLs,  Canada 's Automated  Import  Reference  System  
(AIRS)).  
To what extent  is the U.S. preparing  to commit  itself,  for the benefit  of exporting  companies  
in third countries,  to simplifying the  synthesis  of food regulations  through  their centralization,  
despite  the multitude of agencies  and services  concerned  (FDA,  FSIS, APHIS, EPA)?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed of any relevant changes that may be considered by the new Congress 
and Admi nistration.  
Question 10  
3.2.5. Export  financing, insurance,  and guarantee  
Page 89, Paragraph  3.160:  section  55002  of PL 114-94 establishes  that the United  States  must 
initiate  and pursue  negotiations  with other  major  exporting  countries  in order  to substan tially 
reduce  – or even eliminate  (by 2025)  – subsidized  export  financing  programs  and other  forms  
of export  subsidies.  Has the U.S. adopted  LP 114-94 in order  to take into consideration  the 
decision  on export  competition  adopted  at the 10th WTO Ministeria l Conference on Agricultural  
Products?  
RESPONSE: PL 114 -94 pre -dates the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 312 - 
 
  Questions 11 -13 
3.3.6. Intellectual property rights  
3.5.6.5. Trademarks and  geographical  indicators  3.3.6.5.2.  Geographical  indicators  
Page 119, Paragraph  3.261:  Given  that the United  States  offers  protection  for geographical  
indicators  (GIs) for all categories  of goods  and services  through  their trademark system:  
Which  countries  have already  benefitted  from protection  of their GIs under  the U.S. trademark 
system?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO publishes trademark information in the annual USPTO Performance and 
Accountability Report.  Information includes the number of U.S. trademark applications filed by 
residents of foreign countries and the number of t rademarks registered to residents of foreign 
countries, including registrations that protect geographical indications.  For the annual USPTO 
Performance and Accountability Reports visit : https://www.uspto.gov/about -us/performance -and-
planning/uspto -annual -reports . 
Synthetically,  which  trademark  (certification  mark or collective  marks)  protection  subcategory is  
used the most to  protect  GIs in  the U.S.?  
RESPONSE: The U SPTO does not specifically distinguish the numbers of applications or 
registrations of certification marks of regional origin as a separate category from other types of 
certification marks.  The same is true of collective marks.  Selection of one type of mar k over the 
other depends on the organizational structure of the applicant.  If the applicant is a certifying 
organization (rather than the intended user of the mark), it will choose a certification mark.  If the 
applicant is a collective organization, such a s a producer collective, it typically will choose to 
protect its GI via a collective mark, but it may also choose to protect it as a standard trademark.   
What is the scope  of the protection  afforded  by each of these  categories  in the U.S. trademark 
system?  
RESPONSE:  Certification marks, collective marks, and trademarks all have the same scope of 
protection; that is, a mark will be refused registration or its use can be enjoined through a civil 
action when the registration or use of the mark is likely to cau se confusion, or to cause mistake, or 
to deceive as to the prior certification mark, collective mark or trademark or as to the origin, 
sponsorship, or approval of the goods, services or commercial activities of another person.  
Question 14  
4. Trade practice s and policies by  sector  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2. The  Agricultural  Act of 2014  
Page 128, Paragraph  4.6: the Agricultural  Act of 2014 introduced  major  changes  to the support  
system  for agricultural  producers.  Federal  crop insurance  programs  have been develope d. Could  
the U.S. provide  more details  concerning  the development  of the aforementioned programs  and 
the conditions  of their conferment?  
RESPONSE: Section 4.11 (pp. 100 -115) of the Secretariat 's report provides substantial detail 
about the 2014 Farm Bill a nd changes to U.S. farm policy.  
 WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 313 - 
 
   
NEW ZEALAND  
REPORT BY THE WTO SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Questions 1 -2  
The National Export Initiative (NEI) and NEI/NEXT  
Section 3.2.4.2, p73, para 3.152, details the NEI/NEXT.  
1. Will the NEI/NEXT programme continue in t he future, and if so, will it be amended in any 
way? 
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place. The National Export 
Strategy Report prepare d by the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) serves as a 
review of results of the National Export Initiative (NEI) and its follow -on initiative NEI/NEXT. The 
National Export Strategy Report will be available in December 2016, and will be found at  
www.trade.gov/publications.  
2. What are the factors that have prevented the NEI from meeting its past goal, and what 
lessons learned and amendments have been made to the successor programme NEI/NEXT to make 
further improvements to the US export environment?  
RESPONSE: World economic recovery since the financial crisis has been weak, falling below 
growth expectations each year since 2010. World economic growth slowed in 2015. The U.S. 
economy grew faster than most other advanced economies, and 2015 was another year of solid 
job growth. The unemployment rate fell from 5.6 percent to 5.0 percent during 2015. In addition, 
the growth of global trade has barely matched global gross domestic product (GDP) growth, after 
years of growing at a significantly faster rate. Slow growth in demand, among other factors, 
present a challenging environment for U.S. exporters, making the priorities under the NEI/NEXT 
particularly important. These include:  
 Tailored assistance and information, connecting to overseas customers . 
 A more streamlined export reporting requirements, services, and processes, making shipments 
easier . 
 Expanded access to export finance . 
 Strong state and local export assistance networks . 
 Market access, new trade opportunities, and enforcement of trade rules . 
The N ational Export Strategy Report will be available in December 2016, and will be found at 
http://www.trade.gov/publications . 
Question 3  
Subsidies and other government assistance  
Section 3.3.2, p79, para. 3.1 75  
Section 3.3.2, para 3.175 states that outside of agriculture, federal -level subsidies are 
overwhelming directed towards the energy sector. New  Zealand welcomes the recent release of 
the G20 peer review of US fossil fuel subsidies and commends the US fo r the high degree of 
transparency exhibited by this process.  We note that the G20 report proposes 16 inefficient fossil 
fuel support policies for reform.  
3. What are the US 's plans to reform these inefficient fossil fuel support policies given the 
trade, ene rgy and environmental benefits of reform?   
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 314 - 
 
  Questions 4 -7  
Margin Protection Program (MPP)  
Section 4.1.2.8, P. 114, Paras 4.26 -4.27  
Section 4.1.2.8, paras 4.26 -4.27 details the Margin Protection Program (MPP) for Dairy Producers 
noting that historical production level are defined as equalling "the highest annual milk sales in any 
of the calendar yea rs 2011, 2012, and 2013 for established producers " 
4. What percentage of dairy farmers who have enrolled in MPP to date?  
RESPONSE: In 2015, the first year in which the MPP was in operation, 55.2 percent of dairy 
operations elected coverage. In 2016, 58.9 perc ent of dairy operations elected coverage.  
5. Of those enrolled farmers, what percentage have enrolled at the different margin coverage 
levels ($4/cwt through to $8/cwt)?  
RESPONSE: In 2015, 44 percent of total operations enrolled in $4.00/cwt coverage; 26.1% o f 
total operations enrolled in $6.50/cwt coverage; 15.5% enrolled  in $6.00/cwt coverage; and 
5.8 percent enrolled in $7.50/cwt coverage. All other coverage levels had enrollment shares of less 
than 4 percent of total enrolled operations.  
In 2016, 77.4 per cent of total operations enrolled in $4.00/cwt coverage; 9 percent in $6.50/cwt 
coverage; and 7.8 percent in $6.00/cwt coverage. All other coverage levels had enrollment shares 
less than 2 percent of total enrolled operations.  
6. A farmer can choose the perce ntage of their milk production history level they want covered. 
What is the average percentage of production history covered?  
RESPONSE: In 2015, the average percent of covered production history was 85.4 percent of 
enrolled production history. In 2016, it was 88.9 percent.  
7. How has the US government categorised payments under MPP, e.g. Amber or Green box, 
and what is the rationale for this categorisation?  
RESPONSE: The MPP will be notified in the appropriate domestic support notifications.  
Question 8  
Special  Agricultural Safeguards  
Section 4.1.3.1, p116, Para. 4.36  
Section 4.1.3.1, paras 4.36 notes that i n October 2015, the United States imposed volume -based 
special agricultural safeguards (SGG) on butter, applying a volume -based safeguard for the first 
time since 2003. The United States applied price -based SSGs on 53  tariff lines in 2013 and on 
44 lines in 2014.  
8. What is the rationale behind the imposition of special agricultural safeguards, including 
whether it considers the impact SGGs may have on the glob al market when determining SGG 
levels?  
RESPONSE: During the Uruguay Round the United States and31 other Members, reserved the 
right to invoke special agricultural safeguards for certain products. Safeguards may be applied at 
any time when either 1) the c. i.f import price for a given shipment falls below a predetermined 
level as determined by Article 5, paragraph 1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture, or 2) the volume 
of imports exceeds a predetermined level, as calculated on an annual basis in accordance wi th 
Article 5, paragraph 4, footnote 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
In the United States, price -based safeguards are automatic at the time of import for qualifying 
shipments, and are not applied concurrently with volume -based actions. Further, the Unit ed States 
carefully considers a number of factors, on a case -by-case basis, prior to enacting volume -based 
safeguard measures.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 315 - 
 
   
NORWAY  
Question 1  
The report by the Secretariat sets out the trade regime in the US. The TPA grants the Executive 
authority for  trade agreements entered into before 1 July 2018.  
1. Can the trade negotiation objectives set by the TPA be subject to change before 
1 July 2018? If so, what procedures apply?  
RESPONSE: The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of  2015 (TPA) is 
a law, which can be amended by Congress at any time through the regular legislative process. For 
information about the U.S. legislative process see: 
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/How+Our+Laws+Are+Made+ -
+Learn+About+the+Legislative+Process . 
Question 2  
Section 2.2.2. Trade Policy Formulation  
The report by the Secretariat (2.2.2., pp. 28 -29) mention s the trade advisory committee system, 
which facilitates input from the public sector and the civil society on trade policy issues.  
2. Could the US please elaborate about the competences of the trade advisory committee 
system. To which extent does this system  manage to gather information from SMEs and civil 
society? Are there examples of cases where input through this committee structure has altered 
policies, priorities or positions regarding FTA negotiations? Does the system also provide input in 
the field of  investment protection and specifically ISDS?  
RESPONSE: Members of President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations 
(ACTPN) are appointed to represent a variety of interests including those of non -Federal 
Governments, environment, labor, agr iculture, technology, small business, service industries, and 
retailers. The five policy committee provides advice based upon the perspective of its specific area 
and its members are chosen to represent the diversity of interests in those areas.  
 The Agric ultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) members are appointed to represent a 
broad spectrum of agricultural interests including the interests of farmers, processors, 
renderers, retailers, and public advocacy from diverse sectors of agriculture, including fruits 
and vegetables, livestock, dairy, sweeteners, wine and tobacco.  
 The Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee on Trade (IGPAC) members are appointed 
from the various States and other non -Federal Governmental entities.  
 The Labor Advisory Committee (LAC) members represent the U.S. labor community 
including steelworkers, farmers, automotive, aerospace, teachers, pilots, artists, machinists, 
service workers, and food and commercial workers.  
 The Trade Advisory Committee on Africa (TACA) members are appo inted to be broadly 
representative of key sectors and groups with an interest in trade and development in 
sub-Saharan Africa, including industry, labor, investment, agriculture, services, academia, 
and non -profit development organizations.  
 The Trade and En vironment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC) members are 
representatives with an interest in trade and environmental policy issues from 
environmental interest groups, industry, services, academia, and non -Federal Governments.  
The 22 technical and sectoral advisory committees are organized into 2 areas: agriculture and 
industry. Each sectoral or technical committee represents a specific sector, commodity group, or 
functional area. The six Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees (ATACs) are: Animals and WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 316 - 
 
  Animal Products; Fruits and Vegetables; Grains, Feed, Oilseeds, and Planting Seeds; Processed 
Foods; Sweeteners and Sweetener Products; and Tobacco, Cotton, and Peanuts.  
The 16 Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) are: Aerospace Equipment; Automotive 
Equipment and Capital Goods; Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and Services; 
Consumer Goods; Distribution Services; Energy and Energy Services; Forest Products; Information 
and Communication Technologies Services and Electronic Commerce; Building Materials, 
Construction and Non -Ferrous Metals; Services and Finance Industries; Small and Minority 
Business; Steel; Textiles and Clothing; Customs Matters and Trade Facilitation; Intellectual 
Property Rights; and Standards and Technical Trade Bar riers. 
Question 3  
Section 2.2.2. Trade Policy Formulation  
The report by the Secretariat (2.2.2., p. 29) mentions the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
Program.  
3. In which sectors do you see the biggest needs for adjustment assistance? Could the US 
please pr ovide some examples of how the TAA program has worked in practice?  
RESPONSE: The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program offers a variety of benefits and 
services to workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade. The manufacturing sector has 
received the most TAA benefits, and the program was expanded to include service -sector workers 
in 2015. Through the provision of a number of benefits and services, the TAA program provides 
trade -affected workers with opportunities to obtain the support, resour ces, skills, and credentials 
they need to return to the workforce in a good job. These include training, employment and case 
management services, job search allowances, relocation allowances, reemployment and wage 
supplements for older workers, and income support in the form of Trade Readjustment Allowances. 
Annual public reports and detailed information on the operations and outcomes of the program can 
be found on the U.S. Department of Labor 's website for TAA ( http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/ ). 
Question 4  
Section 3.3.5.1. Government Procurement – Overview  
Under The Buy American Act of 1933 Government procurement is limited to "domestic end -
products". The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 waives the application of t he BAA to the end 
products of parties to the GPA. According to the report by the Secretariat, only 37 states apply the 
GPA (3.3.5.1., p. 85). That is the same number of states as during the last trade policy review of 
the US.  
4. Norway would appreciate inform ation about whether the US has taken any measures to 
reconcile regulations at the state level with those of the US Federal Government and its 
commitments to the WTO GPA since the last Trade Policy Review.  
RESPONSE: The federal government does not regulate  state level procurements, and no 
measures have been taken to harmonize federal and state procurement regulations. Covered 
states have committed to the Federal government to ensure that their procurement systems are 
administered consistent with U.S. obliga tions under the GPA. States implement those obligations in 
their State procurement systems.  
Question 5  
Section 3.3.6.3. Patents  
The report by the Secretariat (3.255., p.98) mentions a project at the USPTO called 
"Crowdsourcing Prior Art".  This is meant t o help patent examiners, holders and applicants find 
relevant "prior art". It states that the USPTO conducted consultations with the public on its 
third-party pre -issuance submission procedures and implemented refinements based on feedback 
received.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 317 - 
 
  5. What h ave your experiences with this action been this far, what kind of new insights have 
you gained? Has it contributed to a higher quality in patent examination?  
RESPONSE: Title 35 of the United States Code, section 122(e), provides a mechanism for third 
parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential 
relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description of the asserted 
relevance of each document submitted. This allows non -applicants  the ability to contribute to the 
quality of issued patents and brings the most relevant prior art to the examiner's attention as early 
as possible during prosecution to enhance examination effectiveness and efficiency. Such 
submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or 
(ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a 
notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Directo r may 
prescribe.  
The USPTO hosted two roundtables in 2014 on the use of crowdsourcing to identify relevant prior 
art, and received written comments from interested members of the public. Further information on 
preissuance submissions, the roundtables and other related matters can be found on the USPTO 
website at : https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/third -party-preissuance -submissions . 
Question 6  
Section 7. Tra de and the Environment  
Chapter 7 in the report by the United States concerns trade and the environment. It states that 
"the United States has achieved significant results on trade and environment matters in multiple 
fora, including through regional and bil ateral trade initiatives" (7.1., p. 27).  
6. In your experience, which provisions have been particularly effective in ensuring the 
protection of the environment whilst avoiding the creation of unnecessary trade barriers? Do you 
have any data that demonstrate a  stronger growth of trade in "green products" as a result of such 
approaches?  
RESPONSE: A fundamental objective of U.S. trade policies and agreements is to seek to ensure 
that our trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive in furtherance of s ustainable 
development. U.S. free trade agreements include a number of obligations that have helped 
catalyze environmental progress in partner countries, including with support from environmental 
cooperation programs. For example, our free trade agreements  typically contain disciplines on the 
effective enforcement of each party's environmental laws and the non -derogation of such laws. 
Our free trade agreements also eliminate tariffs on environmental goods. The 
United  States -Australia free trade agreement is  a good example of how our trade agreements have 
contributed to the expansion of trade of "green products," with two -way trade in environmental 
goods having grown 73% since this agreement entered into force. The positive results that have 
come as a result of tariff elimination on environmental goods in our free trade agreements have 
reinforced U.S. support for successful conclusion of the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement 
(EGA) negotiations, which aim to achieve global free trade in such products.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 318 - 
 
   
OMAN  
III. Other Questions  
Question 1  
1. We have noticed that in recent times the United States has been giving more attention to 
bilateral, regional and plurilateral initiatives in opening markets. Does this mean that because of 
the impasse in the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, the United States faith in the 
multilateral trading system is somehow slowly eroding?  
RESPONSE:  The United States believes the WTO reached a historic turning point at MC10, and 
now has the opportunity to reestablish the negotiating cre dibility of the multilateral trading system 
through new approaches on both longstanding issues and issues that are newly relevant to the 
global trading economy. The United States ' commitment to the multilateral trading system is firm, 
and is convinced that  its bilateral, regional, and plurilateral initiatives to open markets and develop 
relevant rules complement and reinforce its efforts within the multilateral trading system.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 319 - 
 
   
PARAGUAY  
Informe del Gobierno WT/TPR/S/350  
PG. 45 -Ventanilla Única -3.6 Menciona  "….Sistema de Datos sobre el Comercio Internacional (ITDS) 
como servicio de ventanilla única".  
1. Consulta si tiene previsto incluir registros del comercio exterior de los servicios utilizando la 
plataforma comercial Automatizada o cuentan con otros tipo s de plataforma o sistema para el 
efecto.  
RESPONSE: Core functionality for the processing and release of merchandise of all imported 
merchandise will be functional by December 31, 2016 . See the attached link for further details : 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/ace -mandatory -use-dates . The United States does not 
have plans for a single window for foreign trade services beyond carriers and manifesting.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 320 - 
 
   
PERU  
Report by the United  States (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Pregunta 1  
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS  
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones  
3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros  
3.1.1.1 Medidas de facilitación del comercio  
3.1.1.1.1 Ventanilla única  
3.7. Para finales de 2016, con el ITDS ya plenamente operativo, las empresas deberían poder 
utilizar la ACE para introducir electrónicamente toda la informa ción que exigen el CBP y los 
47 organismos gubernamentales asociados para determinar la admisibilidad  de la carga importada 
y exportada. El portal de la ACE se convertirá en el principal punto de acceso en línea para la 
información relativa a las transacciones y la información financiera. Al inscribirse en la modalidad 
de declaraciones periódicas mensuale s, los usuarios frecuentes pueden agrupar los derechos e 
impuestos correspondientes a un mes dado en un único pago, que debe efectuarse a más tardar el 
décimo quinto día laborable del mes siguiente.  
Pregunta 1. - El Perú desea saber qué autoridad y qué fact ores determinan la calificación 
de "usuario frecuente" de la ventanilla única, si es el Servicio de Aduanas y Protección 
de Fronteras (CBP) o alguna otra institución.  
RESPONSE: To clarify, those users that sign up for regular monthly statements may make si ngle 
monthly payments.  
Pregunta 2  
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS  
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones  
3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros  
3.1.1.1 Medidas de facilitación del comercio  
3.1.1.1.2 Levante de la carg a a través de la ACE  
3.11. El CBP introdujo en noviembre de 2011 un proyecto piloto simplificado de entrada para las 
importaciones que llegaran por vía aérea. En un principio, el proyecto abarcaba tres aeropuertos y 
nueve participantes (usuarios), pero pos teriormente se amplió a otros aeropuertos y participantes. 
El proyecto ofrecía la posibilidad de transmitir electrónicamente un menor número de datos 
necesarios para la importación. El programa se incorporó a la ACE en 2014 con el nombre de 
levante de la c arga a través de la ACE y permite la tramitación simplificada de la entrada de la 
carga transportada por vía aérea, por ferrocarril, por barco y por camión en determinados puertos 
de entrada. Para diciembre de 2014, más de 1.000 importadores registrados ha bían presentado 
más de 850.000 solicitudes de entrada simplificadas.  
Pregunta 2. - El Perú quiere saber si de las 850 mil solicitudes de entrada mencionadas, 
es posible conocer el porcentaje procedente de Latinoamérica. Asimismo, ¿en el 
documento del proced imiento existe alguna referencia o pregunta relativa a si dicha 
operación de importación se ampara en un acuerdo comercial?  
RESPONSE: Simplified Entry (pilot) was the first phase of Cargo Release in the Automated 
Commercial Environment (ACE). As of July 20 16, all entries are now made under simplified entry 
as incorporated into ACE Cargo Release; the Simplified Entry pilot itself no longer exists and CBP 
no longer collects simplified entry pilot data. U.S. import data is available at: 
https://www.census.gov/foreign -trade/balance/c3330.html#2015 . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 321 - 
 
  Pregunta 3  
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS  
3.2 Medidas que afectan directamente a las exportaciones  
3.2.4. Apoyo y prom oción de las exportaciones  
3.2.4.1. Estructura institucional  
3.147. " El Consejo de Exportaciones del Presidente (PEC) reúne a representantes del sector 
privado, del Congreso, de la Conferencia de Alcaldes de los Estados Unidos y de la Asociación 
Nacional d e Gobernadores, así como a funcionarios de la Administración. EL PEC asesora y formula 
recomendaciones al Presidente (en forma de cartas) sobre cuestiones relacionadas con el comercio 
de exportación. En total, el PEC ha remitido 59 cartas al Presidente des de septiembre de 2010. En 
su reunión de diciembre de 2015, el Consejo adoptó una carta en la que se enunciaban las 
prioridades de acción para 2016. Entre las recomendaciones del PEC a la Administración del 
Presidente figuraban las siguientes: lograr que el  Congreso ponga en aplicación cuanto antes el 
Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico; acelerar el ritmo de las negociaciones relativas a la 
Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión (ATCI) y al Tratado Bilateral sobre Inversiones 
con China; acelerar l os esfuerzos para concluir un nuevo marco de seguridad con la UE; impulsar 
las negociaciones relativas a un acuerdo sobre el comercio de servicios y, en la OMC, a un acuerdo 
sobre bienes ambientales; asegurar la entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre Facilitac ión del 
Comercio lo antes posible con una cobertura amplia, en particular de países en desarrollo;…"  
Pregunta 3. - El Perú desea saber si Estados Unidos ha establecido su Comité Nacional de 
Facilitación de Comercio, o si en principio el Comité de Coordinaci ón para la Promoción 
del Comercio (TPCC) cumplirá las funciones del mencionado Comité Nacional.  
RESPONSE: The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), established in 1962, serves as the 
structure for its NTFC. TA new sub -committee of the TPSC was created in 20 16, and the first 
meeting of the NTFC was held in September 2016.  
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS  
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS  
3.3 Medidas que afectan a la producción y el comercio  
3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual  
3.3.6.7 Derecho de autor  
Pregunta 1. - ¿Cuáles son los nuevos mecanismos en los que participan los proveedores de los 
servicios de internet (ISP's) y la Sociedad Civil? ¿Cuáles serían sus avances en cuanto a la 
responsabilidad de los proveedores de servicios de internet (ISP's)?  
RESPONSE: The United States understands this question to be asking about protection of IPR 
online.  The United States continuously seeks to improve its system for IPR protection and 
enforcement, including online, and, to that end, regularly conducts open, publ ic and transparent 
processes in which all parties and stakeholders are invited to participate and provide comments 
and input.  For example, the U.S. Copyright Office has commenced a study to evaluate the impact 
and effectiveness of the safe harbor provision s contained in sectio n 512 of title 17 of the 
United  States Code (for details, see : https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/ ). Additionally, 
the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcemen t Coordinator recently released its Joint Strategic 
Plan which was developed, in part, by consulting directly  with a broad range of stakeholders and 
soliciting formal written submissions as the plan was being developed (see: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/spotlight/eop_ipec_jointstrategicplan_hi
-res.pdf ). 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS  
3.3 Medidas  que afectan a la producción y el comercio  
3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual  
3.3.6.7 Derecho de autor  
3.267.  
Pregunta 2. - A la luz del nuevo entorno digital y en cuanto a la protección de las obras en 
general, ¿cómo las autoridades estadounidenses c ompetentes cuentan con mecanismos para el 
control de las descargas de música, películas, software, etc.?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 322 - 
 
  RESPONSE: U.S. authorities rely on the statutory authority provided under 17 USC § 506 to 
investigate and prosecute unauthorized/infringing downloads o f author 's works.  
Pregunta 3. - En cuanto a las medidas en frontera, ¿cómo coordinan las autoridades de Propiedad 
Intelectual de los Estados Unidos con las Aduanas para que el mecanismo funcione efectivamente?  
RESPONSE: In the United States, once a copyrigh t is registered with the Copyright Office or, a 
trademark is registered with the Patent and Trademark Office, the right holder has the option of 
recording their right with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which enhances CBP 's ability 
to target inf ringing goods. In addition, CBP is a participating member of the National Intellectual 
Property Rights Coordination Center (the IPR Center). The IPR Center brings together 23 partner 
agencies, consisting of 19 key federal agencies, Interpol, Europol and th e governments of Canada 
and Mexico in a task -force setting. The task force structure enables the IPR Center to effectively 
leverage the resources, skills, and authorities of each partner and provides a comprehensive 
response to IP theft at the border.  
ADDI TIONAL QUESTIONS  
4 TRADE  POLICIES BY  SECTOR  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2  The 2014 Farm  Act 
4.1.2.8  Dairy  sector  
4.26 
MPP-Dairy  insures  milk farmers  against  falling  margins,  calculated  as the difference  between  the 
national  "all-milk" price and average  feed costs. The production  margin  is calculated  for 
consecutive  two-month  periods  (January/February,  March/April,  etc.).  If the margin  remains  
below  insured  levels  (US$4 -US$8  per hundredweight)  for any of these  two-month  periods,  
enrolled  producers  receive  a payment  based  on their chosen  coverage. Dairy  producers  enroll 
in MPP -Dairy  by establishing the production history  of the dairy operation and the  extent  of margin 
protection selected.  The historical production level equals  the highest  annual  milk sales in any  of 
the calendar  years  2011,  2012,  and 2013  for established  producers.  Special  provisions  apply  for 
intergenerational  transfers  and for new dairy operations.  The USDA  may adjust  individual  
historical  production  levels  to reflect  increases  in overall  national  milk production  in future  
years.  Apart  from that, no change  in production history  is allowed.  
Peru would  like to know more about  the special  provisions  that are applied  to 
intergenerational  transfers  made  under  the Dairy  Margin  Protection  Program (MPP -Diary ). 
RESPONSE:  A dairy operation may add to their approved production history once during the term 
of the contract (through Dec. 31, 2018) to accommodate intergenerational transfers, where a son, 
daughter, grandchild or spouse of a child or grandchild joins the participating dairy operation. The 
quantity of increased production history will be determined based on the number of cows 
purchased by the new family member multiplied by the national rolling herd average data for the 
current year in effect at the tim e of the intergenerational transfer. The increased production 
quantity will be limited to four million pounds and will receive coverage at the same elected 
coverage threshold and coverage percentage in effect for the participating dairy operation at the 
time the production history takes effect. To be eligible, the new family member joining the dairy 
operation must certify to equity and labor contributions. An intergenerational transfer will not be 
allowed if the participating dairy operation 's current annua l production and the increase in herd 
size by the new member(s) are less than the operation 's established production history.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 323 - 
 
   
PHILIPPINES  
The Philippines and the United States have longstanding trade and investment relations and our 
two Governments are c ommitted to continue strengthening this mutually beneficial partnership. In 
2015, the United States was the Philippines' third biggest trading partner and largest foreign direct 
investor. As an important economic partner of the Philippines, we are submitti ng the following 
questions on the US TPR:  
Government Report – United States (G/350)  
Question 1  
1. The Philippines recognizes the commitment of the US to trade liberalization and opening 
foreign markets through trade agreements, whether multilateral, regional,  bilateral or plurilateral. 
As stated in paragraph 2.2 of the US TPR report, the US considers all countries can benefit from 
trade when we all focus on opening markets and playing by the rules of the WTO -­based 
multilateral trading system. With the ongoing  transition in the US government, the President -­elect 
has made recent statements on his trade policy priorities with respect to abandoning the TPP, 
intensified trade enforcement efforts, including withdrawing from the WTO. Given the likely shift in 
US tra de policies we would like to know how the United States intends to move forward with the 
WTO agenda for MC11, particularly for some emerging issues (that are included in TPP) such as 
electronic commerce and MSMEs.  
RESPONSE: Our observation is that the memb ership is continuing to struggle to find new and 
more promising directions for our negotiating work. We ‎are encouraged to see good engagement 
in areas such as digital, agriculture, MSMEs, and fish, as well as an emphasis on relevance to 
current trends in trade. At the same time, the effort to define clear focal points for achievable 
negotiated outcomes for MC11 is clearly difficult. While continuing to work towards concrete 
outcomes for MC11, it may be best, for the long -term health of the institution, to take the 
necessary time to carefully prepare the ground for future negotiations on both "old" and "new" 
issues.  
Question 2  
Section 7. Trade and the Environment (7.8)  
2. The Philippines notes that paragraph 7.8 of the US TPR report mentioned the Presidential 
Memorandum on Combating Illegal Fishing and Seafood Fraud, which established a Presidential 
Task Force th at developed a comprehensive framework to combat illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud. The US Task Force on Combatting Illegal, 
Unreported, and Unregistered (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud, under the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US Government, identified 13 different seafood items as 
"at risk" for IUU fishing and fraud, and has proposed to subject these items to a set of traceability 
requirements as a condition of entry into the United States.  While we respect these efforts of the 
U.S. intended to combat IUU fishing, we are especially concerned when these are done 
unilaterally, and when they could impose prohibitive regulations for trading partners. As a country 
that relies heavily on our seafo od exports as a means of livelihood to about 1.8 million fisheries 
stakeholders, the Philippines has made a call against measures that can penalize our legitimate 
seafood trade.  
In February 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fi sheries) 
published a proposed rule for public comment to track imported seafood from point of harvest or 
production to entry into US commerce, and expected to publish a final rule in September 2016. No 
final rule has been issued to date. We will welcome de velopments to maintain the status quo to 
avoid threatening fair and equal access of our seafood exports to the US through complex and 
onerous reporting requirements implied by the proposed regulation.  
However, should the US proceed in issuing a final regul ation despite stakeholder objections from 
many countries, the Philippines hopes that the critical impediments to legal seafood trade will be 
satisfactorily addressed by the regulation, or an alternative IUU fishing prevention regulation is WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 324 - 
 
  available that i s least -­trade restrictive and consistent with international laws and conventions 
including that of the WTO. The Philippines would also require a transition period for familiarization 
and gradual compliance to the new requirements.  
In addition, the Philipp ines also requests copies of relevant rules and regulations with respect to 
US domestic fishers who harvest the same identified "at risk" species.  
RESPONSE: The United States takes note of these comments. As a global leader in sustainable 
fisheries managem ent and seafood consumption, the United States has a responsibility to combat 
illegal practices that undermine the sustainability of our shared ocean resources. On 
December  9, 2016, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule for establishing a Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program that will establish permitting, data reporting, and record -keeping requirements 
relating to the importation of certain priority fish and fish products identified as being particularly 
vulnerable to IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud. The Rul e can be found here: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/seafood -import -monitoring -
program . This is the first -phase of a comprehensive plan intended to cover all seafood imports 
entering U.S. commerce.  
This final rule reflects public comments on the proposed rule and marks NOAA 's extensive efforts 
to establish an effective seafood import monitoring program that minim izes the burden of 
compliance on industry and foreign trading partners while providing the information necessary to 
ensure that imported seafood is legally harvested and truthfully represented.  
While the final rule is focused on imports, equivalent informa tion is already being collected at the 
point of entry into commerce for the products of U.S. domestic fisheries pursuant to various 
federal and/or state fisheries management and reporting programs. Together they make up the 
full traceability program called  for by the Presidential Task Force.  
The final rule will become effective on January 8, 2017, however compliance with reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in the rule for priority species other than shrimp and abalone is 
delayed until January 1, 2018. The effective date for wild -caught and aquaculture -raised shrimp 
and abalone is stayed until commensurate requirements have been established for domestic 
aquaculture -raised shrimp and abalone production. At such time, NOAA Fisheries will announce a 
complia nce date for shrimp and abalone with a reasonable period of time for implementation.  
Secretariat Report – United States (S/350)  
Question 3  
Section 2. Trade and Investment Regime (2.28)  
3. As articulated in paragraph 2.28 of the Secretariat Report on the US TP R, the US 
Generalized System of Preference (GSP) program grants duty -­free treatment to certain products 
originating in least developed countries (LDCs) and eligible developing countries. The Philippines 
notes that on 29 June 2015, President Obama signed i nto law a bill that reauthorized the GSP 
through 31 December 2017. The new law expands the potential coverage of this program to 
include 27 tariff lines of textile and leather travel goods such as hand bags and luggage. A number 
of interested parties, incl uding the Government of the Philippines, submitted petitions to the USTR 
for the inclusion of those 27 tariff lines in the GSP Program. On 30  June 2016, the Administration 
granted duty -­free benefits on travel goods to Least Developed Beneficiary Developin g Countries 
(LDBDCs) and member countries of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), while 
deferring the decision to extend the same benefit to other Beneficiary Developing Countries 
(BDCs). Following the supplemental hearing process held in October , where petitioners submitted 
written comments and delivered oral testimonies in addition to the original procedures earlier this 
year, the Philippine Government looks forward to the Administration's decision to be delivered 
sometime in January 2017.  
The Philippines would appreciate receiving updates on the status of the Administration's review of 
the petitions to consider the granting of GSP preferences to all Beneficiary Developing Countries, in 
light of additional evidence and testimonies submitted by i nterested parties in support of extending 
the benefit to all BDCs.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 325 - 
 
  With the GSP Program's over -­all objective to "promote sustainable development in beneficiary 
countries by helping these countries to increase and diversify their trade with the United Sta tes," 
the Philippines seeks clarification on the reasons behind the 30 June 2016 decision to limit the GSP 
treatment to selected countries, despite the overwhelming and consistent evidence presented by 
BDCs, US industry associations, and US firms, that the re is no US domestic travel goods industry 
that will be injured, and that all interested parties would benefit from securing GSP treatment for 
travel goods from all US GSP beneficiary countries.  
RESPONSE:  
On June 30, 2016, the President designated certain travel and luggage goods articles as eligible for 
duty-free treatment to least -developed beneficiary developing counties (LDBDCs) and AGOA 
beneficiary countries. A decision regarding other, generally more advanced, beneficiary countries 
was deferred. In ma king any decision with regard to the provision of duty -free treatment for any 
eligible article from any beneficiary country, the President under s ection 501 of the Trade Act 
(19 U.S.C. 2461) must have due regard for the following factors:  
(1) the effect su ch action will have on furthering the economic development of the developing 
 countries through the expansion of their exports;  
(2) the extent to which other major developed countries are undertaking a comparable effort to 
 assist developing countries by g ranting generalized preferences with respect to imports of 
 products of such countries;  
(3) the anticipated impact of such action on U.S producers of like or directly competitive 
 products; and  
(4) the extent of the beneficiary developing countries ' compet itiveness with respect to eligible 
 articles.  
In the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review, the President determined that a consideration of these 
factors justified the immediate provision of duty -free treatment to travel and luggage goods from 
LDBDCs and AGOA coun tries, but that more analysis was needed with respect to such goods from 
other, generally more advanced, beneficiary countries. USTR established an additional public 
comment period and hearing to create an additional formal process to collect supplemental 
information relevant to a decision on whether to extend duty -free treatment to this last category 
of GSP beneficiaries. The United States is still in the process of reviewing the information gathered 
in this process.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 326 - 
 
   
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
Question 1  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
(Page 37, paragraph 3.4)  
The United States deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Protocol of Amendment of the 
WTO Agreement, in serting the Agreement on Trade Facilitation  (TFA) into its Annex 1A, on 
23 January 2015. As a developed country Member, the United States is bound by all the 
commitments contained in the TFA upon the entry into force of the Agreement.  
1. According to paragrap h 3.4 of the Secretariat Report the United States has successfully 
ratified the Agreement on Trade Facilitation (TFA). Given the current pace of ratifications by other 
Members, it seems that the Agreement may come into force in 2017. Please, inform whether  the 
United States has already implemented all of its future commitments under the TFA and is ready 
to fulfil its obligations stemming from the Agreement from the first day of its application. If it is 
not the case, please list the TFA obligations that, in  view of the United States, are still pending 
their implementation.  
RESPONSE: As indicated in the report, The United States submitted its instrument of acceptance 
of the TFA as a developed country Member in January 2015.  
Questions 2 -4 
3.1.6 Import prohibit ions, restrictions, and special requirements  
3.1.6.1 Prohibitions and restrictions  
(Page 51, paragraph 3.56)  
On behalf of some 40 federal agencies, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces laws that 
may prohibit or restrict the importation of cert ain goods for various purposes. Importation may be 
prohibited outright, or allowed under certain conditions, or be subject to special requirements such 
as designated ports of entry or routing restrictions (Table A3.2).  
2. According to paragraph 3.4 of the Se cretariat Report the importation may be prohibited 
outright, or allowed under certain conditions, or be subject to special requirements such as 
designated ports of entry or routing restrictions. Please, clarify under which articles of the WTO 
Agreement suc h requirements as designated ports of entry or routing restrictions are entered? 
What is a rational behind such requirements? Describe the procedures of assessment the 
conformity with these requirements.  
RESPONSE: Products that would injure health, public  safety, workers, children, or domestic plant 
and animal life may be prohibited altogether or subject to restriction so that the risk they present 
may be mitigated and ultimately allowed entry into the United States. Laws restricting or 
prohibiting goods a re consistent with U.S. obligations. For more information about how these 
restrictions or prohibitions are coded into the automated entry process in the United States please 
see: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair#field -content -tab-group -tab-4. 
3. Could the United States provide the list of products subject to such special requirements as 
designated ports of entry and routing restrictions?  
RESPONSE: CBP has worked with ov er 47 Partner Government Agencies (PGA) to consolidate 
their reporting requirements in the ACE ITDS single window. Specific reporting requirements (e.g., 
products and designated ports) can be found on CBP 's webpages (cbp.gov) in the online PGA user 
guides for ACE. Additionally, please see the following link for more information:  
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us -citizens/know -before -you-go/prohibited -and-restricted -items . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 327 - 
 
  4. Could the United States provide the reasons for these products to be subject to such special 
requirements as designated ports of entry and routing restrictions?  
RESPONSE: Please see the response to question 1 above.  Controls address the ris k presented by 
certain goods (such as goods that present a high risk to life or health) that have not been 
addressed before arrival, such as by restricting their routes and entry to ports that are equipped to 
address the risks, and facilitate the release o f such imported merchandise.  
Questions 5 -7 
Page 51, paragraph 3.57  
The Secretariat report states that certain legal acts provide a framework for addressing concern 
regarding bycatch of protected living marine resources (para. 3.57, p. 51). In this context the rule 
related to import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act was published in August 2016 in 
the United States. According to this rule the United States will prohibit the importation of fish 
products from countries that do not have a regulator y program to address marine mammals ' 
protection that is comparable to that of the United States.57 
5.  Could the United Sates provide what kind of penalty is applied to domestic fishermen or 
aquaculture producers violating bycatch limit legislation?  
RESPONSE: U.S. fisheries regulations must comport with Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
mandates to minimize mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the conduct of 
commercial fishing. This can result in seasonal closures closures, time and area closures , and other 
management measures necessary to reduce fishery interactions with marine mammals. Violations 
of Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) implementing regulations or of U.S. fisheries regulations 
establishing measures to comply with the MMPA are puni shable through civil penalties or criminal 
prosecution, depending on the nature of the violation.  
6.  In the opinion of the United States, is this kind of penalty of domestic fishermen or 
aquaculture producers is comparable in the scope with import prohibitio n of imported fish 
products?  
RESPONSE: A comparability finding under the MMPA import rule is not dependent upon adoption 
of regulations identical to those in place in the United States. Instead, the harvesting nation must 
demonstrate that it has adopted an d implemented, with respect to an export fishery, a regulatory 
program governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of 
commercial fishing operations in its export fishery that is comparable in effectiveness to the U .S. 
regulatory program.  
7.  Does the United States intend to use international standards related to marine mammals ' 
protection or maintain to use unilateral measures?  
RESPONSE: Standards developed by international bodies and U.S. domestic laws are not mutual ly 
exclusive. The United States continues to engage in the development and implementation of 
comparable standards for avoiding bycatch, mortality, and serious injury of marine mammals in 
the course of commercial fishing operations at RFMOs, the FAO, and ot her fora. Nevertheless, it 
remains important that seafood products sold for consumption in the United States – whether 
domestic or foreign produced – meet the environmental standards of the United States.  
                                                
57 The 2015 report to Congress provided positive certifications for all ten countries (Colombia, Ecuador, 
Ghana, Italy, Korea (Rep. of), Mexico, Panama, Spain, Tanzania, and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) 
included in the previo us report, as having strengthened their laws or regulations, enforcement, and monitoring 
systems. Simultaneously, the report identified six countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, 
and Portugal) with vessels engaged in IUU fishing in 2013 and 2014 and thus to be subject to consultations 
and certification. Viewed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/msra_page/2015noaareptcongress.pdf. The 
authority for preparation of the biennial report has been delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the  
NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is scheduled 
to issue its next report in January 2017.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 328 - 
 
  Questions 8 -13 
Page 51, paragraph 3.58  
In June 2014 , the President established a task force to develop recommendations to enhance 
coordination and implement a comprehensive framework to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 
The task force provided an action plan to implement 15 recommendations on 15 March 2015.58 
Two of the recommendations address the establishment of a risk -based programme to track 
domestic and imported seafood from point of harvest or production to entry into U.S. commerce. 
In February 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrat ion (NOAA Fisheries) 
published a proposed rule for public comment, and expected to publish a final rule in September 
2016. The proposed rule would establish reporting requirements (through ACE) for imports of a set 
of priority species, applicable to U.S. i mporters59. The proposed rule focuses on imports because, 
for the priority species selected for the programme's initial phase, equivalent information for 
domestic products is already being collected through existing programmes. The importer will need 
to kee p records regarding the product's chain of custody to point of entry into U.S. commerce and 
make those records available to NOAA Fisheries upon request. The rule does not institute new 
labelling requirements.  
8.  Could the United States provide statistics rel ated to seafood fraud incidents at the point of 
entry into US commerce (for imported products)? What is the relative quantity of these incidents 
in total seafood fraud detected in US market?  
RESPONSE: Seafood fraud can be perpetrated in a variety of ways a nd at different market levels , 
including by the producer or processor prior to the product entering U.S. commerce. T he rule 
addresses seafood fraud prior to entry into U.S. commerce by requiring the reporting and 
recordkeeping of catch and chain of custody  information so that there is a verifiable chain of 
documents that proves that seafood entering the U.S. market is not misrepresented. There are 
many studies detailing mislabeled seafood sold in the United States.60 
9. The Secretariat report states that "[t]wo  of the recommendations address the establishment 
of a risk -based programme to track domestic and imported seafood from point of harvest or 
production to entry into U.S. commerce ". Could the United States provide the legislation regulating 
traceability req uirements for domestic seafood products?  
RESPONSE: While the final rule is focused on imports, it is part of a larger traceability program 
that includes domestic fish and fisheries products. For the priority species to which this rule 
applies, equivalent i nformation is already being collected at the point of entry into commerce for 
the products of U.S. domestic fisheries pursuant to various federal and/or state fishery 
recordkeeping and reporting programs. The effective date for wild -caught and aquaculture -raised 
shrimp and abalone is stayed until commensurate requirements have been established for 
domestic aquaculture -raised shrimp and abalone production. At such time, NOAA Fisheries will 
announce a compliance date for shrimp and abalone, allowing for a rea sonable period of time for 
implementation.  
10.  Could the United States elaborate the system of proving that American fish and seafood 
products were not caught by IUU fishing? What kind of documents should be submitted by 
American fishermen to prove that fish or seafood products were legally caught?  
RESPONSE: Information comparable to that required by the Seafood Import Monitoring Program 
is generated through reporting and recordkeeping requirements established under federal and 
state authorities and is availab le to federal fisheries enforcement officers as well as state 
enforcement personnel working under Joint Enforcement Agreements.  
                                                
58 Presidential Initiative on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood 
Fraud. Report viewed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf . 
59 This would include information on harvest, landing, and chain of custody of product to  the point of 
entry into U.S. commerce.  
60 Harold Upton, “Seafood Fraud”,  Congressional Research Service at http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp -
content/uploads/assets/crs/ RL34124.pdf .  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 329 - 
 
  11. Could the United States provide the description of the procedure that would be used by 
American authorities to verify the data p rovided and kept by the importer of record? How the 
process of verification of whether fish was legally caught would be applied?  
RESPONSE: A description of the verification procedures is included in the final rule establishing 
the SIMP, which can be found here:  
https://www.federalregister .gov/documents /2016/12/09/2016 -29324/ seafood -import -monitoring -
program . 
12. The Secretariat report states that "[t]he proposed rule focuses on imports because, for the 
priority species selected for the programme's initial phase, equivalent information for domestic 
products is already being collected through existing programmes ". What kind of information is 
being coll ected for the domestic products? Is it information for detection of species mostly subject 
to IUU fishing or information for tracking requirements? In both cases could the United States 
provide the respective legislation related to collection of "equivalen t information "? 
RESPONSE: See answer to question 9.  
13. Does the United States intend to set out labelling requirements for seafood products to 
reflect that they were legally caught?  
RESPONSE: No. 
Questions 14 -25 
3.1.6.2 Import licensing (Page 52, paragraph 3. 59)  
Import licences, imposed under various statutes and for various purposes, are enforced by six 
agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce (steel), Energy (natural gas), the Interior 
(fish and wildlife), Justice (firearms, explosives, and drugs) , and the Treasury (alcohol and 
tobacco), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licences are either automatic or 
non-automatic. The Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, an automatic system designed 
to provide statistical data five to six weeks in advance of when it would normally become available, 
was extended until 21 March 2017 under a decision taken in 2013.61 Licensing requirements apply 
to all basic steel mill imports from all countries.  
14.  Paragraph 3.59 of the Secretariat Report indicates that  the United States applies licensing 
procedures to imports of natural gas. The procedure, as the United States seems to assert, is 
automatic. Is the licensing procedure automatic or non -automatic?  
RESPONSE: Natural gas import proposals are reviewed under s ection 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 
15 U.S.C. 717b, as amended by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. All persons, firms, 
and institutions are eligible to apply for authorization to import natural gas into the United States. 
The U.S. Department of E nergy is the pertinent licensing authority. The licensing is not intended to 
restrict the quantity or value of natural gas imports. Nor are there any limitations as to the period 
of the year during which an application for authorization to import natural g as may be made.  
Import authorization proceedings are initiated by the filing of an application. Applications that 
involve natural gas imports from nations with which the United States has a free trade agreement 
requiring national treatment for trade in nat ural gas (free trade agreement countries) and all LNG 
imports regardless of exporting country must be granted by DOE "without modification or delay". 
As a result, DOE's action of issuing such import authorizations is ministerial in nature. DOE does 
not eva luate these applications to determine whether they are "in the public interest", and does 
not solicit public comments or conduct a review of the applications under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rather, after these import applications are re viewed for 
completeness and legal sufficiency, DOE prepares and issues the authorizations as requested. As a 
practical matter, all imports of natural gas into the United States have fallen under this ministerial 
approval authority because they involved eit her natural gas imported from Canada or Mexico (two 
free trade agreement countries) via pipeline or natural gas imported as LNG by truck or by 
maritime vessel.  
                                                
61 78 FR 11090.   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 330 - 
 
  There is no record of applications to import natural gas other than LNG from non -free trade 
agreement countries. Such an application, if submitted, will be reviewed by DOE to determine 
whether the import would be inconsistent with the public interest. By law, such applications would 
be presumed in the public interest. These applications also would be  subject to the administrative 
procedures specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 590 and reviewed under NEPA for their likely environmental 
impact. As indicated above, however, DOE is not aware of any import application subject to these 
provisions, which would includ e, for example, compressed natural gas (CNG) imports from a 
non-free trade agreement country.  
15.  We would be grateful if the United States informed whether N/2 notification of the measure 
exists and provided the relevant document symbol for consideration.  
RESPONSE: The United States has not submitted an N/2 notification. All relevant information can 
be found in the annual questionnaire response of the United States (see, G/LIC/N/3/USA/13).  
16.  In point 4 of section 3.1 of the Replies to Questionnaire on Import L icensing Procedures of 
the United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/13, page 14) it is asserted that the measure "is not intended to 
restrict the quantity or value of natural gas imports ". However, according to points 7(b) and 8 of 
the same section, the refusal of the  application may take place if an applicant has not submitted a 
"legally sufficient application ". Please, describe the criteria that the "legally sufficient application " 
should conform. If the applicant fails to provide such application, will an import per mission be 
refused?  
RESPONSE: The application is not a standard form but rather an individual document 
incorporating basic information about the proposed import arrangement. Pursuant to DOE 
regulation (10 C.F.R. 590.202), applicants are required to provide  the following information "to the 
extent practicable ": (1) the identity of the applicant; (2) the scope of the project; (3) the source 
and security of the supply of natural gas to be imported; (4) the identities of all participants in the 
transaction; (5)  the terms of the transaction, e.g., take-or-pay provisions; (6) the provisions of 
the import arrangement; (7) the need for the natural gas to be imported; and (8) the potential 
environmental impacts of the project. DOE streamlined the application process for short -term 
blanket applications to import and export natural gas from and to free trade agreement countries 
with an online, electronic application that eliminated the need to provide information previously 
discussed as items: (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), a nd (8).  
17.  Point 7(a) of section 3.1 of the Replies to Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures of 
the United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/13, page 14) does not stipulate any deadlines for consideration 
of applications. What is the maximum duration of considera tion of an application?  
RESPONSE: Neither law nor regulation specifies a maximum duration for consideration of an 
import application.   
18. Why the rule that "DOE must determine whether the import proposal is "in the public 
interest " applies only to "applicatio ns involving gas (other than LNG) imports from nations with 
which the United States does not have a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for 
trade in natural gas "? Does it mean that licensing procedures involving such applications are not 
automatic and that the requests may be declined if the import proposal is not "in the public 
interest "? What is the rationale for such policy?  
RESPONSE: The processing of applications to import natural gas is governed by section 3 of the 
Natural Gas Act. As di scussed in the response to question #14, imports of natural gas from free 
trade agreement countries and all imports of LNG, regardless of origin, must be granted by DOE 
"without modification or delay". As a result, DOE's action of issuing such import autho rizations is 
ministerial in nature. DOE does not evaluate these applications to determine whether they are "in 
the public interest", and does not solicit public comments or conduct a review of the applications 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA). Rather, after these import applications are 
reviewed for completeness and legal sufficiency, DOE prepares and issues the authorizations as 
requested.  
As a practical matter, also as discussed in the response to question #14, all imports of natural ga s 
into the United States have fallen under the ministerial approval authority because they have WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 331 - 
 
  involved either natural gas imported from Canada or Mexico (two free trade agreement countries) 
via pipeline or LNG imported by truck or maritime vessel. These applications to import natural gas 
are deemed in the public interest and granted without modification or delay.  
19. Paragraph 3.59 of the Secretariat Report states that the United States applies a Steel Import 
Monitoring and Analysis System (SIMA) in order to get advance statistical trade data. The 
procedure, as the United States asserts, is automatic. In 2013, th e measure was extended until 
21 March 2017. Please, describe in detail which entities are eligible for getting licenses. Are there 
any limitations?  
RESPONSE: Any entity importing steel mill products into the United States must obtain an import 
license and must provide a valid U.S. street address in order to register an online account.  
20. Should any documents be submitted substantiating the data stipulated in point 10 of section 
2.1.1 of the Replies to Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures of the United States 
(G/LIC/N/3/USA/13, page 13)? Please, provide a reference to the legal act establishing this list, if 
it exists. Is it of an exhaustive nature?  
RESPONSE: No such requirement exists.  
21.  What is the permissible deviation of volume/value of goods actually imported from the 
figures declared in the application?  
RESPONSE: There is no predetermined deviation.  
22.  Are licenses always granted immediately upon r equest, as stated in point 7(b) of section 
2.1.1 of the Replies to Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures of the United States 
(G/LIC/N/3/USA/13, page 13)?  
RESPONSE: Yes, the system automatically approves the import license upon submission of the 
license application.  
23.  With reference to point 7(d) of section 2.1.1 of the Replies to Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures of the United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/13, page 13), please clarify whether 
license applications are considered by a single adminis trative organ. If it is not the case, please 
provide the list of agencies involved.  
RESPONSE: Yes, the license is considered by a single entity.  
24.  By whom and for what purposes the information collected through licensing is used?  
RESPONSE: Information from the licenses is collected by the Department of Commerce in order to 
make early and accurate data on steel imports available to the public.  
25.  Please, provide the rationale for extending the system until 21 March 2017. Does this 
decision relate to current sit uation in the global steel market?  
RESPONSE: Yes. Additionally, steel market participants have expressed support for the program.  
Question 26  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.3 Countervailing duties  
(Page 60, paragraph 3.95 )  
Of the 345 AD and CV duty orders in place as of 30 June 2016, 23 were on agricultural products, 
48 on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, 162 on iron and steel products, 23 on metals and minerals, 
64 on miscellaneous manufactured products, 19 on plastics, ru bber, stone, and glass products, 
3 on textiles, and 3 on machinery and equipment.62  
                                                
62 U.S. Department of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls .   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 332 - 
 
  26. In accordance with paragraph 3.95 of the Secretariat Report, 162 anti -dumping and 
countervailing measures on iron and steel products are in force, equaling to over a half o f all 
applied measures of these two types in the United States. At the same time, the United States 
takes steps to foster combatting global overcapacity in steel industry, including within G20 and 
OECD fora. Given the volume of the U.S. steel market, the r eferenced above anti -dumping and 
countervailing measures, as a whole, may significantly distort steel trade in the global scale and, 
unfortunately, exacerbate overcapacity crisis by curbing the U.S. market otherwise available for 
foreign steel producers. D oes the United States anticipate any liberalization of its trade defense 
regime (of both rules and measures in force) in order to materially contribute to multilateral 
actions against steel overcapacity crisis?  
RESPONSE: The United States AD/CVD regime is conducted in accordance with its WTO 
obligations. The problem of significant global excess steelmaking capacity is at the crux of the 
range of commercial challenges facing this sector. It is also evident that many governments have 
provided subsidies and ot her support to expand capacity, without giving adequate consideration to 
market considerations or adverse trade effects. One remedy for industries which may be injured as 
a result of subsidized or dumped imports is to seek relief from their governments in line with 
international trade rules. The availability and appropriate use of measures to address unfair trade 
practices play an important role in maintaining support for open markets and increased trade. The 
proper use of WTO -sanctioned remedies provides a  WTO Member -agreed means of remedying 
injury caused by unfair trade.  
Question 27  
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements  
3.1.9.2 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  
(Page 66, paragraph 3.117)  
The final rules for preventive controls for human and a nimal food require U.S. and foreign facilities 
that must register under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to establish and implement 
hazard analysis and risk -based preventive controls. Known or reasonably foreseeable biological, 
chemical and physical  hazards must be identified and evaluated, and potential preventive controls 
include process, food allergen, and sanitary controls, supply chain controls and product recall 
plans. The final rule for animal food also establishes (for the first time) require ments for "current 
good manufacturing practices" (CGMPs) in the production of safe animal food. The final rule for 
human food modernizes existing CGMP requirements. The final rules for preventive controls for 
human and animal food were published in Septemb er 2015. Compliance dates for some businesses 
thus began in September 2016, whereas smaller businesses have longer implementation time 
frames (2 to 4 years from the date of publication).63  
27. Could the USA, please, clarify whether the final rules for preventi ve controls for human and 
animal food are based on scientific risk assessment. Where is it possible to get acquainted with 
this risk assessment? Could you also describe the identification and hazard analysis procedures?  
RESPONSE: The final rules for preve ntive controls for human and animal food (i.e., Current Good 
Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk -Based Preventive Controls for Human Food 
(PCHF)  and Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk -Based Preventive 
Controls for Animal Food (PCAF), respectively) require that a food safety system similar to HACCP 
be implemented in human and animal food facilities and harmonize our requirements with the 
recommendations and requirements of internationally recognized food safety e xperts/authorities 
including Codex Alimentarius (Codex).  
FDA conducted a science -based risk assessment entitled "Qualitative Risk Assessment: Risk of 
Activity/Food Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in a Facility 
Co-Locate d on a Farm " ("PCHF Risk Assessment "), available at : 
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/UCM461399.pdf .  
The purpose of the PCHF Risk Assessment  is to provide a science -based risk analysis of those 
activity/food combinations that would be considered low risk when conducted in a facility 
co-located on a farm. As a first step, we developed a draft PCHF Risk Assessment that was peer 
                                                
63 Businesses subject to the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance must comply with the new requirements from 
17 September 2018.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 333 - 
 
  reviewed before bei ng issued for public comment (78 FR 3824 at 3826, January 16, 2013). We 
used the tentative conclusions of the draft PCHF Risk Assessment to propose to exempt food 
facilities that are small  or very small businesses engaged in certain types of on -farm 
manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding activities  from proposed hazard analysis and 
preventive controls requirements (78 FR 3646, January 16, 2013). We revised the PCHF Risk 
Assessment a s appropriate based on public comments received and other information available to 
the FDA before finalizing it. (See discussion at 80 FR 5590 8 at 55937 -55938, 
September  17, 2015).  
We also note that the PCHF final rule references the scientific evidence a nd international food 
safety standards upon which the rule is based, including the Codex HACCP principles contained in 
the HACCP Annex of the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene. Additionally, the PCHF final rule 
references additional scientific infor mation on activities such as product testing and environmental 
monitoring and how these align with international standards such as those of Codex (80 FR 55908 
at 55923, September 17, 2015).   
A domestic or foreign food facility covered by the PCHF final rul e (PCHF covered facility) must 
identify and evaluate, based on experience, illness data, scientific reports, and other information, 
known or reasonably foreseeable hazards (hazards that are known to be, or have the potential to 
be, associated with the faci lity or the food) for each type of food manufactured, processed, 
packed, or held at the facility to determine whether there are any hazards requiring a preventive 
control. These hazards may occur naturally, may happen unintentionally, or may be intentional ly 
introduced for economic gain, and must be identified if they affect the safety of the food. This 
analysis must be written and included in the facility 's food safety plan (21 CFR 117.130).  
In conducting a Hazard Identification under 21 CFR  117.130(b) , the PCHF covered facility must 
consider certain types of hazards, detailed in the Final Rule.  
In conducting a Hazard Evaluation under 21 CFR 117.130(c), a covered facility must include 
consideration of the severity of the illness or injury caused if the id entified hazards were to occur 
and the probability that the hazards will occur without preventive controls. The evaluation must 
consider the effect of certain factors, detailed in the Final Rule, on the safety of the finished food 
for the intended consumer .  
FDA conducted a science -based risk assessment entitled "Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of 
Activity/Animal Food Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in a 
Facility Co -Located on a Farm" ("PCAF Risk Assessment"), availab le at : 
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/UCM459595.pdf . 
The purpose of the PCAF Risk Assessment is to provide a scienc e-based risk analysis of those 
activity/animal food combinations that would be considered low risk when conducted in a facility 
co-located on a farm. As a first step, we developed a draft PCAF Risk Assessment that was peer 
reviewed before being issued for public comment ( 78 FR 64428 , October 29, 2013). We used the 
tentative conclusions of the draft PCAF Risk Assessment to propose to exempt food facilities that 
are small or very small busin esses that are engaged only in specific types of on -farm 
manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding activities from the proposed requirements for 
hazard analysis and risk -based preventive controls ( 78 FR 64736 , October 29, 2013). We revised 
the PCAF Risk Assessment as appropriate based on public comments received and other 
information available to the FDA before finalizing it. (See discussion at 80 FR 56181 at 56185 -
56156, September 17 , 2015.)  
We also note that the PCAF final rule references the scientific evidence and international food 
safety standards upon which the rule is based, including the Codex Animal Production and Health 
Manual of Good Practices for the Feed Industry. Additio nally the PCAF final rule references 
discussions of other international standards and similar government and industry efforts to help 
ensure the safety of animal food. (80 FR 56181, September 17, 2015).  
A domestic or foreign food facility covered by the P CAF Final Rule (PCAF covered facility) must 
conduct a hazard analysis to identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards 
(hazards that are known to be, or have the potential to be, associated with the facility or the 
animal food) for each typ e of animal food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 334 - 
 
  The identification and evaluation are based on experience, illness data, scientific reports, and other 
information. The next step is to determine whether any of the identified known  or reasonably 
foreseeable hazards require a preventive control (21 CFR 507.33(a)(1)). These hazards may occur 
naturally, may happen unintentionally, or may be intentionally introduced for economic gain. (See 
21 CFR 507.33(b)(2).) The hazard analysis must be written, regardless of its outcome, as part of 
the written food safety plan (21 CFR 507.33(a)(2)).  
In conducting a Hazard Analysis under 21 CR 507.33(b)(1), the PCAF covered facility must 
consider categories of hazards, detailed in the Final Rule.  
In conducting a Hazard Evaluation under 21 CFR 507.33, a PCAF covered facility must include 
consideration of the severity of the illness or injury caused to humans or animals if the identified 
hazards were to occur and the probability that the hazards will occ ur without preventive controls 
(21 CFR 507.33(c)). The evaluation must consider the effect of various factors, detailed in the 
Final Rule, on the safety of the finished food for the intended animal (21 CFR 507.33(d)).  
Questions 28 -34 
Page 66, paragraph 3.118 
The regulation that addresses imported food requires U.S. -based importers to have Foreign 
Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for the human food and animal food they import.64 Under 
the FSVP Rule, importers are required to verify that their foreign su ppliers produce food in ways 
that provide the same level of public health protection as U.S. preventive controls and produce 
safety regulations, and that the food is not adulterated or misbranded with respect to allergen 
labelling. Importers are obliged to  identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards 
for each type of food, including biological, chemical, and physical hazards. A FSVP must be 
developed for each food and each foreign food supplier. Importers may carry out risk -based 
supplier v erification through several means, for example, through annual on -site audits of supplier 
facilities, sampling and testing, or by reviewing of the supplier's relevant food safety records. The 
verification may be performed by an independent third party, as long as the importer reviews and 
assesses the relevant documentation.  
28. Could the USA, please, clarify which authorities approve FSVP and describe risk -based 
supplier verification approach?   
RESPONSE: The FSVP final rules uses a risk -based approach to suppl ier verification by requiring 
an importer to evaluate the food risks and supplier characteristics unique to the importer 's supply 
chain and u sing that evaluation to approve foreign suppliers and determine appropriate supplier 
verification activities.  
As no ted above, it is the responsibility of importers to establish and follow written procedures to 
ensure that they import foods only from foreign suppliers that they approve based on their 
evaluation of the risk posed by the imported food and their suppliers ' performance. An importer 
must approve its suppliers.  
The FSVP final rule provides importers  flexibility in meeting FSVP obligations by allowing them to 
rely on analyses, evaluations and activities performed by other entities in certain circumstances, 
as long as the importers review and assess the corresponding documentation. For example, under 
21 CFR 1.504(d), if another entity (including the foreign supplier) has, using a qualified individual, 
analyzed the known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for a foo d to determine whether there are 
any hazards requiring a control, the importer may meet its requirement for hazard analysis by 
reviewing and assessing the hazard analysis conducted by that entity. The importer must 
document its review and assessment of the  other entity 's hazard analysis, including documenting 
that the hazard analysis was conducted by a qualified individual.  
FDA is responsible for ensuring that importers meet Foreign Supplier Verification Program 
requirements through records review and othe r oversight tools.  
                                                
64 Some products are exemp t from FSVP, notably food subject to the FDA's seafood and juice HACCP 
rules and alcoholic beverages, as well as meat, poultry and egg products supervised by USDA at the time of 
importation.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 335 - 
 
  29. The Secretariat report notes that importers are obliged to identify and evaluate known or 
reasonably foreseeable hazards for each type of food and each foreign food supplier…Are there any 
exceptions (e.g. if no hazard identification and  evaluation requirement)? What foods are exempt? 
As we understand from the text of the report FSVP differ with regard to the same types of 
products depending on exporting country and each exporting supplier. What precise circumstances 
and conditions will b e taken into account while developing a FSVP?  
RESPONSE: There may be many circumstances in which an importer evaluates the known and 
reasonably foreseeable hazards in a food and determines that there are no hazards requiring 
control. In these cases, the im porter would not be required to conduct a supplier evaluation or 
determine what foreign supplier verification and related activities to conduct, and would not be 
required to conduct such activities. Examples of foods for which there might not be hazards 
requiring controls include salt, many kinds of crackers, many cookies and many types of candy 
(such as hard candy, fudge, maple candy, taffy and toffee), bread, dried pasta, honey, molasses, 
sugar, syrup, soft drinks and certain jams, jellies and preserves.  
Section 1.501 of the FSVP regulations (21 CFR 1.501) establishes the scope of foods subject to the 
rule, and certain foods are generally exempt.  
The FSVP regulations also provide several exceptions to the standard FSVP requirements for 
certain types of im porters. For example, importers who establish and verify compliance with 
certain specifications under the dietary supplement Current Good Manufacturing Practices 
regulations will not be required to comply with most of the standard FSVP requirements, includ ing 
hazard analysis and standard supplier verification activities. For more information on the 
applicability of the FSVP rule, see FSVP At -A-Glance 
(http://www.fda.gov/d ownloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/UCM502160.pdf ) and other 
outreach materials available on FDA 's website.  
Importers  must develop an FSVP based on food risks and supplier characteristics unique to each 
supply chain, including actions described in the F SVP Final Rule.  
30. It is told in the report that importers may carry out risk -based supplier verification through 
several means, for example, through annual on -site audits of supplier facilities, sampling and 
testing, or by reviewing of the supplier's releva nt food safety records.  
RESPONSE: Importers have the flexibility to tailor supplier verification activities to unique food 
risks and supplier characteristics.  
31. Does it mean that each importer may possess different requirements for each foreign 
supplier? Wha t circumstances and conditions will be taken into account while choosing the means 
for supplier verification? Will importer take into account if a particular foreign supplier meets 
requirements under another USA importer FSVP or each supplier is approved b y each importer 
under different conditions? Whether the number of possible audits or frequency of sampling and 
testing are enshrined in US legislation or each importer will establish them independently?  
RESPONSE: An importer is required to develop, maintai n and follow an FSVP for each food the 
importer enters into the United States and each foreign supplier of that food. If, for example,the 
importer sources a certain food from a few different suppliers, a separate FSVP would be required 
for each supplier.  
The importer must evaluate the risk posed by the imported food and the supplier and, based upon 
the risk, establish and follow written procedures to ensure that foreign suppliers are approved and 
verified. Importers have flexibility in implementing their F SVP, which may include:  
 On-site audits of the supplier 's facility;  
 Sampling and testing;  
 A review of the supplier 's relevant food safety records .  
Importers can rely on another entity (other than the importer or the foreign supplier) to determine 
and perf orm appropriate supplier verification activities, including on -site audits of the supplier 's 
facility, so long as the importer reviews and assesses the relevant documentation.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 336 - 
 
  In implementing verification activities, the importer generally determines the frequency with which 
those activities must be conducted to provide adequate assurances that the hazards in the food 
obtained from the foreign supplier are minimized or prevented.  
32. Could importers develop its FSVP that provides for a higher level of public h ealth protection 
than US? Who will monitor the legitimacy of FSVP developed by each food importer to avoid any 
abuse (e.g. by establishing additional requirements)?  
RESPONSE: The FSVP requirements are designed to obtain assurances that the foreign supplie r is 
producing food in compliance with processes and procedures that provide the same level of public 
health protection required by the FDA regulations. Any additional verification that an importer 
requires, for example, as part of a contractual arrangemen t with its supplier, is outside the scope 
of the FSVP rule.  
FDA is responsible for ensuring that importers comply with Foreign Supplier Verification Program 
requirements.  
33. Will FSVP apply to packaging, storage and transportation requirements? Whether the 
importer should reevaluate the food and foreign suppliers?  
RESPONSE: The importer 's hazard analysis includes factors that are reasonably likely to cause 
illness or injury. The Final Rule requires that the hazard evaluation consider the effect of certain 
factors on the safety of the finished food for the intended consumer, including but not limited to 
transportation practices, packaging and labeling activities, and storage and distribution for each 
type of food subject to the rule . 
34. In this regard how these re quirements correlate with the SPS Agreement, in particular with 
article 2.2 and discrimination provisions? What are the US actions to avoid such additional 
administrative burden on importers and exporters could constitute a disguised restriction on trade.  
RESPONSE : Requiring importers to share responsibility for ensuring that imported food is safe 
and meets the same standards that apply to domestic food is consistent with industry practice, 
principles of Codex Alimentarius, and WTO obligations, including th e SPS Agreement.  
Question 35  
Page 66, paragraph 3.119  
The final accredited third -party certification rule allows, but does not require, accreditation bodies 
to seek recognition by the FDA to accredit certification bodies to issue certifications for food a nd 
facilities. Certification under this programme can be used for two purposes. First, importers will 
use facility certifications from foreign suppliers in helping to establish their eligibility to participate 
in the expedited entry programme called the Vo luntary Qualified Importer Program (or VQIP).65 
Second, the FDA may require certification of food or facilities under this programme in specific 
circumstances when the FDA determines it necessary to ensure food safety. Accreditation bodies 
recognized by the  FDA may be foreign government agencies or private entities. The accreditation 
bodies may use documentation demonstrating conformance with ISO/IEC standards to prove their 
eligibility to be recognized by the FDA. Accreditation bodies are expected to apply to the FDA for 
recognition, but the FDA may also accredit third -party certification bodies directly. Accredited 
third-party certification bodies are required to perform unannounced facility audits and notify 
possible negative findings to the FDA. The Accre dited Third -Party Certification programme is not 
yet in operation; the FDA expects implementation as soon as possible after the publication of its 
final Model Accreditation Standards guidance, and its final rule on user fees.66 
35. It is noted that the FDA may require certification of food or facilities under this programme 
in specific circumstances when the FDA determines it necessary to ensure food safety.Please 
provide more information: for which types of products could FDA determine necessary certification 
under this programme? Please name these specific circumstances. What are the time frame to 
                                                
65 The Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) will be estab lished in a guidance document. The 
FDA published the draft guidance for comment in June 2015 and is working to finalize the guidance for 
publication.   
66 User fees for accreditation bodies and certification bodies were published in July 2015.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 337 - 
 
  accredit third -party certification bodies? Please also provide information on the process for third 
party auditors accreditation.  
RESPONSE: As noted, under section 80 1(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C 
Act) FDA may, based on a determination of the risk of the food, require certification as a condition 
for admitting a food into the United States. Section 801(q) of the FD&C Act establishes criteria fo r 
the FDA determination, including:  
 known safety risks associated with the food;  
 known food safety risks associated with the country, territory, or region of origin of the 
food; 
 a finding by FDA, supported by scientific, risk -based evidence, that — 
o the foo d safety programs, systems, and standards in the country, territory, or region 
of origin of the food are inadequate to ensure that the article of food is as safe as a 
similar article of food that is manufactured, processed, packed, or held in the United 
States in accordance with the requirements of the FD&C Act; and  
o the certification would assist FDA in determining whether to refuse or admit the food; 
and 
 information submitted to FDA for purposes of the assessment of food safety programs, 
systems, and stand ards. 
We note that a certification required by section 801(q) may be issued either by a third -party 
certification body accredited under FDA 's third -party certification regulations or by an agency or 
representative of the government of the country from whic h the food at issue originated, as 
designated by FDA.  
Section 808 of the FD&C Act requires FDA to issue implementing regulations to establish the 
third-party certification program (finalized on November 27, 2015), Model Accreditation Standards 
(finalized o n December 6, 2016), and a user fee program regulation (proposed rule issued July 24, 
2015). FDA is in the process of finalizing the user fee rule. Once the program is implemented, FDA 
will begin to accept applications from accreditation bodies seeking rec ognition to participate in the 
program. Once recognized by FDA, an accreditation body may begin to accept applications from 
third-party certification bodies seeking accreditation to conduct food safety audits and to issue 
certifications under the program.  
Question 36  
Page 67, paragraph 3.125  
The FSIS maintains a list of those countries determined equivalent, which also identifies those 
establishments in each country certified and eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products to 
the United States.67 Currently, there are some 32 countries determined equivalent and actively 
exporting meat (beef and pork), poultry, and processed egg products to the United States. The 
2008 Farm Act amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to transfer food safety inspec tion 
authority for Siluriformes fish and fish products from the FDA to the FSIS. The final rule for this 
change in regulatory authority was published on 5 December  2015 and became effective on 
1 March 2016.  
36. Please describe national procedures for equivale nce determination, including legal provisions 
and time frames. How many bilateral and multilateral agreements on recognition of the 
equivalence have been achieved by US competent authorities? Are these agreements publicly 
available? Does the US have the in tention to notify agreements on recognition of the equivalence 
to the WTO?  
                                                
67 FSIS onli ne information. Viewed at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/t opics/international -
affairs/importing -products/eligible -countries -products -foreign -establishments/eligible -foreign -establishments .   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 338 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS) does not negotiate bilateral or multilateral agreements to recognize equivalence, but  rather 
conducts an equivalence determination process for each country seeking to import meat, poultry 
and eggs into the United States. Details and guidance about the FSIS equivalence process, 
including legal provisions, are publicly available on the FSIS website at : 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international -affairs/importing -
products/equivalence . 
Additionally, a list of  those countries determined equivalent and products eligible to import into the 
United States is publicly accessible on the FSIS website at: 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international -affairs/importing -products/eligible -
countries -products -foreign -establishments . FSIS also publishes copies of its equivalence 
determinations on the FSIS  website and notifies the WTO SPS Committee when new 
determinations of initial equivalence are made.  
Question 37  
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance  
(Page 79, paragraph 3.175)  
Like other WTO Members, the United States notifies subsidy programmes to the WTO without 
prejudice to their legal status regarding specificity, or being actionable (or otherwise) under the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The latest subsidy notification covered  fiscal 
years 2013 and 2014. Outside of agriculture, federal -level subsidies are overwhelmingly directed 
towards the energy sector (Table 3.15). In addition, a number of energy -related support measures 
are implemented at the sub -federal level, particularly  in relation to renewable energy (Table A3.4).  
37. Could the United States please explain if it provides government support of the exploitation 
of shale oil and gas deposits and extraction of oil and gas from shale deposits. If yes, please 
provide information  on each of the implemented measures.  
RESPONSE: The United States has several general oil and gas programs that might benefit the 
extraction of oil and gas from shale deposits as well. (See, the WTO subsidy notification of the 
United States: G/SCM/N/284/US A.)  
Question 38  
Page 80, paragraph 3.176  
The notification also provides information on nearly 620 subsidy programmes maintained at state 
level. Although data on programme costs has been made available for some of these subsidy 
schemes, an overall estima te of sums granted or revenue foregone does not exist for sub -federal 
subsidy programmes.  
38.  Could the United States provide the amount of sub -federal subsidies related to fisheries?  
RESPONSE: Please see the WTO subsidy notification of the United States: G/ SCM/N/284/USA.  
Question 39  
3.3.5 Government procurement  
3.3.5.1 Overview  
(Page 85, paragraph 3.191)  
The United States is a party to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and played 
an active role in the negotiations leading to the Revised Agr eement on Government Procurement. 
GPA thresholds in U.S. dollars are revised every two years by the USTR. Annex I of Appendix I of 
the Agreement contains the list of central government agencies covered by the GPA.68 Annexes 2 
and 3 list the 37 States, and t he federal and sub -federal bodies applying the GPA. The Protocol 
amending the Agreement on Government Procurement entered into force for the United States on 
6 April 2014; U.S. threshold values as expressed in SDR are the same under the revised and the 
1994 Agreements.  
                                                
68 WTO document G/STR/N/16/USA, 29 June 2016.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 339 - 
 
  39. The Secretariat 's Report notes that Annexes 2 and 3 list the 37 States, and the federal and 
sub-federal bodies applying the GPA. Please clarify whether the United States will extend the list of 
states covered by the GPA?  
RESPONSE: Such disc ussions may be a topic of future GPA market access negotiations.   
Questions 40 -41  
Page 85, paragraph 3.193  
According to the Federal Procurement Data System's "Federal Contract Actions and Dollars" report, 
which looks at dollars obligated against contracts  awarded by U.S. Federal Government agencies, 
the value of federal government procurement in the United  States for FY2015 was 
US$439.3  billion. Procurement by the Department of Defense during the same time period was 
US$274.5 billion; procurement by other agencies and entities od was US$164.8 billion.69 There are 
no collected state or locality figures that are available that would allow for comparison to these 
data.  
40. Please clarify the reasons of abovementioned lack of statistics relating procurement by 
sub-central agencies?  
RESPONSE: The United States Federal government does not track or maintain a database of state 
or local procurement statistics .  
41. Could the United States provide statistics of the value of procurement contracts conducted 
by state and local  governments?  
RESPONSE: The United States ' most recent statistical submission (for the year 2010) to the GPA 
Committee can be found in document GPA/108/Add.9, which is publicly available. The submission 
contains an estimated value of total procurement for the 37 U.S. states covered by the GPA , which 
looks at capital outlays as well as operational expenses (minus compensation). For the year 2010, 
the combined total estimated procurement of the 37 U.S. states covered by the GPA is 
$627,818,477,000.  The United  States Federal government does not track or maintain state or local 
procurement statistics and thus does not have any additional state or local procurement statistics 
available.  
Questions 42 -45 
Page 85, paragraph 3.195  
Statistics on the procurement activi ties of the main agencies at the federal level are contained in 
the United States' Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), maintained by General Services 
Administration (GSA) under the direction of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of 
Federal Pr ocurement Policy (OFPP). The GSA operates multiple e -procurement systems that 
support collection and dissemination of information on U.S. Federal procurements to include 
awards, contractor performance and integrity, and a single point -of-entry for contract ing 
opportunities, known as Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps).70 In December 2015 the 
United States submitted to the WTO procurement statistics, with statistical information for the 
year 2009.71 For procurement at the central level only (Federal Go vernment), the submission 
reported 330,586 contract awards and actions for GPA -covered goods and services above the 
threshold that were made by GPA -covered entities, with a total value of US$175.0 billion, and 
6,741 construction contracts above the thresho ld, with a total value of US$29.1 billion.  
72 These numbers represent the obligations made against contracts awarded in FY2009 as well as 
options exercised in following years to represent the true value of opportunities. Previous 
statistical submissions con tained higher values due to a different methodology .  
42. Also, please explain how this lack of statistics corresponds with transparency principle of the 
GPA? 
                                                
69 Federal Procurement Data System. "Federal Contract Actions and Dollars." Viewed at: 
https://www.fpds.gov [8 August 2016].   
70 The website's address is: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=main&mode=list&tab=list .   
71 WTO document GPA/104/Add.8, 7 December 2015.   
72 WTO document GPA/104/Add.8, 7 December 2015.   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 340 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States maintains a transparent federal procurement system, with real 
time inform ation, including statistical data, available to interested suppliers regarding current and 
past procurement opportunities through multiple sources, including : https://www.fbo.gov/  and 
https://www.fpds.gov/ . The delay in United States  GPA statistical reporting is based on the policy 
determination to report actual contract value instead of contract award value and does not 
undermine supplier access to real time information.  
43. Could you p rovide an explanation of the following phrase "the main agencies at the federal 
level"? What are federal agencies included?  
RESPONSE: All entities covered by U.S. WTO GPA Appendix 1, Annex 1 are included in FPDS  
44. Also, please confirm that statistics on the  procurement activities of sub -central and other 
agencies are not contained in the United States' Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS)?  
RESPONSE: FPDS contains only statistics on Federal procurements.  
45. Finally, could you please inform whether the unified web site containing full and reliable 
information on each procurement by all types of procurement entities (federal, local, etc.) is 
developed?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. federal government does not maintain a unified procurement portal for 
Federal, state, and loc al procurements. However, the U.S. government does make available a 
single website with links to where such information can be found for GPA covered entities : 
https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/government -procurement/additional -information -on-US-Procurement . 
Question 46  
3.3.5.3 Market access conditions  
(Page 88, table 3.20)  
46. Could the United States explain the reasons for diversity of thresholds proposed to countries 
in different FTA?  
RESPONSE: Variations in FTA thresholds are the result of negotiations.   
Question 47  
Page 89, paragraph 3.212  
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 gives authorization to the President to grant waivers from the 
Buy American Act and  other procurement restrictions; this authority has been delegated to the 
USTR. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 waives the application of the BAA to the end -products of 
designated countries, which include the parties to the GPA, bilateral agreements that cover 
government procurement, CBERA beneficiaries, and least developed countries. For CBERA and 
least developed countries, the thresholds are those of the GPA. For the other trading partners that 
are beneficiaries of a preferential agreement, the threshold s are as shown in Table 3.20. Eligible 
products are granted non -discriminatory treatment.  
47. Could you clarify whether discriminatory provisions of the Buy American Act and Trade 
Agreements Act are not applied for the GPA countries in all cases or you have s ome exceptions?  
RESPONSE: Buy American Act requirements are waived for procurements covered under the GPA.  
Question 48  
Page 89, paragraph 3.216  
Each U.S. State has its own procurement access conditions. As noted, 37 States participate in the 
GPA; among th ose that do not, some restrict foreign participation in biddings, others offer 
preferences to in -state suppliers, or apply domestic purchase requirements. Some states (e.g. 
New Jersey) do not grant specific state preferences, but may grant them on a recipr ocity basis, 
depending on what the state of origin of the out -of-state bidder grants. Others grant in -state 
preferences only when there is a tie in the bid, or for some specific products. A few states, WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 341 - 
 
  including New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rho de Island, Vermont and Wisconsin do not 
grant any form of preference.  
48. Please clarify how existing restrictions of foreign participation in biddings, preferences to 
in-state suppliers correspond with the non -discrimination principle of the GPA?  
RESPONSE: Sub-central procurement not covered under the U.S. GPA market access 
commitments is not subject to the GPA disciplines.  The United States is unaware of any state level 
buy local procurement requirement that is applied in a manner that is in consistent with U .S. 
obligations under the GPA.  
Questions 49 -50  
3.3.5.4 Set -asides and preferences  
(Page 91, paragraph 3.222)  
The current, government -wide procurement goal stipulates that at least 23% of all federal 
government contracting dollars should be awarded to sma ll businesses. In addition, targeted 
sub-goals are established for the following small business categories: women owned small 
business: 5%; small disadvantaged business: 5%; service -disabled veteran -owned small business: 
3%; and HUBZone: 3%. These goals ar e not in addition to the 23% but rather are counted as part 
of the overall goal. In fiscal year 2015, the overall small -business procurement goal was met, as 
25.7% of the value of all contracts was procured from them. In the case of the targeted 
subgroups,  the goals were met for the women owned small business (5.1)%; small disadvantaged 
business (10.1%); and service -disabled veteran -owned small business (3.9)%, but procurement 
from HUBZones was below the goal (1.8%).73 
49. Please clarify whether there are criter ia used in the legal framework of the USA to determine 
when a contract should be awarded to small businesses?  
RESPONSE: The Small Business Act is found in Title 15 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and a 
copy of the Small Business Act is available at : https://www.sba.gov/content/small -business -act. 
SBA's regulations are in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) and are available at : 
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -bin/text -
idx?SID=71cfaa6dddfccb9909d873ec8ee627d6&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title13/13cfrv1_02.tpl
#0". The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is in Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations and 
is available at : https://www.acquisition.gov/ . FAR part 19 covers small business programs.  
50. Also, please clarify whether contracts that awarded to small  businesses are still subject to 
competition?  
RESPONSE: Yes. The statutory requirement to award contracts competitively applies to contracts 
awarded to small business.  
Question 51  
3.3.5.5 Bidding procedures  
(Page 92, paragraph 3.232)  
FAR Parts 8, 13, 14 and 15 contain the main regulations regarding bidding procedures. They are of 
two basic types: sealed bidding and contracting by negotiation. Sealed bidding, the most -used 
method, requires that the final decision by agencies be based on "only price and the  price-related 
factors included in the invitation". The contract is awarded to the lowest bidder meeting all the 
contract requirements. In cases where the Government needs to gather more information from 
suppliers before the sealed bidding process is initi ated, a two -step sealed bidding process is used. 
Contracting by negotiation is required where sealed bidding is not applicable, such as when the 
agency anticipates more variety among proposed solutions, a need to conduct discussions, or 
consideration of ev aluation factors other than price and price -related factors.  
51. What is the procedure of taking decision to choose the contracting by negotiation type of 
bidding?  
                                                
73 Definition of small business. Viewed at: 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf .    WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 342 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Sealed bidding is used if: time permits; award will be made on the basis of price an d 
other price -related factors; it is not necessary to conduct discussions with offerors about their 
bids; and there is a reasonable expectation of receiving more than one sealed bid. FAR 6.401(a). 
Contracting by negotiation may be used if sealed bidding is  not appropriate. FAR 6.401(b). Based 
on these factors, the Contracting Officer determines whether to use sealed bidding or contracting 
by negotiation.  
Question 52  
Page 93, paragraph 3.235  
Bid protests (before awards) may be taken to the Government Account ability Office (GAO) or the 
U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). They are governed by federal statutes including the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982. If a 
party is dissatisfied with a decision by the GA O, it may file a new protest with COFC. COFC 
decisions may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2015, 2,639 bid 
protest cases were filed with GAO and 13 bid protests were filed with the COFC. Contract disputes 
in government procurement, i.e. on actions and events that occur after the contract is awarded, 
are dealt with under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The parties may file contract dispute 
claims to either an agency board of contract appeals or the COFC, whose decision s may be 
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2015, 50 contract dispute cases 
were filed with the COFC and 12 were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit.  
52. Could the United States provide statistics of th e decisions made by GAO, COFC and U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2015?  
RESPONSE: The GAO issues an annual report regarding the GAO bid protest cases (the 2015 
report is available at : http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674134.pdf ), which includes additional 
information such as the disposition of the case and whether the GAO held a hearing. The COFC and 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit do not issue annual bid protest reports.  
Question 53  
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights  
3.3.6.1 Overview  
(Page 93, paragraph 3.237)  
Intellectual property (IP) and innovation are of critical importance to the enhanced productivity 
and growth of the U.S. economy. The United States is an important p roducer and exporter of 
goods and services that embody knowledge and other intellectual developments. IP is present in a 
large share of U.S. goods exports (some 52% in 2014) and IP -intensive industries in the 
United  States account for 38.2% of U.S. GDP in 2014.74 The United States traditionally posts a 
balance -of-payments surplus in IP -related trade, as measured by the category charges for the use 
of intellectual property. In 2015, net receipts were US$85.2 billion, with receipts totaling 
US$124.7  billion an d payments reaching US$39.5 billion.75  
53. The WTO Secretariat's Report informs that IP was present in 52% of goods exports from US 
in 2014. What percentage out of those goods were exported to the Russian Federation?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not mainta in the requested statistics.  
Question 54  
3.3.6.2 General regulatory framework  
(Page 96, paragraph 3.246)  
In October 2015, the United States updated the TRIPS Council o n its implementation of 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, noting that a major avenue f or tech nology transfer from the 
United  States is the U.S. university system, where foreign students are educated and then take 
                                                
74 211 USPTO (2016),  Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update , September. Viewed at: 
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPandtheUSEconomySept2016.p df.  
75 BEA online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6210=1&6200=2 .    WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 343 - 
 
  advantage of their training through private and public employment in their home countries. Since 
many U.S. universities are estab lished as not -for-profit (tax -exempt) entities, education is 
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer through tax revenues. In addition, the private endowments that 
assist financially many foreign students to attend U.S. universities were built with tax exempt 
donations.76  
54. Please explain the connection between application of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement 
and the issue of technology transfer through US universities.  
RESPONSE: The United States annual reports pursuant to Article 66.2 and Article 67 of the TRIPS 
Agreement to the WTO TRIPS Council provide detailed descriptions of U.S. technology transfer and 
technical cooperation activities globally. The United States submitted reports most recently to the 
TRIPS Council on October 18, 2016 regarding technical coope ration activities (IP/C/W/617/Add.5) 
and implementation of article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/W/616/Add.5). These reports 
are available to all WTO members.  
Question 55  
Page 97, paragraph 3.250  
The USPTO received 589,410 patent applications in 2015.2 28. During the period under review, the 
number of patents granted by the USPTO remained stable, but increased with respect to previous 
years. In 2015, the USPTO granted a total of 298,407 utility pate nts, slightly down from 
300,677  in 2014, but up from 277 ,835 in 2013 and 253,155 in 2012. The share of patents of 
foreign origin issued by the USPTO has been rising over the past few years; they represented 52% 
of total applications in FY2015.77 
55. The Secretariat Report in paragraph 3.250 witnesses a gradual incre ase in numbers of 
patents granted in the United States since the last TPR. Please, inform about specific actions, if 
any, taken by the United States in order to improve the patent system so that patents are only 
granted in cases of "genuine innovation " and the so -called "evergreening " is contended.  
RESPONSE: The United States notes that there is no common understanding of the concept of 
"evergreening. " The United States strongly supports that patents be made available for all 
inventions, whether products or  processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, 
involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application. Certain countries have applied 
patentability criteria in a way that has led to rejections of patent applications for innovative 
pharmaceutical products that have received patents in other countries. Patents provide critical 
incentives for the biopharmaceutical industry to develop new and enhanced treatments that 
benefit patients worldwide. The United States supports ensu ring that patents are available for 
eligible biopharmaceutical inventions, including for potentially beneficial innovations, which could 
include drugs with fewer side effects, decreased toxicity, improved delivery systems, or 
temperature or storage stabili ty. 
Question 56  
3.3.6.3 Patents  
(Page 98, paragraph 3.253)  
As was mentioned in the previous review, the Leahy -Smith America Invents Act (AIA), signed into 
law in 201178, introduced one of the most significant reforms to the U.S. patent law in recent years 
and required the enactment of significant regulatory and administrative changes to give effect to 
these reforms. These entailed: transitioning the United States to a first -inventor -to-file system; 
providing an enhanced grace period for inventors to safegua rd patent rights against disclosures 
made one year or less before the effective filing date; modifying the definition of prior art to 
include non -printed disclosures, including oral disclosures, made available to the public anywhere 
in the world; providing  prior art effect to U.S. patent applications as of their foreign priority dates; 
eliminating the requirement for inventors to set forth the best mode to carry out the invention as a 
defence in infringement actions or in post -grant review; and providing a 75% discount for patent 
fees to all applicants that qualify as micro entities.79  
                                                
76 WTO docum ent IP/C/W/611/Add.5, 2 October 2015 and IP/C/W/611/Add.5/Rev.1, 29 October 2015.   
77 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat. htm.    
78 Public Law 112 -29. Viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW -112publ29/content -detail.html .  
79 USPTO online information "Global Impacts of the AIA" . Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws -
and-regulations/america -invents -act-aia/global -impacts -aia.     WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 344 - 
 
  56. In US the grace period for inventors is 12 months, while in many countries it amounts to 
only 6 months. Has US considered introducing a grace period of 6 months?  
RESPONSE: U.S. stakeholders have consistently identified one year as an appropriate duration for 
the grace period in view of the need to facilitate research collaboration, encourage open 
dissemination of research results, and provide time to obtain critical funding and  perform research 
into the efficacy of an invention. This is especially important for universities and SMEs.   
Question 57  
Page 98, paragraph 3.255  
In June 2013, the Administration announced a series of initiatives to build on the AIA reforms.80 
These inclu ded: (a) a proposed rule on transparency to ensure that records of patent ownership 
are accurate and up to date, and (b) making use of crowdsourcing techniques and resources, so as 
to expand ways for identifying prior art relevant to determining the novelt y of claimed 
inventions.81 In February 2014, the Administration announced three new executive actions to 
encourage innovation and further strengthen the quality and accessib ility of the patent system: 
(a) Crowdsourcing Prior Art, to help patent examiners, h olders, and applicants find relevant "prior 
art": the USPTO conducted consultations with the public on its third -party pre -issuance submission 
procedures and implemented refinements based on feedback received; (b) Expansion of the 
USPTO's Patent Examiner T echnical Training Program: the USPTO has enhanced its technical 
training programme to make scientists and engineers available to examiners for the purposes of 
educating them on the latest state -of-the-art technology, advancements, and emerging trends in 
their fields; and (c) Pro Bono and Pro Se Assistance: to increase the accessibility of the patent 
system, the USPTO will dedicate educational and practical resources to assist inventors who lack 
legal representation, appoint a full -time Pro Bono Coordinator,  and help expand the existing 
America Invents Act pro bono programme to cover all 50 states.82 The USPTO has appointed a Pro 
Bono programme coordinator and all 50 states have now launched a regional programme.  
57. The WTO Secretariat's Report notes that for th e purpose of improvement of patent system 
the USPTO resorts to Crowdsourcing Prior Art mechanism. Please elaborate on the used 
crowdsourcing methods and provide a detailed description of the third -party pre -issuance 
submission procedures.  
RESPONSE: Title 3 5 of the United States Code, section 122(e), provides a mechanism for third 
parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential 
relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description  of the asserted 
relevance of each document submitted. This allows non -applicants the ability to contribute to the 
quality of issued patents and brings the most relevant prior art to the examiner's attention as early 
as possible during prosecution to enhan ce examination effectiveness and efficiency. Such 
submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or 
(ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a 
notice of  allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may 
prescribe.  
The USPTO hosted two roundtables in 2014 on the use of crowdsourcing to identify relevant prior 
art, and received written comments from interested members of  the public. Further information on 
preissuance submissions, the roundtables and other related matters can be found on the USPTO 
website at : https://www.uspto.gov/p atent/initiatives/third -party-preissuance -submissions . 
                                                
80 White House Press Release, 4 June 2013. Viewed at: www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -
office/2013/06/04/fact -sheet -white -house -task-force-high-tech-patent -issues .  
81 USPTO online inform ation "USPTO -led Executive Actions on High -Tech Patent Issues". Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp .  
82 White House Press Release, 20 Febru ary 2014. Viewed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press -
office/2014/02/20/fact -sheet -executive -actions -answerin g-president -s-call-strengthen -our-p.     WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 345 - 
 
  Question 58  
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights  
3.3.6.5.2 Geographical indications  
(Page 100, paragraph 3.261)  
The United States offers protection for geographical indications (GIs) for all classes of  goods and 
services through its trademark system.83 The United States, together with other countries, has 
submitted a proposal to other WTO Members for a multilateral system for notification and 
registration of GIs for wines and spirits in the context of Ar ticle 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.84 
58. Please expand on the possibilities to offer protection to foreign geographical indications 
through US trademark system and provide respective references to the provisions of national 
legislation. Is it possible to protec t non -registered foreign geographical indications against unfair 
use? If a non -registered geographical indication is used as an element of a trademark in a way 
that may mislead consumers on the origin of the respective goods or services, can such use 
const itute grounds for a refusal to register such trademark? Does USPTO check if the use of 
geographical indications as elements of applied trademarks may mislead consumers on the origin 
of the respective goods or services?  
RESPONSE: All food stuffs and agricul tural products, including cheeses and meat, wines and 
spirits, and a variety of other products of interest can qualify for protection in the United States. 
The United States protects geographical indications through its trademark system as certification 
marks, collective marks and trademarks. The system recognizes prior -in-time trademark rights 
and requires that generic terms remain in the public domain for producers' and manufacturers' use 
to refer to their products. Geographic signs used on non -originatin g goods/services that would 
mislead or deceive consumers are not eligible for registration as a trademark, or as part of a 
trademark, and their use can be enjoined. The overall trademark system is cost -effective, 
expeditious and user -friendly. For example,  under our system, unlike many other countries, 
USPTO has the administrative authority to act on its own initiative to review applications for mark 
protection and deny applications that would likely cause confusion with existing marks protected in 
our terr itory. The system is already used by a broad range of stakeholders, including SMEs as well 
as collective producer associations, large cooperatives, and geographic certification bodies. In fact, 
EU agricultural producers hold over 25,000 U.S. mark registrat ions in the United States. 
Complementary protection is provided under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and its 
implementing regulations for wine and distilled spirits of both domestic and foreign origin. Further 
information can be found in the Lanham  Act and Federal Alcohol Administration Act, among other 
measures.  
Question 59  
3.3.6. Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.6.8 IP enforcement  
(Page 103, paragraph 3.277)  
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, declares unlawful "unfair methods of competition and unfair 
acts in the importation and sale of products in the United States, the threat or effect of which is to 
destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry, prevent the establishment of such an industry, 
or restrain or monopolize trade and commer ce in the United States." Section 337 also declares 
unlawful the importation into the United States, sale for importation or the sale after importation 
within the United States of articles that infringe a valid U.S. patent, registered trademark, 
registered  copyright, registered mask work, or vessel hull design. The injury requirement does not 
apply to Section 337 investigations alleging these causes of action. Section 337 investigations are 
instituted by the United States International Trade Commission (USI TC); administrative law judges 
make an initial determination of whether there is an infringement/contravention of the law, which 
is then subject to review by the USITC. If the USITC determines that Section 337 has been 
violated, it may issue exclusion orde rs, cease and desist orders, or both, after considering the 
effect of the orders on four statutory public interest factors. Exclusion orders direct the CBP either 
to bar entry into the United States of infringing goods from whatever source (general exclusi on 
orders) or to bar entry of imports from specifically identified entities (limited exclusion orders). 
The President may disapprove a USITC order within 60 days. Between 1 January 2013 and 
                                                
83 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov.   
84 WTO documents IP/C/W/386, 8 November 2002 and TN/IP/W/7/Rev.1, 20 June 2003.   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 346 - 
 
  23 June 2016, 144 new Section 337 investigations were instituted. 263 Investigations covered 
products from 31 trading partners. In the same period the USITC issued 32 exclusion orders, of 
which 23 were limited exclusion orders, and 9 were general exclusions, together with cease and 
desist orders. As of 1 July 2016, there  were 91 outstanding exclusion orders in effect, affecting 
imports of a range of products, including smart phones, network devices, tablets, televisions, 
integrated circuits, memory chips, cast -iron stoves, cube puzzles, various footwear products, nut 
jewellery, soft drinks and energy drinks, agriculture vehicles, crawler cranes and excavators, 
cigarettes, light -emitting diodes, sucralose, railway wheels, rubber resins, stainless steel, various 
printing cartridges, biometric devices, sleep apnoea devices, a nd outdoor grills.  
59. Please provide a full list of possible grounds for initiation of investigations under Section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930. Have any restrictive measures (exclusion orders or cease and desist 
orders) ever been introduced with regard to  goods imported from the Russian Federation? If yes, 
then what measures have been introduced and on what grounds?  
RESPONSE: The full scope of unlawful activities under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is 
identified at 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a). A historical  review of section 337 remedial orders possibly 
involving imports from the Russian Federation is beyond the scope of the current Trade Policy 
Review. Information on section 337 investigations is available at : https://w ww.usitc.gov/  and 
https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/337external/ . 
Questions 60 -61 
4 Trade policies by sector  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2 The 2014 Farm Act  
4.1.2.2 Price Loss Coverage (PLC)  
(Page 109, paragraph 4. 8) 
PLC covers historical base (made up of historical area and yield) of maize, soybeans, wheat, other 
feed grains, other oilseeds, peanuts, pulses, and rice. For each covered commodity on a farm, PLC 
payments are made on 85% of historical base when current  average market year price falls below 
the reference price. Producers made a one -time choice for the life of the 2014 Farm Act of whether 
to elect PLC for historical base of each covered commodity on their farm. PLC is decoupled from 
current production as it is based on historical base. However, land owners had a one -time option 
to reallocate, but not to increase, their base acres for their farm using average planted acreage 
during 2009 -12. They also had a choice between retaining the payment yield under th e earlier CCP 
programme and updating it to 90% of the average commodity yield in crop years 2008 -12.85  
60. Which period was used as "historical base " and for which reasons?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Act provided a one -time opportunity to farm owners to retain th e 
farm's base acres that were in effect in 2013, or to reallocate base acres based on the proportion 
of covered commodities planted or considered planted in crop years 2009 through 2012. Producers 
could not increase a farm 's base acres, only reallocate alr eady existing base acres to different 
covered commodities. Farm owners were also allowed a one -time opportunity to update payment 
yield on their base acres using their average 2008 -12 yield or retain previous payment yield on 
those acres.  
The 2014 Act designates  historical periods for base acre reallocation or payment yield update 
options.  
61. What is the reference price? Could the United States provide the methods of how the 
reference prices were determined? Could the United States provide the reference price s for each 
crop?  
RESPONSE:  The reference price is set in the 2014 Farm Act for the duration of the program under 
the Act. See Table A4.1 on page 177 in the Secretariat 's report for the reference price for each 
crop. The 2014 Act does not provide a methodol ogy for determining the reference price.  
                                                
85 Many CCP yields date back to the 1980s. USDA Farm Service Agency dat a indicates that farmers 
opting for updated yields increased their yield by approximately 30% for maize, soybeans, and wheat, and 
significantly more for some pulses and oilseed crops. UDSA Farm Service Agency online information. Viewed 
at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs -and-services/arcplc_program/index . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 347 - 
 
  Questions 62 -64 
Page 109, paragraph 4.9  
PLC payments are linked to current prices as they are triggered when the national average market 
price during the marketing year or the national average loan rate, whichever i s higher, falls short 
of reference prices (per bushel or pound) established in the 2014 Farm Act for the covered crops 
(Table A4.1). The payment to the farmer equals the difference between the national average 
market price/loan rate and the reference price  multiplied by the eligible base. According to the 
USDA Farm Service Agency, payments under PLC had totalled US$776.2 million by 20 May 2016 
on base acres of long grain rice (US$399.5 million), peanuts (US$321.5 million), and canola 
(US$55.2 million).86 
62. Is PLC program a price support measure? Will the PLC be included in Amber Box? If not, 
could the United States provide the reasons for not classifying the PLC as price support measure?  
RESPONSE: The PLC program will be reported in the appropriate domestic sup port notifications.  
63. If the United States classifies the PLC as income support measure, why it is tied up with 
price difference between the national market price and the reference price?  
RESPONSE: See response to Question 62.  
64. Could the United States provide  the economic rationale for price difference to be multiplied 
by square meters and not by crop production per area?  
RESPONSE: The price difference, if any, is multiplied by a percentage of historical base acres and 
yields, to calculate the PLC payment.  
Question 65  
4.1.2 The 2014 Farm Act  
4.1.2.4 Marketing loan programme  
(Page 110, paragraph 4.13)  
The USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides marketing assistance loans to eligible 
producers of the covered commodities.87 Marketing loans allow producers  to delay sales from 
normal harvest time (or shearing, for wool) until market conditions are favourable. The loans may 
be redeemed by repayment (of the loan principal plus interest and other charges) or by delivery of 
the commodity pledged as collateral to  the CCC. Under certain circumstances, e.g. if market prices 
fall below the loan rate, a lower repayment rate may be accepted resulting in a marketing loan 
gain (MLG).88 Alternatively, producers who do not wish to take out a loan on a harvested 
commodity ma y elect to receive a loan deficiency payment (LDP) instead of the marketing loan 
gain. As with all U.S. commodity and crop insurance programmes, farmers must comply with 
conservation and wetland protection requirements and report all crop acreage planted t o be 
eligible for LDP or marketing loans; gross income and payment limitations also apply.89 Marketing 
loan support is fully coupled to current prices and current production.  
65. The Secretariat Report states that "[m]arketing loans allow producers to delay sa les from 
normal harvest time (or shearing, for wool) until market conditions are favourable ". Is marketing 
loan programme a market price support measure? Could it be classified as public interventions 
mechanism?  
                                                
86 Nearly 90,000 farms received PLC payments. USDA Farm Service Agency online information. Viewed 
at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc - 
plc/pdf/ARCPLCPaymentsasMay202016.pdf .  
87 The interest rate is set at the CCC cost of borrowing fr om the U.S. Treasury, plus one percentage 
point, at the time the loan is made.  
88 A marketing loan gain (MLG) is recorded when the loan is repaid at less than the principal.  
89 Persons or legal entities are not eligible for MLGs and LDPs when their average a djusted gross 
incomes exceed US$900,000 per crop year, but remain eligible for marketing loans repaid at principal plus 
interest. Accumulated payments for PLC, ARC, MLGs, and LDPs may not exceed US$125,000 per person or 
legal entity  per year. A separate and additional US$125,000 annual payment limit applies to peanut farming.   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 348 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Budgetary outlays under the market ing loan program are reported in supporting table 
DS:6 of the U.S. DS:1 notification to the WTO.  
Question 66  
Page 111, paragraph 4.14  
The statutory marketing loan rates are fixed for crop years 2014 -18 in the 2014 Farm Act, 
 generally at the same levels as  in crop years 2010 -13. Loan rates have been set well below 
current  market prices and current production costs in recent years, and the marketing loan 
programme is thus designed to provide income support at times of low commodity prices. In its 
agricultur e support notifications, the United States reports benefits under the marketing loan 
programme (i.e. LDPs, MLGs and forfeitures) as non -exempt direct payments in supporting table 
DS:7. Having peaked at US$6.5 billion in 2005 -06, marketing loan benefits hav e been modest in 
recent years, and amounted to less than US$36 million in marketing year 2013.  
66. The Secretariat report states that marketing loan ben efit was amounted less than 
USD 36 million in 2013. The last domestic support notification of the United St ates contains the 
figure of USD 2,292.303 million for non -exempt direct payments in 2013 which the Secretariat 
describes as payments under the marketing loan programme. Why there are such different 
volumes of the same support measure? Could the United Stat es provide correct volumes for each 
agricultural product for which this program has been applied?  
RESPONSE: $2,292.303 million is the subtotal of all direct payments notified in supporting table 
DS:6. This table includes budgetary outlays under other direc t payment programs, not just 
marketing loans. The budgetary outlays under the marketing loan program for each commodity 
can be found in supporting table DS:6 of G/AG/N/108.  
Question 67  
4.1.3 Trade measures  
4.1.3.1 Import  
(Page 116, paragraph 4.35)  
The Unit ed States notifies the Committee on Agriculture regularly about the administration of its 
WTO tariff quota commitments, covering 44 product categories (or around 200 tariff lines at 
present). The main product categories are beef, cheese and other dairy pro ducts, s ugar and 
sugar -containing products, tobacco, and cotton. The sugar TRQs are allocated to around 
40 exporting countries, rather than to importers, on the basis of historical supply data. As a 
market allocation mechanism applies to domestic productio n of sugar (section 4.1.2.7), the import 
TRQ regime may be adjusted to take account of changes in U.S. market conditions. Fill rates vary 
considerably among the commodities subject to TRQs. Certain modifications in the TRQ regime for 
dairy products were an nounced in July 2015.  
67. The last MA:2 notification submitted by the United States contained the information 
concerning import under tariff quotas in 2013 (G/AG/N/USA/102). Could the United States provide 
the reasons for delay in MA:2 notification submission for 2014 and 2015? When the United States 
intends to submit respective notifications?  
RESPONSE: The United States will submit the MA:2 notifications for 2014 and 2015 when they 
are complete.  
Question 68  
4.1.3.2 Export  
(Page 117, paragraph 4.37)  
The Forei gn Agricultural Service (FAS) of USDA administers the Export Credit Guarantee Program 
(GSM -102) on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Under GSM -102, CCC 
guarantees U.S. private sector financing to approved foreign financial institutions, pri marily in 
developing countries, for imports of U.S. food and agricultural commodities. The guarantee 
typically covers 98% of the principal and a portion of the interest payments. The maximum credit WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 349 - 
 
  term is 18 months, but may vary from country -to-country.90 Commodities eligible for loan 
guarantees are bulk products (grains and oilseeds), intermediate goods (e.g. hides, flour and 
paper products), and high -value processed consumer products such as frozen foods, meat, beer, 
and wine. Registered guarantees per 31  July 2016 totalled more than US$1.6 billion, principally for 
exports of soybeans, including yellow corn (US$636 million), soybeans (US$325 million), soybean 
meal (US$264 million), wheat (US$171 million), and rice (US$67 million).  
68. The 2014 Farm Act reduce d the maximum loan guarantee term from three years to two 
years.  Does the United States intent to reduce maximum loan guarantee term to 18 month since 
2018 as it is provided in Nairobi ' Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
RESPONSE: The United State s has been operating the GSM -102 program in accordance with the 
elements of the Nairobi decision since prior to December 2015 and continues to do so.  
Questions 69 -70  
4.2 Services  
4.2.3 Transport  
4.2.3.2 Maritime transport, port services, and shipbuilding  
4.2.3.2.3 Shipbuilding and ship repairs  
(Page 145, paragraph 4.164)  
Under the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) and Construction Reserve Fund (CRF), U.S. citizens 
owning or leasing vessels may obtain tax benefits for the construction, reconstruction, or 
acquisition of vessels. CCF vessels must be built in the United States and documented under the 
laws of the United States for operation in the nation's foreign, Great Lakes, short -sea shipping or 
non-contiguous domestic trade or its fisheries. Participants mus t meet U.S. citizenship 
requirements. The CCF provides tax -deferral benefits to vessel operators in the foreign or domestic 
trade of the United States and U.S. fisheries. The stated purpose of the CCF is to make up for the 
competitive disadvantage operator s of U.S. -flag vessels face in the construction and replacement 
of their vessels relative to foreign -flag operators whose vessels are registered in countries that do 
not tax shipping income. The CRF is a financial assistance scheme that provides tax -deferr al 
benefits to U.S. -flag operators with respect to gains attributable to the sale or loss of a vessel, 
provided the proceeds are used to expand or modernize the U.S. merchant fleet.  
69. Could the United States provide the amount of tax benefit for the constru ction, 
reconstruction, or acquisition of vessels provided in previous f inancial years? Does the 
United  States consider this tax benefit as a subsidy?  
RESPONSE: In examining the issues posed by these questions, the United States has considered, 
inter alia,  the particular question of whether these funds, assuming they satisfy the technical 
requirements relating Articles 1 and 2 of the Subsidies Agreement, operate in law and/or in 
practice as subsidies to the goods or services sector. Should they be viewed as  subsidies to service 
suppliers, i.e., shipping companies, the issue arises as to whether they fall within the scope of the 
Subsidy Agreement 's notification obligation - insofar as the Subsidy Agreement is a "goods " 
agreement. Moreover, any measurement of support provided would need to make a number of 
assumptions as to the effective tax rate and cost of debt for each account holder, as well as how 
such a measurement would be treated over time.  
70. Could the United States provide the reasons not to include this  kind of subsidy into the 
notification  pursuant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the SCM Agreement?  
RESPONSE: Please see the response to Question 69.  
Question 71  
4.2 Services  
4.2.1 Financial services  
4.2.1.4 Banking services  
(Page 12 8, paragraph 4.74)  
Initial entry into the U.S. market through the establishment or acquisition of a nationally chartered 
bank subsidiary by a foreign person is permitted in all states but there are commercial presence 
                                                
90 The 2014 Farm Act reduced the maximum loan guarantee term from three years to two years.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 350 - 
 
  limitations which vary according to t he state. Initial entry or expansion by a foreign person (but 
not a domestic person) through acquisition or establishment of a state -chartered commercial bank 
subsidiary is prohibited or limited in 22 states. There are some other limitations at the state l evel: 
for example, branch licences for foreign banks are not available in four states.85 Representative 
offices of foreign banks are not permitted in 12 states, and are subject to limitations in Oklahoma, 
while some states require the incorporation of repr esentative offices.86 Some states also place 
limitations on the acquisition by a foreign person of savings banks or loan associations (Tennessee 
and Washington).  
71. According to paragraph 4.74, branch licences for foreign banks are not available in four 
states (Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma) . Why is this measure necessary and how does 
this measure conform to the obligations of the United States under the WTO?  
RESPONSE: The United States has taken reservations in its schedule to reflect current U. S. 
licensing procedures. U.S. reservations are consistent with its WTO obligations.  
Question 72  
5 APPENDIX TABLES  
Page 163, table A3.2  
72. According to the Table A3.2 "Prohibitions, restrictions or other special requirements " the 
importation, exportation, tra nsportation, distribution or sale of any product that consists of any 
dog fur, cat fur, or both, is prohibited. Please, inform what is a rational behind such prohibition 
and how does it correspond with WTO Agreement?  
RESPONSE: The referenced prohibitions d erive from the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000. The 
Act serves to, among other things: (1) prohibit imports, exports, sale, manufacture, offer for sale, 
transportation, and distribution in the United States of dog and cat fur products, in order to ensur e 
that U.S. market demand does not provide an incentive to slaughter dogs or cats for their fur; 
(2) require accurate labeling of fur species so that consumers in the United States can make 
informed choices and ensure that they are not unwitting contributo rs to this gruesome trade; and 
(3) ensure that the customs laws of the United States are not undermined by illicit international 
traffic in dog and cat fur products.  
OTHER QUESTIONS  
73. Would it be possible to provide with the information regarding the existin g non -preferential 
rules of origin and regulation on marks of origin? By which sources of law it is regulated. Were 
there any amendments introduced  into those ROO and mentioned regulation since its submission 
as a part of notifications to the WTO Secretari at?  
RESPONSE: A comprehensive explanation of the U.S. non -preferential rules of origin can be found 
at the following link:  https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/file s/assets/documents/2016 -
Apr/icp026_3.pdf . Legislation and implementing regulations governing non -preferential rules of 
origin may be found at: 19 U.S.C. §1304, 19 CFR Part 134, and 19 CFR §102.0. There have been 
no amendments to the non -preferential rules  of origin since the U.S. notification to the WTO.  
74. Would the US  provide detailed information about national criteria for customs value of goods 
under 6 method? By which sources of law it is regulated.  
RESPONSE: All merchandise imported into the United Stat es is subject to appraisement. The 
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (the Act), codified at 19 U.S.C. 1401a, et. seq., sets forth the rules 
for appraisement of imported merchandise. The Act sets forth six different methods of 
appraisement, and their order of pr eference, including valuation method 6, as required by the 
WTO Customs Valuation Agreement. Please see : https://www.gpo .gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE -1994-
title19/pdf/USCODE -1994-title19 -chap3 -subtitleIII_2 -partI-subparta -sec1401a.pdf . Furthermore, 
the valuation criteria are specified in CBP Regulations at 19 CFR §§152.000 -152.108. CBP rulings 
and decisions on valuation are availa ble via Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) at : 
https://rulings.cbp.gov/ . For further information concerning the U.S. customs valuation system 
and various methodologies, please see : 
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016 -Apr/icp001r2_3.pdf . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 351 - 
 
   
SAUDI ARABIA,  KINGDOM OF  
Question 1  
Section 1. The United States in the Global Trading System (1.8)   
1.8. Looking at the historical record, it is clear that while trade alone cannot solve every 
development challenge, open markets are a necessary part of any successful and sustainable 
development strategy. Thus, the U.S. trade agenda brings traditional p olicy tools into the 
21st century and offers a more comprehensive look at development. Many regions of the 
developing world hold considerable potential for economic growth, and the United States will 
continue to explore new ways to partner with those count ries to harness the power of trade as an 
engine of growth and prosperity.  
1. In view of this, is there a road map for such an implement?  
RESPONSE: The United States affirms its G20 commitments on the key role trade must play in 
achieving growth, sustainab le development and poverty reduction. In addition, it is our view that a 
road map for increasing trade and sustainable economic growth in developing countries is likely to 
be effective if it includes strategies to improve the conditions for trade. Accordin gly, in developing 
such a roadmap, it is the U.S. view that policymakers should consider incorporating commitments 
in a number of policy areas such as trade facilitation, intellectual property, labor, sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures, market access, ser vices, investment, environment, technical barriers to 
trade, and transparency and anti -corruption. These 'building blocks' together can help to expand 
trade, attract investment, and promote development.  
G20 Leaders ' Communique: https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2016 -09-04-
g20-kommunique -en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6 . 
G20 Trade Ministers Statement:  
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/dgra_09jul16_e.pdf . 
Question 2  
Section 2.6. Economic and Trade Environment ---Productivity (2.11)  
2.11. Labor productivity, as measured by output per hour worked, grew by 1.7% between 2013 
and 2015 (up 0.8% in 2014 and up 0.9% in 2013). Although low, this compares favourably to 
growth in the earlier period, up 1.3% between 2011 and 2013. However, productivity has declined 
more recently, down 0.4% over the la st four quarters, reflecting faster growth in total hours 
worked than in output. Low productivity growth in recent years has been a global phenomenon 
affecting nearly all advanced economies, although the United States has had the strongest 
productivity gro wth of any G -7 economy in the last decade. The slowdown in labor productivity in 
the United States and elsewhere is mostly due to the shortfall in investment.  
2. Are there any future plans to increase productivity of the economy?  
RESPONSE: Current policy to expand productivity includes investing in infrastructure, research, 
and education, as well as promoting innovation through other policies including free and fair trade.  
Question 3  
Section 2.8. Challenges to the U.S. and Global Recovery/Economy (2.20)  
2.20. In short, various parts of the world economy are growing slowly, and likely too slowly. The 
U.S. economy is not a large enough share of the world economy, nor can it grow fast enough, to 
solely support world growth. Both the OECD and the IMF have ad vocated coordinated policies to 
boost growth, including public investment in infrastructure and research and development, as well 
as structural reforms, warning of the risks inherent if low global growth persists.  
3. How can The U.S. government manage this  slowing economic growth situation?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 352 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Global growth is a multilateral issue.  The U.S. is doing its part to invest in 
infrastructure and advance measures to increase productivity domestically, as well as to work with 
partners internationally in the G-7 and G -20 and to echo the calls of multinational institutions such 
as the OECD and IMF to advocate pro -growth policies, which the OECD and IMF suggest will have 
a bigger impact if undertaken sooner and jointly than later and staggered across countries.   
Question 4  
Section 4.2.2. North American Free Trade Agreement  
4. What are the United States' major priorities for advancement of free trade agreements?  
RESPONSE: With respect to the incoming Administration and Congress that will take office in 
January 20 17, we remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to 
keeping the Membership informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into place.  
PART II: SECRETARIAT  REPORT (WT/TPR/S/ 350) 
Question 5  
Section 2.4. Investment regime (2.42)  
2.42. Foreign investment is generally not subject to review. However, the President may conduct 
national security reviews of "covered transactions" through the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States (CFIUS). The term "covered transaction" is def ined in the Defense Production 
Act of 1950 (known as the "Exon Florio" provision or "CFIUS statute"), as amended by the Foreign 
Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA). CFIUS is an interagency committee 
authorized to review the national securi ty aspects of transactions that could result in a foreign 
person gaining control of a U.S. business. The CFIUS statute and accompanying regulations do not 
limit review to certain industries or types of activity. CFIUS has indicated that, as it does not wis h 
to unnecessarily impede the flow of foreign investment, the statute is to be implemented "only 
insofar as necessary to protect the national security", and "in a manner fully consistent with the 
international obligations of the United States".  
5. In view  of this, is there a road map for such an implement?  
RESPONSE: The FINSA statute has been implemented through the CFIUS regulations. See : 
https://www.treasury.gov/CFIUS .  
Question 6  
Section 3.1.1. Customs pro cedures and requirements (3.2)  
3.2. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as part of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), was created in 2003 by merging the legacy organizations of the U.S. Customs 
Service with other services overseeing the cross-border movement of goods and travellers. 
However, even with an enlarged CBP, some 30 federal agencies continue to play a role in trade 
enforcement activities. Thus, the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) was established 
formally in February 2014 to provide strategic leadership and policy guidance as the deadline for 
completion of the single -window International Trade Data System (ITDS) is nearing 
(31 December  2016).  
6. Does the United States' Customs' have data sharing agreements with other United  States' 
agencies?  
RESPONSE: Yes, under ACE, 38 agencies either have or will have an agreement that allows for 
data sharing.  
Question 7  
Section 3.1.2.1 Container Security Initiative and Secure Freight Initiative  
3.1.2.1 Container Security Initiative (CSI)  
Authorized under the 2006 SAFE Port Act (PL 109 -347), CSI addresses the threat to border 
security and global trade of potential terrorist use of maritime containers to deliver weaponry. CSI WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 353 - 
 
  is operational at 60 ports world -wide and ensures that appro ximately 80% of all maritime cargo 
destined to the United States is pre -screened and, as deemed necessary, scanned or inspected 
prior to shipment. All containerized cargo determined high risk at a CSI port is scanned for illicit 
radiological materials usin g non -intrusive inspection technology or subjected to manual inspection.  
3.1.1.2.1  Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)  
Seeking to improve container security further, Section 232 of the 2006 SAFE Port Act provides for 
the SFI to test the feasibility of 100% s canning of all cargo containers destined for the 
United  States at a minimum of three pilot ports. Moreover, the Implementing Recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 mandated 100% scanning (x -ray imaging and radiation) prior to 
lading.  
SFI pilot  operations were initially run at six foreign ports, but subsequently scaled back to cover 
only one foreign port. The other five ports reverted to CSI risk based targeting operations after an 
evaluation of the costs versus potential benefits of 100% scanni ng, logistical problems with the 
placement of scanners, and diplomatic concerns. The 100% target has thus not been realized for 
containerized maritime freight, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to work 
with foreign governments and the  private sector to find solutions. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security used her/his authority to extend the SFI deadline in July 2012, July 2014, and July 2016. 
The mandate is currently extended until July 2018.  
7. Are there any other initiatives planned t o improve the import security?  
RESPONSE: During the past two years DHS has made progress on a number of initiatives 
designed to address the security and resiliency of the global supply chain. DHS has met several 
times with international and industry repres entatives to discuss solutions to securing the global 
supply chain. In addition, in June 2016, DHS issued a Request for Information (RFI) on supply 
chain security and is currently evaluating the responses received from the RFI.  
Questions 8 -9 
Section 3.1.6. 2. Import licensing (3.59, 3.60)  
3.59. Import licences, imposed under various statutes and for various purposes, are enforced by 
six agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce (steel), Energy (natural gas), the Interior 
(fish and wildlife), Justic e (firearms, explosives, and drugs), and the Treasury (alcohol and 
tobacco), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licences are either automatic or non automatic. 
The Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, an automatic system designed to provide 
statistical data five to six weeks in advance of when it would normally become available, was 
extended until 21 March 2017 under a decision taken in 2013. Licensing requirements apply to all 
basic steel mill imports from all countries.  
3.60. During the revie w period, the United States has provided two notifications of its import 
licensing regime. The regime has largely been stable (Table A3.3). After extensive public 
comment, a regulation amending certain aspects of the Dairy Import Licensing Program (TRQs) 
was published on 27 July 2015. The revision extends the historical  licence reduction provision 
(§ 6.25(b) – set to expire at the beginning of the 2016 quota year) for an additional seven years, 
aligns the collection of fees more closely to the costs of admi nistering the programme, and 
prescribes the exclusive use of electronic communication in the application, reporting and payment 
procedures. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission amended its import/export regulations on 
10 July 2014 to conform to the export con trol guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and to 
incorporate, by reference, the document "Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical 
Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities" of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  
8. Under the impo rt licensing, could you clarify the procedures more, what are the requirements 
for obtaining an import license? How long is this license valid for?  
RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat report, the United States has various types of import 
licenses, each w ith its own procedures. These procedures are fully described in the United States ' 
most recent import licensing questionnaire response (see, G/LIC/N/3/USA/13) and in the 
instruments cited in that document.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 354 - 
 
  9. We would like to know whether a deposit for iss uance an import license are required or not?  
RESPONSE: This topic is covered in the United States ' most recent import licensing questionnaire 
response (see, G/LIC/N/3/USA/13) and in the instruments cited in that document.  
Question 10  
Section 3.2.3. Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing (3.135)  
3.135. The United States maintains restrictions, licensing requirements, additional controls and 
prohibitions on a variety of exports for national security and foreign policy reasons.  
10. According to tha t, could the United States provide practical and live examples, if possible?  
RESPONSE: The United States maintains export controls on a variety of items for reasons 
including national security and foreign policy. Examples of items that would be controlled for 
national security reasons include certain computer servers, thermal imaging cameras, and 
machine tools. Examples of items controlled for foreign policy reasons include law enforcement 
restraint devices and certain explosive detection equipment.  
Questio n 11 
Section 3.2.4.1. Institutional structure (3.146)  
3.146. Several government agencies or departments have specific programmes supporting or 
encouraging exports. The Trade Promotion Coordinating Co mmittee (TPCC), encompassing 
20 federal agencies with ex port-related programmes, is the Government's main body for the 
coordination of export promotion and export financing activities. In the past, the TPCC issued an  
annual National Export Strategy (NES) report, establishing priorities and reporting on the acti vities 
of the member agencies. However, no new reports have been issued since 2012, in which year the 
report focused on the National Export Initiative (NEI) and on reducing trade barriers for 
U.S. exports. A  new NES report was expected to be published in S eptember 2016.  
11. Could you please give examples on the above -mentioned programmers?  
RESPONSE: The National Export Strategy Report will be published this month, December 2016. 
The latest details on these programs will be available in the Report which wi ll be found at: 
http://www.trade.gov/publications .  
Question 12  
Section 3.2.4.2. National Export Initiative (NEI) and NEI/NEXT (3.150)  
3.150. The National Export Initiative was launched in 2010 as a govern ment-wide programme to 
promote exports, with focus on improved access to finance, trade promotion and advocacy, a 
lowering of barriers, and enforcement of trade rules. The development of export programmes for 
small U.S. businesses was given high priority.  
12. Are there any other initiatives planned to improve the export in general?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 13  
Sectio n 3.2.5.3 Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) (3.163)  
3.163. OPIC is the U.S. Government's development finance institution. OPIC mobilizes private 
capital to help address critical development challenges by providing investor financing, insurance  
of political risk, and private equity investment funding where these services are not available on 
commercially viable terms. OPIC does not compete with private -sector lenders. OPIC is an entirely 
financially self sustaining, independent government corpor ation.  
13. Could you clarify the procedures and scope of OPIC, and how it will relate to the investment 
improvement?  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 355 - 
 
  RESPONSE: OPIC's procedures and scope are available on OPIC 's website:  
Description of OPIC 's financial products:  https://www.opic.gov/what -we-offer/overview . 
Eligibility requirements (finance):  https://www.opic.gov/doing -business -us/applicant -
screener/finance -eligibility -checklist . 
Eligibility requirements (insurance): https://www.opic.gov/doing -business -us/applicant -
screener/ins urance -eligibility -checklist . 
Investment Policies:  https://www.opic.gov/who -we-are/our -investment -policies . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 356 - 
 
   
SINGAPORE  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
3 Trade Policies and P ractices by Measure  
Question 1  
Section 3.1.1.1.1. Single Window (3.9)  
1. We note with interest the efforts that the U.S. is making to substantially roll out their 
single -window by the end of the year. We also note that beyond 2016, the U.S. will continue to 
develop the single window. We would appreciate it if the U.S. could share details on the 
development activities that are planned for their single -window post -2016, including more 
information on the further alignment of the National Information Exchange Mod el with the World 
Customs Organisation (WCO) Data Model, and if trade permits from various U.S. agencies can be 
applied for through the single -window.  
RESPONSE:  Core functionality for the processing and release of merchandise will be functional 
and mandato ry by December 31, 2016. Further functionality not related to the release of 
merchandise, but that will further enhance the trade environment for both government and 
traders, will deployed over 2017. See the attached link for further details : 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/ace -mandatory -use-dates .  
The U.S. continues to work with the World Customs Organization (WCO) and other initiatives that 
promote standardization.  
Questions 2-3 
Section 3.1.1.1.1. Single Window (3.10)  
2. We note that the U.S. and Canada have agreed to common advance data elements for 
their respective single -window systems. Could the U.S. please share if there is a possibility for 
traders to submit advance data t o the U.S. single -window via the Canadian single -window and vice 
versa? If not, are there plans for such functionality to be added going forward?  
RESPONSE: The United States continues to work closely with the Canada Border Services Agency 
(CBSA) and Mexic o's Tax Administration Service ( Servicio de Administración Tributaria, or SAT) to 
explore opportunities for streamlining the regional flow of trade, and implement solutions. Longer 
term plans include consulting with other government agencies and stakeholde rs from the trade 
community to work towards a true North American Single Window.  
3. Beyond this and the harmonising rail manifest data elements with Mexico, is the U.S. 
planning to have such harmonisation of data elements for other data fields with Canada, M exico, 
or with other FTA or AEO MRA partners?  
RESPONSE: The United States continues to work with Mexico Customs to harmonize the manifest 
data elements for inbound and outbound cargo. The United States is also working on manifest data 
for the air, land, an d ocean environment.  
Questions 4 -6 
Sections 3.1.1.1.1 Single Window and 3.1.1.1.2 ACE Cargo Release (3.5 - 3.9, 3.11)  
We understand that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is currently piloting a 
programme, in collaboration with the U.S. Transpo rtation Security Administration (TSA), whereby 
advance cargo information available before cargo is loaded on board air carriers arriving in U.S. 
airports is collected, for the purposes of targeting air carrier shipments which may present a 
security risk to  civil aviation. Upon security risk analysis of the advance information, air carriers 
may be required to undertake certain risk mitigation actions.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 357 - 
 
  4. As the collection of advance information and any mitigation measures which may be taken 
should a high risk shipment be detected could result in potential impacts/delays to the air cargo 
supply chain, we would like to enquire if the U.S. CBP has any future plans to implement this as 
part of its regular requirements placed on air carriers arriving in the U.S., si milar to how the 
Simplified Entry Pilot project for imports was later incorporated into the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE)?  
RESPONSE: The United States conducted the Advance Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot. At 
this time, CBP is pursuing a Not ice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to make the collection of 
advance information data a requirement. The United States notes that pilot participants and other 
trader representatives have indicated that, because the NPRM as drafted would adopt the existing 
ACAS pilot requirements, it would not result in significant delays.  
5. Given also that the focus of this programme is the early identification of aviation security 
risk, will the U.S. CBP continue to work with the aviation security regulator and stakeholders on 
the most efficient way to effect this initiative without unduly disrupting the carriage of international 
air cargo?  
RESPONSE: Yes, CBP will continue to work with its counterparts in the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) and stakeholders on th e most efficient way to effect the ACAS pilot.  
6. In addition, will the platform for submission of these advance cargo data and responses to 
traders following analysis be integrated into the U.S. Single Window/ACE?  
RESPONSE:  The advance cargo data provided th rough ACAS is only for aviation security It is not 
provided for trade purposes. Therefore, CBP does not expect it to be integrated into ACE.  
Questions 7 -8 
Section 3.1.1.1.2. ACE Cargo Release (3.11)  
7. We note that the ACE Cargo Release programme supports si mplified entry processing for 
cargo transported by air, rail, ship and truck at selected ports of entry. How long in advance would 
the information need to be filed in the ACE system?  
RESPONSE:  Entry information may be provided as early as possible prior to  arrival, but is only 
required to obtain release from CBP custody after arrival.  (CBP advanced cargo data requirements 
are security requirements that are not used for revenue or admissibility purposes.) As of today, 
ACE supports Cargo Release processing fo r cargo transported by air, rail, ship, and truck at all U.S. 
ports of entry. For both rail and truck, an entry transaction has to be submitted by the time the 
conveyance has arrived at the physical border. For both air and sea, there are no CBP 
requiremen ts to file in advance of conveyance arrival.  
8. In addition, from the U.S. ' responses for its TPR in 2014, we know that entry filers can 
update the entry information until the point that the conveyance arrives, this suggests that the 
information submitted ca n be amended at the very last minute and that the data transmission is 
real time. Are there any restrictions to the data elements that can be updated? Does the updating 
of entry information at the last minute have any impact to targeting undertaken by CBP?  
RESPONSE: Prior to arrival and up until the time of release of the entry, all elements, with the 
exception of the Importer of Record Identifier, may be updated. The updating of entry information 
affects CBP 's targeting decisions. For further information, please see ACE Cargo Release Business 
Process document, issued by CBP at : https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/ace -cargo -release -
business -transformation -process -document . 
Question 9  
Section 3.1.1.1.4.1. C -TPAT (3.14 –3.15)  
9. We note that the U.S. has signed AEO MRAs with a number of countries. We would 
appreciate it if the U.S. can share if any of their MRAs recognise the members of another country 's 
AEO scheme as "certified exceeding " (Tier 3) under the U.S. C -TPAT scheme. If there are none, 
could the U.S. please share its considerations on exploring such arrangements going forward?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 358 - 
 
  RESPONSE: There are no tiers under the U.S. C -TPAT scheme. The Uni ted States has no plans to 
explore such arrangements at this time.  
Questions 10 -12 
Section 3.1.1.1.4.2. Importer Self -Assessment Program (3.16)  
We note that the U.S. Importer Self -Assessment Program (ISA) offers benefits to importers such 
as exemption from  comprehensive audits, expedited cargo release, the assignment of a national 
account manager, and enhanced prior disclosure. One of the criteria for being eligible for the U.S. 
ISA programme is that the importer must be a resident in the U.S. or Canada.  
10. We would appreciate it if the U.S. can explain the reason behind having this criterion.  
RESPONSE: There are a number of reasons for this requirement. This requirement aligns with 
C-TPAT eligibility requirements; the importer must be C -TPAT certified to be e ligible for ISA. 
Moreover, requiring the importer to be a resident in the United States or Canada makes it easier 
for the U.S. government to verify financial reporting documents and import procedures of the 
importer in the United States. Finally, the Canad ian residency stems from the Beyond the Border 
(Canada/U.S.) initiative, which recognizes each other 's partnership programs.  
11. How many importers are enrolled under the ISA programme to date?  
RESPONSE : As of November 2016, there are three hundred and thirty four (334) importers 
enrolled into the ISA programme.  
12. Has the programme been helpful to companies, especially SMEs in terms of trade and 
customs compliance issues?  
RESPONSE: Many ISA importers have reported the value they gained as a result of the ISA 
Application Review Meeting (ARM), a 2 -day site visit with the applicant.  During the visit, the 
importer demonstrates its internal control procedur es to ensure import compliance. The ISA review 
team provides feedback and recommendations on ways the importer can  improve its procedures to 
help ensure compliance, shares industry best practices, and provides guidance on developing 
risk-based self -testing plans and internal control activities. Accordingly, the ISA program has been 
helpful to companies in terms of com pliance issues.  
Questions 13 -15  
Section 3.1.1.1.4.3. Free and Secure Trade System (3.18)  
We note with interest the provision of dedicated lanes at 34 land border crossings under the FAST 
programme.  
13. If available, would the U.S. be able to share an estimat e of the average time saved in 
crossing the border by C -TPAT carriers relative to carriers not enrolled in the programme?  
RESPONSE: The United States cannot provide specific data in the time provided, but notes that 
there are gains in efficiency; in order  to be FAST certified, all entities in the supply chain must be 
C-TPAT certified, and C -TPAT certified entities receive a reduced number of physical inspections.  
14. We would also be interested to learn whether the implementation of the dedicated lanes 
had an y trickle -down effect in reducing the time for non -enrolled drivers to clear the land border.  
RESPONSE: As noted above in response to question 13 , there would be a time reduction; 
however, the United States is unable to obtain specific data. Furthermore, p lease note that not all 
ports of entry have dedicated FAST lanes. For more information on the U.S. FAST program, please 
see the following link: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted -traveler-programs/fast . 
15. Does the U.S. plan to extend these benefits to citizens of its AEO MRA partners?  
RESPONSE: At this time the United States does not have plans to extend these benefits to 
citizens of its AEO MRA partners.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 359 - 
 
  Question 16  
Section 3.1.1.1.4.4 . Trusted Trader Program Test (3.19)  
16. We note with interest the plans to integrate the current C -TPAT and ISA processes in a 
holistic Trusted Trader Program. We would appreciate it if the U.S. can share what effect, if any, 
such an integration would have on  the existing AEO MRAs that the U.S. has signed. In particular, 
would importers enrolled in an AEO scheme of a country that has an AEO MRA with the U.S., be 
eligible to enjoy the benefits under the ISA programme?  
RESPONSE: The Trusted Trader pilot program will not have an effect on the existing AEO MRAs. 
The existing AEO MRAs pertain to the security aspect of the Trusted Trader Program. Once the 
Trusted Trader program becomes fully operational, CBP hopes to align with existing AEO programs 
and establish MRA S that address the trade compliance aspect of the program.  
Questions 17 -18 
Section 3.1.1.2.2. Secure Freight Initiative (3.21 -3.22)  
The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security has been using her/his authority to extend the deadline 
for the implementation of 10 0% scanning of in -bound containerised maritime freight in July 2012, 
July 2014, and July 2016. The mandate is currently extended until July 2018.  
17. Could we have an update on the achievements and progress of the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) 's efforts to work with foreign governments and the private sector to find 
solutions to enhance the security of in -bound containerised maritime freight?  
RESPONSE: During the past two years DHS has made progress on a number of initiatives 
designed to address t he security and resiliency of the global supply chain. DHS has met several 
times with representatives of industries and foreign governments to discuss solutions to securing 
the global supply chain. In June 2016, DHS issued a Request for Information (RFI) o n supply chain 
security and is currently evaluating the responses received from the RFI.  
18. In view of limited resources and the critical need to implement the most effective strategy 
that enhances global supply chain security, will the U.S. DHS, instead of g oing through the waiver 
exercise every two years to extend the deadline, consider undertaking a comprehensive 
re-evaluation and move forward on this issue in a way that would allow the U.S. Government, 
industry, and the U.S. ' other international trading pa rtners to focus constructively on finding real 
solutions to address any security gaps that remain in the global supply chain?  
RESPONSE: 100% scanning is a legislative requirement; the Secretary of Homeland Security only 
has authority to extend the deadlin e for implementation. DHS continues to work with other U.S. 
Government agencies, as well as with representatives of industries and foreign governments, on 
ways to address the security and resiliency of the global supply chain.  
Questions 19 -20 
Section 3.1.4 .4. TRQs (3.44)  
 Low fill rates for TRQs result in deadweight losses for consumers and reflect inefficiencies 
in quota allocation mechanisms.  
19. We would appreciate it if the U.S. could share any efforts in place, or plans it has, to 
increase the fill rates for its TRQs, including any plans to modify the quota allocation system.  
RESPONSE: The United States has no current plans to unilaterally change its tariff -rate quotas or 
to influence their fill rates, which are determined by market conditions. To further liberalize 
markets and bolster transparency, the United States is committed to and encourages the 
implementation of the Bali Ministerial Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration.  
20. Does the U.S. have any plans to increase access or phase out the TRQ s for any products in 
the near future?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 360 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States has no current plans to unilaterally change its tariff -rate quotas. To 
further liberalize markets and bolster transparency, the United States is committed to and 
encourages the implementati on of the Bali Ministerial Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota 
Administration.  
Questions 21 -22 
Section 3.1.6.2. Import Licensing (3.59)  
 We note that the U.S. has a Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System in place, which 
is an automatic system designed to provide statistical data.  
21. Does the system also have the capability of approving applications for import licences on 
an automatic basis?  
RESPONSE: Yes, the system automatically approves the import license upon submission of the 
license application.  
22. It is stated that the system will be extended until 21 March 2017. Are there plans to 
review this for possible extension noting the ongoing work on steel under the G20 agenda?  
RESPONSE: Yes, there are plans to extend the steel import license system through Ma rch 2022. 
This extension is currently going through a public comment period and is expected to be finalized 
soon.  
Questions 23 -24  
Section 3.1.7.1. AD, CVD and Safeguard Measures (3.81)  
We understand that the U.S. has recently notified to the WTO the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 
(EAPA), which contains provisions to strengthen enforcement to prevent the evasion of the 
payment of Antidumping and Countervailing duties. We would appreciate it if the U.S. could 
elaborate and clarify the following points rega rding the EAPA:  
23. Under the EAPA, are there any specific guidelines which the CPB is obliged to follow in 
determining whether an allegation of AD/CVD evasion filed by interested parties is constituted to 
be properly filed?  
RESPONSE: Yes. These can be found o n CBP 's website at: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade -
enforcement/tftea/enforce -and-protect -act-eapa under "Resources ". 
24. Are there provisions under the EAPA that sp ell out specific conditions which have to be met 
before the CPB decides to draw on "adverse inferences " in the course of an investigation?  
RESPONSE: The determination as to whether to make an adverse inference in an investigation 
will depend on the facts a nd circumstances specific to that investigation and the activity of the 
parties involved.  
Question 25  
Section 3.1.9.2 FDA (3.123)  
25. Singapore notes with interest the use of the International Comparability Assessment Tool 
(ICAT) to evaluate the food safety sy stems of the U.S. ' trading partners. We would appreciate it if 
the U.S. can share how the modified Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food 
for Humans and Animals (FSVP rule), that importers under the scope of the ICAT can take 
advantag e of, differs from the standard FSVP requirements.  
RESPONSE: Pursuant to 21 CFR 1.513 added by the FSVP rule, modified requirements are applied 
to importers under the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs if they import certain food items 
from a country w ith an officially recognized or equivalent food safety system. If importers 
document that a foreign supplier is under the regulatory oversight of a country whose food safety 
system is recognized as comparable by FDA, through an assessment under FDA 's syste ms 
recognition program, importers are exempt from requirements of 21 CFR 1.504 -1.508.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 361 - 
 
  Question 26  
Section 3.2.1. Export Procedures and Requirements (3.131)  
We note that the CBP requires  export data to be filed electronically via the Automated Export 
Syste m (AES) prior to the departure of the cargo. Based on the U.S. ' responses for its 2014 TPR, 
we understand that the CBP anticipates replacing the post -departure programme with a new 
system that will mandate the submission of limited data prior to departure,  and the submission of 
the remaining data post departure.  
26. We would like to enquire if this new system is still in progress, and what its current status 
is. Would the post -departure programme be phased out eventually?  
RESPONSE: CBP is in the process of deve loping the electronic export manifest that will be 
required for all modes of transportation prior to departure. The regulatory changes for each mode 
of transportation is being treated separately and, as of yet, there is no specific timeline on when 
the ele ctronic filing will be required or if the current system will be phased out. CBP is consulting 
with the trade community regarding a number of different potential paths forward for a post -
departure filing program for identified low -risk cargo that would ope rate in conjunction with the 
submission of an electronic export manifest.   
Question 27  
Section 3.2.3.1. Export Control Reform Initiative (3.143 –3.145)  
27. We note that President Obama has launched the Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative in 
2009, and this wo uld be implemented in three phases. We understand that Phase I has been 
finalised, with Phase II nearing completion. When will Phase III of the initiative be concluded?  
RESPONSE: With regard to Phase III of Export Control Reform (ECR,) the United States h as 
accomplished the creation of the export enforcement coordination center and continue to work 
towards a unified information technology system across the agencies involved in implementing 
U.S. export controls. The single control list and single licensing agency require legislation. At this 
time, no legislation is pending before Congress.  
Question 28  
Section 3.3.3. Competition Policy (3.177)  
28. We note that the report provided an overview of the competition policy framework of the 
U.S., and stated that it has remained broadly unchanged for many years. How does the U.S. apply 
its competition policy framework in the civil aviation sector, particularly with respect to foreign 
airline subsidies and anti -trust matters? Can the U.S. share the roles of the various fed eral 
agencies in the enforcement of its framework for the civil aviation sector, by illustrating with a few 
examples?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) works closely with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation with respect to matters affecting competition in air transportation, but the agencies 
act under different statutory and regulatory frameworks. The U.S. Department of Justice reviews 
airline mergers under Section 7 of Clayton Act to determine whether the transaction will result in a 
substan tial lessening of competition, and will examine anticompetitive conduct in the industry 
under the Sherman Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has authority, among other things, 
to review and to grant antitrust immunity, where appropriate, to agreeme nts between air carriers 
relating to international service. See 49 U.S.C. §41308.  
An example of the DOJ 's work with the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure competition in 
airline travel is the DOJ 's submission of comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation 's 
Federal Aviation Administration in 2010 with respect to an exchange of slots involving airports in 
Washington, D.C. and New York City. These comments, which are available at : 
https://www.justice.gov/atr/comments -notice -petition -waiver -terms -order -limiting -scheduled -
operations -laguardia -airport -and, were directed at facilitating entry of low -cost carrier s which offer 
significant consumer benefits on the routes they fly and tend to disrupt coordination among the 
established legacy carriers.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 362 - 
 
  A second example involves United Airlines ' proposed acquisition of 24 takeoff and landing slots at 
Newark Liberty Int ernational Airport. In November 2015, the DOJ filed suit to block the proposed 
transaction as violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In April 2016, the Federal Aviation 
Administration announced its plans to lift slot controls at Newark to ease entr y and promote 
competition at the airport. United Airlines abandoned the proposed transaction after that 
announcement. See DOJ Press Release, "United Airlines Abandons Attempt to Enhance its 
Monopoly at Newark Liberty International Airport, " April 6, 2016, available at : 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united -airlines -abandons -attempt -enhance -its-monopoly -newark -
liberty -international -airport .  
Question 29  
Section 4.2.2. Telecommunications (4.120)  
We note that the FCC adopted a new Open Internet Order (the "FCC net neutrality decision ") 
which became effective on 12 June 2015. Under the Open Internet Order, the FCC reclassified  
fixed and mobile broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II 
of the Communications Act. As a result, providers of broadband internet access service are now 
subject to some of the same rules that apply to common carrier s, including a prohibition on unjust 
or unreasonable practices or unreasonable discrimination. The new rules apply to both fixed and 
mobile broadband service, with an aim to ensure that consumers and businesses have access to a 
fast, fair, and open Interne t. It is observed that telecommunication operators in the U.S. have 
introduced new services that might require clarifications from FCC.  For example, there were 
reports which claimed that T -Mobile 's video streaming service Binge On (which included unlimited  
amounts of low -resolution video with partnered firms) and its "unlimited " data plan, T -Mobile One 
might have breached the net neutrality rules.  
29. What is the U.S. ' view of such services/developments? Will they be allowed to continue in 
the U.S. market?  
RESPONSE: The FCC has not made a determination with regards to T -Mobile 's Binge On service or 
its new T -Mobile One offering but is continuing its policy review of such services.  
Question 30  
Section 4.2.3.1.2. Airports and 4.2.3.2.2. Port Services (4.136, 4.1 60)  
The Secretariat Report highlights the U.S. ' initiatives to plan and develop its public -use airports by 
offering federal grants for "improvement projects [that] relate to runways, taxiways, ramps, 
lighting, signage, weather stations, land acquisition, and some areas of planning ", and to alleviate 
the problem of port congestion through the establishment of the Office of Port Infrastructure 
Development and Congestion Mitigation, to assist with port, terminal, waterway, and 
transportation network developme nt issues.  
30. Could the U.S. elaborate on further plans, if any, to develop these sectors?  Are there areas 
where it will seek to promote private sector participation and foreign investment? If so, are there 
anticipated differences in regulation at a sub -federal level?  
RESPONSE: Airports: The Federal Aviation Administration works closely with individual airports 
and other aviation industry stakeholders (both public and private) to optimize safety, capacity, 
security, efficiency, and environmental and economic  sustainability of public -use airports, 
regardless of their ownership and governance structure or the degree to which each airport has 
outsourced key management or operational functions.  The FAA 's support includes establishing a 
broad range of standards go verning airport planning, design, construction, operations, 
maintenance and other matters.  The FAA also provides both technical support for planning, 
environmental and engineering design processes, as well as financial support for certain types of 
capital projects.  Most commercial service airports rely upon a number of funding sources, 
however, well beyond the FAA 's grant program.  Those sources can include the full range of airport 
revenues (such as land -lease proceeds and concessions revenues), bond procee ds, Passenger 
Facility Charge (PFC) revenues, other types of user fees, grants from other Federal agencies (such 
as TSA) or state aeronautical agencies, and direct investments by airlines, concessionaires, other 
tenants or investors.  The FAA actively works  with airports that wish to explore public -private 
partnerships, to ensure those arrangements conform to land use, revenue use and (where 
applicable) Federal construction procurement requirements.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 363 - 
 
  Port Infrastructure: On October 28, 2009, Congress passed the 2010 National Defense 
Authorization Act (PL 111 -84) instructing the Maritime Administration to meet the pressing need to 
improve port freight efficiencies and enhance our National global economic competitiveness 
through the development of a new Port In frastructure Development program. As a result, the 
Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation created the Port Infrastructure 
Development Program ( "StrongPorts ") to assist U.S. maritime ports in planning, financing, and 
implementing p rojects. The goal of StrongPorts is to improve port infrastructure and make ports 
more competitive in the commercial financing market. Maritime ports in the United States are not 
managed or operated by the Federal Government, but rather by a mixture of pri vate and public 
sector entities. In most cases, ports are managed locally by quasi -governmental port authorities or 
private companies, while the roads connecting to the ports are managed by local or state 
governments. Port terminals, which transfer goods b etween the ships and the landside connectors, 
are operated by either the port itself (an "operating port ") or by a lessee (a "landlord port ").  
Through its three categories of assistance, the StrongPorts Program is partnering with ports to 
leverage industr y-established best practices, develop planning and investment/financing tools for 
public release (our Port Planning and Investment Toolkit), collaborate on port infrastructure 
development and investment plans and manage TIGER and FASTLANE grants. Concurren tly our 
regional offices work with ports to integrate their infrastructure plans with the local metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPOs) and State DOTs, that manage the landside connectors. The 
StrongPorts program also works with the Department of Transp ortation's (DOT) new "Build 
America Bureau ," which manages DOT 's financing program s. The Build America Bureau 
encourages public -private partnerships to attract more private sector investment into public 
infrastructure, such as U.S. maritime ports.  
StrongPo rts is not a regulatory program, so there are no anticipated differences in regulation at a 
sub-federal level as a result of this program.  
Question 31  
Section 4.2.3.1.2. Airports (4.141)  
31. We note that the report stated that the U.S. has negotiated liberal c ommitments under 
"open skies " agreements (OSAs) with nearly 120 countries. Moving forward, does the U.S. intend 
to continue with its liberal aviation policy?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Me mbership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Report by the Government (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 32  
Section 1 The United States in the Global Trading System (1.3)  
32. We note that the U.S. will utilise the WTO 's network of committees to consider  emerging 
challenges, including electronic commerce. We would like to understand the U.S. ' view of what the 
emerging challenges in electronic commerce would be, and how the U.S. intends to address these 
challenges.  
RESPONSE: On July 4, 2016, the United Sta tes circulated to the WTO Membership, as part of the 
Work Program on Electronic Commerce, a non -paper outlining a number of trade -related policies 
that can contribute meaningfully to the flourishing of trade through electronic and digital means. 
See Work P rogramme on Electronic Commerce, "Non-Paper from the United States, " JOB/GC/91 
(July 4, 2016). As stated in the non -paper, the United States believes these trade -related policies 
could be the basis for constructive discussion among WTO Members.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 364 - 
 
   
SWITZERLA ND 
PART I: SECRETARIAT REPORT ( WT/TPR/S/350 ) 
Question 1  
Section 1.1.4 Economic Environment - Balance of payments (1.24)  
This paragraph states that "The U.S. current account was in deficit during the review period. " Part 
of the explanation of this deficit comes from a negative trade balance (more pronounced in trade 
in goods than in services) at least since 2010 (according to table 1.2). A negative trade balance is 
often seen (inter alia by the population) as a worrying indicator of the functioning of the n ational 
economy. However, given the exceptionally large domestic US market and the average purchasing 
power of US citizens, it is not that surprising that imports exceed exports.  
1. In light of this assessment, how does USTR interpret this deficit trade balan ce? And how 
does USTR communicate about this deficit to reassure the US population and counter the current 
anti-trade rhetoric?  
RESPONSE: Except for a brief period in 1991, the United States has had a current account deficit 
since 1981. The deficit has bee n accompanied by nearly continuous increases in GDP.  More 
recently, the current account deficit of the United States has declined significantly as a share of 
GDP from its high of 5.8 percent of GDP in 2006 to 2.6 percent in 2015.  Some of this adjustment 
for the United States reflects real changes in underlying fundamentals such as increased savings, 
stable domestic oil consumption, greater domestic oil production, and increased exports.  
Additionally, many of key U.S. trading partners have had weak domestic demand in recent years, 
which has slowed U.S. real export growth.  
The United States supports an open trade system and all of the benefits that derive from trade.  
We recognize however that m acroeconomic factors influence the growth rates of U.S. overall 
exports and imports.  Differences in national rates of economic growth and patterns of saving and 
investment – factors largely unrelated to trade policy – underlie the current trade deficit.  
Questions 2 -5  
Section 2.3.2.1 Trade and Investment Regime - Reciproc al agreements (2.24)  
2. Can the US give more information about the current status of the negotiations for a TTIP? 
Where are the biggest challenges and what are the most difficult areas and issues so far?  
RESPONSE: The United States and the European Union (EU ) completed the 15th round of T -TIP 
negotiations in New York City in October 2016. As outlined in the 2016 U.S. TPR Government 
Report, significant progress has been made toward completing negotiation of a comprehensive 
agreement, particularly in the elimin ation of duties and in advancing a number of important 
regulatory issues. While differences remain in several key areas, the work of negotiators over the 
past three years has brought greater clarity to our differences and enabled both sides to explore 
potentially promising avenues for reconciling them. The United States and EU are continuing 
technical work in order to memorialize the progress achieved so far in the negotiations for 
consideration by the next U.S. Administration.  
3. With the new US Presidency an d administration, how do the US assess the continuation of 
the TTIP negotiations?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
4. How do the US assess the possible impact of Brexit on the negotiations?  
RESPONSE: The United States has important economic and strategic relationships with both the 
EU as a whole, and with the United Kingdom (UK) separately. The UK represents a significant WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 365 - 
 
  share of U.S . exports and investment to the EU. While the UK referendum on withdrawal from the 
EU occurred in June 2016, the UK to date has not initiated the exit process. The United States has 
continued to engage in the T -TIP negotiations with the EU, as representati ve of all of the member 
states.  
5. How do the US assess a possible ratification of the TPP? What is your take on the future of 
the TPP should the US not ratify?  
RESPONSE: With respect to the incoming Administration that will take office in January 2017, we 
remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the Membership 
informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into place.  
Question 6  
Section 2.3.2.2 Unilateral Preferences (2.25)  
It is stated that The United States continues t o grant unilateral preferences under the Generalized 
System of Preferences (GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative (CBI). The U.S. authorities may link these unilateral preferences to adherence to 
criteria t hey consider promote sound policies and expand trade and investment with the 
beneficiary countries.  
6. Could the US elaborate on the kind of criteria? What is the legal basis reference?  
RESPONSE: The relevant  eligibility criteria  for GSP are listed at 19 U.S. C 2461 ‐2467, and at 
15 C.F.R., Part 2007. Both are also available on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) 
website: https://ustr.gov/issue -areas/trade -development/preference -programs/generalized -
system -preference -gsp/gsp -program -inf. 
Question 7  
Section 2.4 Investment regime (2.42)  
In para 2.42 of the report it is stated that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
States (CFIUS) is authorized to review the national security aspects of transactions that could 
result in a foreign person gaining control of a U.S. business. The National security concept includes 
issues relating to "homeland security ", such as "critical infrastructure ". The list of "critical 
industries ", which was amended by a Presidential Policy Directive in 2013, includes 16 sectors 
identified as critical to the U.S. infrastructure. Three of these sectors - chemical, commercial 
facilities and foo d and agriculture - seem rather broad and not directly linked to infrastructure.  
7. Could you provide us with more details about the critical aspects of these three sectors?  
RESPONSE: "Critical infrastructure" is defined for CFIUS purposes in the CFIUS statut e and 
regulations, which are available at www.treasury.gov/CFIUS. Presidential Policy Directive 21, 
which identifies critical infrastructure sectors, is available at : https://www.whitehouse.gov/the -
press -office/2013/02/12/presidential -policy -directive -critical -infrastructure -security -and-resil.  
Question 8  
Section 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements (3.3)  
8. Is the ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) accessible via a free secure web portal? If 
yes, do companies need to be registered to use it?  
RESPONSE: Yes, ACE is accessible via a free secure web portal. There are two components to 
ACE: the Electronic Data I nterchange (EDI), for filing data electronically; and  the ACE Secure Data 
Portal, for running reports and managing accounts. Yes, a private party will need to register for 
each component.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 366 - 
 
  Questions 9 -10 
Section 3.1.1.1.1 Single window (3.9, 3.10)  
Accordin g to para 3.9, the data requirements of the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) 
have been partially aligned with the WCO Data Model and further alignment is intended as part of 
post-2016 ACE development.  
In paragraph 3.10 it is stated that data requ irements have been compared with your neighbouring 
countries in order to harmonize them and to arrive at a single message set with the filing 
requirements of both countries.  
9. Has CBP evaluated the costs/financial impact of these progressive changes in the d ata 
requirements on the exporters and importers, especially on the SMEs? If yes, could the results of 
the evaluation be shared?  
RESPONSE: CBP continues to work with its counterparts in Canada and Mexico to analyze and 
harmonize data reporting requirements.  The United States anticipates developing metrics to 
evaluate costs and financial impacts of changes in requirements, including the savings for SMEs, 
when the data reporting requirements have been more fully harmonized.  
10. Is a direct interaction of the Inte rnational Trade Data System (ITDS) or of the US customs 
system with neighbouring countries foreseen in order to establish a systematic exchange of data 
and so to work commonly toward a Coordinated Border Management and reduce the costs of the 
border?  
RESPO NSE: The United States agrees that its efforts and achievements will create a streamlined 
process and reduce the costs of trade, including across land borders. The United States anticipates 
continuing to work with other customs authorities towards systemic  solutions to improve 
coordinated border management and reduce costs at the border.  
Questions 11 -12  
Section 3.1.1.1.2 ACE Cargo Release (3.11)  
According to para 3.11, the ACE Cargo Release is used by about 1,000 importers.  
11. Why is this simplified entry processing not used by more importers? Do the importers need 
to fulfil certain standards, criteria or do they need special software to use this facility?  
RESPONSE: Importers and trade filers have successfully transitioned to ACE. As of September 
2016, ACE filing rates reached 100% for ACE cargo release and entry summary. To file in ACE, 
importers must either work with a certified software vendor to program their systems to interface 
with ACE, or become a self -filer or contract with a service center on their  own. 
12. Does CBP plan to generalise the use of the ACE Cargo Release?  
RESPONSE: ACE Cargo Release is open to all traders who have an EDI connection and have sent 
a letter of intent to begin the process.  
Question 13  
Section 3.1.1.1.4.1 Customs -Trade Partners hip Against Terrorism (C -TPAT)(3.15)  
According to para 3.15, the probability that non -participants to the C -TPAT will experience 
security -based examination of their entries is three to nine times higher than for participants to 
the programme.  
13. Do the C -TPAT participants profit from the reduction of examination linked with the customs 
procedure or are both processes completely separated?  
RESPONSE: A reduction in examinations does create a savings in time and cost for C -TPAT 
companies.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 367 - 
 
  Questions 14 -15 
Section  3.1.1.1.4.4 Trusted Trader Program Test (3.19)  
14. Does the Trusted trader programme correspond to a combination of C -TPAT which provides 
for facilitation in security -based examinations with ISA (Importer Self -Assessment Program) which 
offers facilitation in  customs clearance? Could this status be compared to the AEO -Full of the EU?  
RESPONSE: When fully implemented the trusted trader program will be equivalent to full EU AEO, 
in that it will encompass both supply chain security and trade compliance.  
15. Will this  status be designed to fulfil the needs of SMEs? Will this status also be based on a 
self-assessment of the traders?  
RESPONSE: It is a priority of the trusted trader program to accommodate small and medium 
enterprises, and trusted trader status will, in pa rt, be based on a self -assessment.   
Question 16  
3.1.1.3 Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) (3.24)  
According to para 3.24, FTZs are legally outside the customs territory of the USA and no formal 
customs entries need to be filed. As far as we have understood correct ly, the security and safety 
rules apply in FTZs.  
16. Is this understanding correct? What about TBT and SPS rulings?  
RESPONSE: As the Secretariat 's report notes, FTZs are outside the customs territory of the United 
States for tariff and entry purposes. Other F ederal and State and local laws generally apply to 
goods and establishments within the FTZs, including with respect to technical and sanitary and 
phytosanitary requirements.  
Questions 17 -22 
Section 3.1.4.2 Applied tariffs (3.39)  
According to para. 3.39, f ootnote 33, Swiss cheeses among the estimated 22 tariff lines that carry 
import duty rates above 100%. Swiss cheeses are subject to specific/compound duties.  
17. Could the US indicate the current level of the applied duty and its AVE for Swiss cheeses?  
RESPO NSE: See the response to question 19, below.  
18. Could the US also indicate the reason why it specifically targets Swiss cheeses and which 
kind of Swiss cheeses they are?  
RESPONSE: First, it is important to clarify that the term "Swiss Cheese " in the U.S. Har monized 
Tariff Schedule refers to specific types of cheese, as explained in the response to question 22 
below, rather than to cheeses from Switzerland. Swiss and other types of cheese have relatively 
higher tariff rates because they were historically subje ct to absolute quotas in the United States. 
These were converted to tariff -rate quotas during the Uruguay Round negotiations under the 
principle of tariffication.  
19. Under which national tariff line are Swiss cheeses classified?  
RESPONSE: In the 2016 U.S. Har monized Tariff Schedule, Swiss or Emmentaler cheeses are 
classified under the codes below. Applied rates and their AVEs are also indicated.  
0406.10.64 -- 10% 
0406.10.68 -- $1.386/Kg (106.6% AVE, based on 2015 import data)  
0406.20.81 -- 10% 
0406.20.83 -- $1.386/Kg (56% AVE, based on 2015 import data)  
0406.30.81 -- 10% WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 368 - 
 
  0406.30.83 -- $1.386/Kg (26.7% AVE, based on 2015 import data)  
0406.90.44 -- 6.4%  
0406.90.46 -- 6.4%  
0406.90.48 -- $1.877/Kg (21.3% AVE, based on 2015 import data)  
0406.90.90 -- 10% 
0406.90.92 -- $1.386/Kg (17.7% AVE, based on 2015 import data)  
20. What is the meaning of "Described in general note 15 of the tariff schedule and entered 
pursuant to its provisions " in the HTSUS? What does it refers to?  
RESPONSE: General Note 15 of the Harmonized Tariff  Schedule of the United States can be found 
at the U.S. International Trade Commission. For the 2016 schedule, please see pages 193 -194 
(see: https://hts.usitc.gov/current ). Generally, General Note 15 provides for the exclusion from 
TRQs for products imported for government or personal use and for non -commercial samples for 
use in trade fairs, exhibitions, or research.  
21. Which are the current applied duties for other cheeses?  
RESPONSE: Cheeses are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States under 
subheadings 0406.10 through 0406.90.  Applied MFN duty rates are listed in column  1-General.  
Countries eligible to claim lower duty rates under preferential tariff programs or free trade 
agreements m ay enter goods at the rates listed in column 1 -Special. See : 
https://hts.usitc.gov/current  and click on the link to Chapter 4.  
22. Which are the criteria used to define the category of Swiss cheeses?  
RESPONSE: All Swiss or Emmentaler cheese must meet the definition set out in the provisions of 
the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, at 21 CFR 133.195, 
"Cheese and Related Cheese Products ", Subpart B --Requirements for Specific Standar dized Cheese 
and Related Products  (see: 
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=133.195 ). These 
standards are also consisten t with international standards.  
Question 23  
Section 3.1.4.2 Applied tariffs (3.39)  
23. Since the legislation providing temporary tariff suspensions on several hundred products of 
importance to U.S. manufacturing enterprises expired at the end of 2012, and tar iff suspensions 
on two other lines expired at the end of 2014, what are the temporary tariff suspensions currently 
in place? Which kind of products benefit from this temporary tariff suspension?  
RESPONSE: As the question notes, all but two of the chapter 9 9, subchapter II rate lines had 
expired by the close of December 31, 2012; 2 lines expired on December 31, 2014. No such 
temporary measures are currently in effect.  
Question 24  
Section 3.1.4.3 Bindings (3.42)  
According to para. 3.42, A number of changes t o the HTSUS (3rd and 4th revisions to the 
pharmaceutical coverage, Chapter Notes, and the Article XXVIII renegotiation (tobacco)) have not 
been notified to the WTO as changes to Schedule XX.  
24. In order to improve transparency and legal certainty for stakeho lder when does the US 
foresee to notify these changes to the WTO so that they can be certified?  
RESPONSE:  The United States anticipates notifying the Committee on Market Access of these 
modifications to Schedule XX in calendar year 2017.  
Question 25  
Sectio n 3.1.5.1.1 Customs user fees - Merchandise processing fee (3.46)  
According to para. 3.46, CBP has undertaken an analysis to develop a new MPF structure as the 
TPP prohibits the use of an ad valorem fee for customs processing.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 369 - 
 
  25. Will the CBP go on with its plans even in the case the TPP is not adopted by the US 
Congress?  
RESPONSE: Implementation of the proposed new structure would require action by Congress. The 
United States developed the proposed restructuring based on extensive consultations and detailed 
analysis of current importations, and believe it would be positive for traders.   
Question 26  
Section 3.1.7.2 Anti -dumping (3.73)  
Para 3.73 states that the International Trade Administration (ITA) uses two types of AD calculation 
methods: (i) market -econo my (ME); and (ii) non -market economy (NME).  
26. Could you please elaborate how the ITA determines the AD calculation method?  
RESPONSE: The methods of calculating an anti -dumping duty can be found in U.S. regulations at 
19 C.F.R. sec. 351.401 – 415. 
Question 2 7  
Section 3.1.7.4.1 Global safeguards (3.97)  
Para 3.97 states that the U.S. exclude NAFTA partners from the application of safeguard 
measures, unless they individually account for a substantial share of total imports, and it is shown 
that they contribute  importantly to serious injury or threat thereof.  
27. Could you please elaborate how such exclusion works in practice? In particular, Switzerland 
would like to know what the term "substantial share " means and how the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (USITC ) performs the calculations.  
RESPONSE: Article 802:2 of the NAFTA explains the meaning of "substantial share" in the 
following terms:  
"In determining whether:  
(a) imports from a Party, considered individually, account for a substantial share of total 
impor ts, those imports normally shall not be considered to account for a substantial share of total 
imports if that Party is not among the top five suppliers of the good subject to the proceeding, 
measured in terms of import share during the most recent three -year period".  
This explanation is restated almost verbatim in U.S. implementing legislation (see section 311 of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 3371).  
The USITC last addressed the issue of "substantial share" in 2001 in  investigation no. TA -201-73, 
Steel. The USITC has not conducted a global safeguard investigation since 2001. The USITC 
Commissioners addressed the issue in their written views relating to each of their affirmative 
determinations in that investigation base d on the facts gath ered in the investigation (U.S. 
International Trade Commission, Investigation No. TA -201-73, St eel, Publication 3479, 
December  2001).  
Questions 28 -31  
Section 3.3.3. Competition Policy (3.179, 3.187)  
According to para. 3.179, a well -established system of cooperation exists where competences 
overlap between the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC).  
3.187 states that the U.S. antitrust agencies are actively engaged in international co operation in 
the area of competition policy and consumer protection.  
28. Could you please provide details regarding the competences of the two agencies, in 
particular to what extent these competencies differ and/or overlap? Are there any sector -based 
competen ces? WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 370 - 
 
  RESPONSE: With regard to mergers and civil enforcement against anticompetitive agreements 
and unilateral conduct, the responsibilities of DOJ and FTC are virtually identical. In practice, FTC 
and DOJ divide such cases between them based on agency expe rtise 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.  
The main differences between th e responsibilities of the two agencies are as follows:  
 DOJ has exclusive authority for criminal enforcement of the antitrust laws. Therefore, 
conduct for which criminal remedies are most appropriate ( e.g., price fixing, bid rigging, 
market allocation) are  handled exclusively by DOJ.  
 FTC has the authority to bring cases involving "unfair methods of competition, " which 
encompass not only those acts and practices that violate the Sherman or Clayton Act, but 
also those that contravene the spirit of the antitru st laws, and those that, if allowed to 
mature or complete, could violate the Sherman or Clayton Acts.91 FTC also has exclusive 
authority to bring cases involving "unfair and deceptive acts and practices, " which is the 
source of its consumer protection juris diction.  
29. Could the U.S. please elaborate on the scope of its Competition Cooperation Agreements?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. antitrust agencies cooperate with non -U.S. counterparts pursuant to formal 
and informal bilateral92 and multilateral arrangements93, although  cooperation 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. These arrangements generally promote practical 
enforcement cooperation thr ough informal communications, underscore the importance of 
investigative assistance, including through the sharing of non -confidential information, and provide 
for confidentiality safeguards. Except for Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and an 
antitrust-specific mutual legal assistance agreement (MLAA), 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 of confidentiality from the party. See: 
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international/international -cooperation -agreements  and 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/international/int -arrangements.html . In 1994, Congress enacted 
the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act ("IAEAA"), which aut horizes the United 
States to enter into MLAAs that, among other things, permit agencies to share parties' confidential 
information and to use compulsory process to obtain evidence for the other jurisdiction's 
competition agency. The United States has enter ed into one such agreement, with Australia 
(1999).  
30. For which types of harmful anti -competitive business conduct do the U.S. consider 
international cooperation most useful?  
                                                
91 See Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 
of the FTC Act, available at : 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/735201/150813section 5enforcement.pdf . 
92 The United States or the Agencies have bilateral cooperation agreements with eleven jurisdictions or 
competition agencies: Germany (1976); Australia (1982); the European Community (1991); Canada (1995); 
Brazil, Israel, and Japan (1999) ; Mexico (2000); Chile (2011); Colombia (2014); and Peru (2016). The 
Agencies have entered MOUs with the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (2009), the three Chinese 
antimonopoly enforcement agencies (2011), the Indian competition authorities (2012), and  the Korea  Fair 
Trade Commission (2015).  See: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international/international -cooperation -
agreements  and http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/international/int -arrangements.html .   In addition, the 
United States is party to approximately 80 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), which are treaties of 
genera l application pursuant to which the United States and another country agree to assist one another in 
criminal law enforcement matters. The United States is also a party to an antitrust -specific mutual legal 
assistance agreement (MLAA) with Australia, an ag reement authorized by domestic legislation. See 
International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 6201 et seq . 
93 Org. for Econ. Co -Operation & Dev., Recommendation of the OECD Council Concerning Co -Operation 
on Competition Investigati ons and Proceedings (2014) : http://www.oecd.org/competition/international -coop-
competition -2014-recommendation.htm ;  Int’l Competition Network, Framework  for Merger 
Cooperation :http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc803.pdf .      WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 371 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The U.S. antitrust agencies cooperate with international counterparts on merger, 
conduct, and cartel matters. Enforcement cooperation is a key means both of improving the 
effectiveness of individual agency investigations and producing consistent outcomes in similar 
circumstances.  
31. Do laws and/or treaties authorize the U.S. antit rust agencies to exchange confidential 
information with partner countries?  
RESPONSE: The United States is a signatory to more than 80 mutual legal assistance treaties 
(MLATs), which facilitate the exchange of evidence between governments in criminal 
invest igations.  Pursuant to these treaties, DOJ may request the assistance of its foreign 
counterparts in obtaining evidence – including confidential information – of criminal violations of 
U.S. antitrust law.  Likewise, DOJ may provide evidence – including confi dential information – to its 
foreign counterparts in response to requests made under these treaties.  
As discussed in response to Question 29, the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act 
("IAEAA ") authorizes the U.S. antitrust agencies to enter i nto antitrust -specific mutual assistance 
agreements with foreign authorities. Under such agreements, U.S. and foreign authorities may 
share evidence relating to antitrust violations already in their possession and provide each other 
with investigatory assi stance in obtaining evidence, including statutorily protected confidential 
information. The IAEAA does not apply to materials submitted pursuant to the Hart -Scott-Rodino 
Act, relating to agencies ' pre-merger notification and review. The Agencies have enter ed into one 
IAEAA agreement, with Australia in 1999.  
Confidentiality statutes and rules generally preclude DOJ or FTC staff and the staff of non -U.S. 
competition authorities from discussing or otherwise exchanging an entity 's confidential 
information. Ent ities may choose to waive those confidentiality protections in order to permit the 
Agencies and the non -U.S. competition authorities to discuss the entity 's confidential information, 
which, in many matters, enables more effective cooperation. When any inve stigative information is 
shared, the investigating agencies will have an understanding that the agency receiving the 
information will protect its confidentiality in accordance with its own statutes and rules.  
Questions 32 -34 
Section 3.3.4 State trading, st ate-owned enterprises, and privatization (3.188)  
3.188. "State enterprises engage in commercial activities on a relativ ely limited scale in the 
United  States. At the level of the Federal Government, government corporations and 
government -sponsored enterpr ises (GSEs) generally fulfil public policy or governmental functions 
in the United States and are not intended to compete with private enterprises. Government 
corporations are corporations "owned or controlled by the Government of the United States". The 
Federal Government owns a number of such corporations, established by Congress to perform a 
public purpose with a clear and transparent mandate (Table 3.18). The corporations have separate 
legal personality and may receive federal budgetary allocations, alt hough they may also have 
independent sources of revenue. "  
32. What about the United States Postal Service? As a government agency, it has many special 
privileges, for instance a monopoly for first -class and third class mail. Furthermore, the Sherman 
Antitrust  Act doesn 't apply to it. Besides, there are competitors on particular segments of the 
postal market (FedEx and UPS, for instance).  
RESPONSE: Under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (2006), the United States 
Postal Service (USPS) provides deliv ery services categorized as monopoly, market dominant, and 
competitive. This law ensures that USPS continues to perform its public service function, including 
its universal service obligation and the provision of postal services at affordable prices in 
accordance with the regulations of the U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission, while minimizing 
impact on private competitors. With respect to competition, the law provides that for competitive 
products, as well as market dominant products outside the scope of the  USPS's letter monopoly, 
the USPS is subject to U.S. antitrust law.  
33. Does the US government consider cross -subsidization as a distortion of competition? Does 
the US government plan to take action against this?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 372 - 
 
  RESPONSE: In 2006, Congress enacted the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) in 
large part to promote a level playing field between the USPS and private delivery companies with 
respect to competitive products, such as express delivery services. This law ensures that USPS 
continues to perfor m its public service function, including provision of post services at affordable 
prices as set by the U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission, while minimizing impact on private 
competitors. The PAEA also specifically applies U.S. competition law to the competi tive activities of 
the USPS.  
34. What about the other government agencies?  
RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat Report, the commercial activities in which government 
entities in the United States are involved are quite limited. Moreover, the objectives of tho se 
activities are usually quite specialized and the extent of competition between the government and 
private sector is at most indirect, and often negligible, or non -existent.  
Question 35  
Section 4.1.2.2. Agriculture - Price Loss Coverage (PLC) (4.9)  
4.9. "PLC payments are linked to current prices as they are triggered when the national average 
market price during the marketing year or the national average loan rate, whichever is higher, falls 
short of reference prices (per bushel or pound) established in  the 2014 Farm Act for the covered 
crops (Table A4.1). The payment to the farmer equals the difference between the national average 
market price/loan rate and the reference price multiplied by the eligible base. According to the 
USDA Farm Service Agency, p ayments under PLC had totalled US$776.2 million by 20 May 2016 
on base acres of long grain rice (US$399.5 million), peanuts (US$321.5 million), and canola 
(US$55.2 million). "  
35. Could the United States please explain how these reference prices are set?  
RESP ONSE: The reference prices for the PLC program were established by Congress and 
mandated in the 2014 Farm Act for the duration of the program under the Act.  
Question 36  
Section 4.1.2.3 Agricultural Risk coverage (ARC) (4.11)  
4.11. "ARC-CO sets benchmark revenues for each of the covered commodities, which is 86% of 
the five -year average of national market price times the five -year average county yield. When 
actual county revenue falls below the county benchmark guarantee, farmers in that county with 
eligib le base receive a payment of up to 10% of the difference. The revenue calculations for 
ARC-CO are based on current prices and current county yields, not farm -level yields, and 
payments are limited to 85% of the enrolled historical base. The benchmark reven ue for ARC -IC is 
based on a farm's five -year average planted acres and yields of all covered commodities on the 
farm. Payments are made when the actual revenue from all covered commodities on the farm falls 
below the benchmark guarantee, but the payment ra te is limited to 65% of the historical base of 
covered commodities on the farm. For both PLC and ARC, landowners were allowed to reallocate, 
but not increase, their base acres according to planted acres in 2009 -12." 
36. Could the United States please clarify w hat is meant by "eligible base "? Does this only refer 
to whether the farmer chose ARC -CO or are there other criteria considered once it comes to the 
payment?  
RESPONSE: Eligible base refers to whether the historical base is enrolled in the ARC -CO program 
by the farmer.  
Question 37  
Section 4.1.2.4 Marketing loan programme (4.13)  
4.13. "The USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides marketing assistance loans to 
eligible producers of the covered commodities. Marketing loans allow producers to delay sa les from 
normal harvest time (or shearing, for wool) until market conditions are favourable. The loans may 
be redeemed by repayment (of the loan principal plus interest and other charges) or by delivery of WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 373 - 
 
  the commodity pledged as collateral to the CCC. Un der certain circumstances, e.g. if market prices 
f all below the loan rate, a lower repayment rate may be accepted resulting in a marketing loan 
gain (MLG). Alternatively, producers who do not wish to take out a loan on a harvested commodity 
may elect to r eceive a loan deficiency payment (LDP) instead of the marketing loan gain. As with 
all U.S. commodity and crop insurance programmes, farmers must comply with conservation and 
wetland protection requirements and report all crop acreage planted to be eligibl e for LDP or 
marketing loans; gross income and payment limitations also apply. Marketing loan support is fully 
coupled to current prices and current production. "  
37. Could the United States please clarify whether the commodities covered by such a 
marketing lo an are for domestic consumption only or whether they can be exported? If the latter is 
the case, please precise how the United States tries to avoid distortions on the world markets 
caused by the sudden export of these products, once the market conditions are favourable?  
RESPONSE : Producers may elect to take a loan on any amount of any of their harvested covered 
commodities. Marketing decisions are made independently by producers. The program is not 
contingent on end -use. 
Questions 38 -39  
Section 4.1.3.1 Im ports (4.35)  
4.35. "[…] Certain modifications in the TRQ regime for dairy products were announced in 
July 2015. " 
And footnote 40: "80 FR 44251. Fees have been aligned more closely with administrative costs 
and electronic means are now the only manner of c ommunication. The final rule extends the 
suspension of the "historical licence reduction provision" (§6.25(b)), i.e. the transfer of 
under -utilized licences to the lottery category, for an additional seven years. "  
38. Switzerland would appreciate if the Unite d States could elaborate more on the modifications 
in the TRQ regime for dairy products. What changes took place and why? Will the United States 
notify the changes in the TRQ regime to the WTO in the context of a MA:1 notification?  
RESPONSE: The three mos t significant changes are to suspend for an additional seven years the 
historical license reduction provision which was set to expire with the beginning of quota year 
2016; to modify procedures for collecting licensing fees in order to better align the fee  collection to 
the costs of administering the program; and to exclusively use electronic communications in the 
application, reporting and payment processes. The program will more closely align cost recovery 
with the actual costs of administering the progra m, experience reduced lag times and less paper 
files, and will be more efficient. The United States does not intend to submit an MA:1 notification 
regarding these changes.  
39. Furthermore, what consequences do these changes have for the transfer of under -utilized 
licenses? Will these changes improve the fill rate for dairy products, which has been low for several 
years?  
RESPONSE: No changes were made that would affect fill rates for licensed dairy products, which 
are based on market conditions.  
Question 40  
Section 4.1.3.2 Exports (4.37)  
4.37. "The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of USDA administers the Export Credit Guarantee 
Program (GSM -102) on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Under GSM -102, CCC 
guarantees U.S. private sector financing to  approved foreign financial institutions, primarily in 
developing countries, for imports of U.S. food and agricultural commodities. The guarantee 
typically covers 98% of the principal and a portion of the interest payments. The maximum credit 
term is 18 mo nths, but may vary from country -to-country. Commodities eligible for loan 
guarantees are bulk products (grains and oilseeds), intermediate goods (e.g. hides, flour and 
paper products), and high -value processed consumer products such as frozen foods, meat, beer, 
and wine. Registered guarantees per 31 July 2016 totalled more than US$1.6 billion, principally for WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 374 - 
 
  exports of soybeans, including yellow corn (US$636 million), soybeans (US$325 million), soybean 
meal (US$264 million), wheat (US$171 million), and ric e (US$67 million). " 
40. With regard to the past Ministerial Decisions and the high distortions caused on international 
markets by measures falling within the pillar of export competition such as export credits: What 
steps are envisaged by the United States in order to limit distortions on world markets caused by 
the GSM -102? Does the United States envisage further changes or a reduced scope of export 
credits in order to limit the distortions on world markets?  
RESPONSE: The United States is operating the GSM -102 program under the terms agreed in the 
19 December 2015 Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 375 - 
 
   
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TER RITORY OF TAIWAN, PE NGHU, KINMEN AND MAT SU 
PART I: SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/ 350) 
Questions 1 -2 
Section 1.4. Economic Environment – Outlook (1.42 -1.43)  
1.42. Real GDP is expected to grow in 2016 and 2017 at a pace close to the current level, but 
would slow in 2018 to an annual rate of 2%. Supportive labour market conditions, improved 
business and household balance sheets, and monetar y policy that is expected to remain 
accommodative would contribute to this moderate growth.  
1.43. Due to a number of factors, including the recent pickup in wage growth, inflation is set to 
increase in 2016, and is expected to rise further in 2017, before reaching a rate close to the 
Federal Reserve's 2% inflation goal in 2018. However, this forecast is subject to risks such as 
recent declines in energy prices, and an appreciating dollar.  
1. President -elect Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States in January 
2017. There are some differences between Trump's election manifestos and current government 's 
policies. Based on Trump's new policies, will real GDP growth forecast of the United States change?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPR s are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
2. Apart from declines in energy prices and an appreciating dollar written in the report, will the 
global trade growth slowdown and the  increase in geopolitical risk recently affect economic outlook 
and inflation of the United States?  
RESPONSE: Current issues such as the global trade growth slowdown have been factored into the 
economic outlook and inflation of the United States. Of course , one cannot anticipate future events 
and it is difficult to account for geopolitical risk, factors which may change this outlook.  
Questions 3 -5 
Section 2.2.1 Trade Policy Objectives (Box 2.1)  
In box 2.1, one of the trade negotiating objectives 2015 says t hat the United States is dedicated to 
ensuring that trade agreements afford small businesses equal access to international markets, 
equitable trade benefits, and expanded export market opportunities, and provide for the reduction 
or elimination of trade an d investment barriers that disproportionately impact small business.  
3. Would the United States elaborate how it will set the negotiating strategies to ensure that the 
objective to help small businesses mentioned in the box 2.1 can be achieved?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. is focused on making trade work for the benefit of SMEs. SMEs participate in 
international trade as direct exporters with foreign sales (e.g., medical device manufacturers, 
software developers, and home -based businesses selling on e -commerce platforms ), as importers 
(e.g., small retailers and "mom and pop " shops), and as suppliers (e.g., small auto parts suppliers 
and family farms that serve global markets and supply chains). The U.S. is working to better 
integrate specific SME issues and priorities in to our trade policy development, increase outreach to 
SMEs around the country, and expand collaboration and coordination with our interagency 
colleagues.  
For example, the United States concluded negotiations of the TPP, including the first -ever chapter 
on SMEs in a U.S. trade agreement. This reflects a recognition of the important role that SMEs play 
in increasing exports, prompting economic growth, and creating jobs. This further reflects broad 
recognition that costly tariff and non -tariff trade barriers can disproportionately burden smaller 
firms. Additionally, T -TIP negotiations including an SME chapter, and several other aspects of the 
U.S. trade policy agenda have the potential to help SMEs boost exports. These include enhancing 
trade facilitation work  – notably through the landmark WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, which WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 376 - 
 
  will help eliminate red tape and bureaucratic delay for goods shipped around the globe. The U.S. is 
also leading efforts to strengthen and enforce intellectual property rights, reduce services market 
barriers, and simplify government procurement rules. For additional information, see the U.S. 
Trade Policy Agenda and Annual Report : https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -
office/reports -and-publications/2016/2016 -trade-policy -agenda -and-2015-Annual -Report . 
4. Would the United States explain what measures it has taken domestically to achieve  the same 
objective?  
RESPONSE: Consistent with the objectives of the Administration 's National Export Initiative/NEXT 
, the U.S. is supporting interagency efforts to help more American companies – especially SMEs – 
reach overseas markets by improving data,  providing information on specific export opportunities, 
working more closely with service providers, partnering with states and communities to empower 
local export efforts, and leveraging new technology applications in order to reach more potential 
SME ex porters with information and export assistance. The National Export Strategy Report 
prepared by the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) serves as a review of results and 
a path forward, on the Obama Administration 's NEI/NEXT initiative. For examp le, the TPCC SME 
Working Group developed and expanded the online FTA Tariff Tool 's coverage of tariff rates and 
associated rule of origin references, so that smaller firms in particular can use the free tool to 
determine how tariffs will be lowered or eliminated for their products with FTAs. Additionally, in 
2015, the U.S. Census Bureau eliminated registration costs for USA Trade Online , a dynamic data 
tool provided by the U.S. Census Bureau that gives users access to current and cumulative U.S. 
export and import data. Users can create customized reports and charts detailing international 
trade data at different levels, which can be especially helpful for small businesses.  
5. In addition, the Uni ted States ' President -elect's campaign remarks caused the trading partners 
to worry whether the United States will turn toward trade protectionism, in order to protect 
American labors, from small businesses in particular. Would the United States explain ho w it will 
alleviate such worries?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Questions 6 -7 
Section 2.2.2. Trade Policy Formulation (2.13 -14) 
2.13. A trade advisory committee system channels input from U.S. public and private sector 
interests on trade policy and trade negotiating objectives. Advisory committee members represent 
the full span of interests including: manufacturing; agriculture; digital trade; intellectual property; 
services; small businesses; labour; environmental, consumer, and public health organizations; and 
state and local government. The system includes three tiers: (i) the President's Advisory 
Committee for Trade Policy and  Negotiations (ACTPN); (ii) five policy advisory committees 
covering policy issues concerning agriculture, Africa, state and local government, labour, and 
environment; and (iii) 22 technical and sectoral advisory committe es organized by two areas 
(i.e. agriculture and industry) (Table A2.1). The trade advisory committees provide information 
and advice on U.S. negotiating objectives, the operation of trade agreements, and other matters 
arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administr ation of U.S. trade 
policy. Each advisory committee is required to produce a report at the conclusion of negotiations 
for each trade agreement, and the reports are made available to the public on the USTR website.  
2.14. Workers, firms and farmers adversely  affected by trade are eligible for benefits under the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program. The TAA was reauthorized for a six -year period by 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Title IV of PL 114 -27, 
29 June 2015), and enter ed into force in June 2015. The reauthorized TAA Program for workers 
was expanded, inter alia, to include service -sector workers and workers whose jobs were 
adversely affected by trade with non -FTA partners of the United States (Section 3.3.2). TAA 
expendi tures could potentially total around US$3.2 billion from 2015 through 2021, based on 2015 
expenditures which were US$507 million for workers and US$20 million for firms.  
6. Members of trade advisory committees, such as the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 
Negotiations (ACTPN), consist of members of the US government and the private sector, and may WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 377 - 
 
  have different views on trade issues. Will their analysis report be based on a consensus? What 
substantial influence do these reports have?  
RESPONSE: When wri ting reports to provide recommendations on trade policy, consensus within 
the committee is not guaranteed. The reports are provided to the President, to Congress, and to 
the United States Trade Representative at the conclusion of negotiations for each trad e 
agreement. The reports include an advisory opinion as to whether and to what extent the 
agreement promotes the economic interests of the United States and achieves the applicable 
overall and principal negotiating objectives.  
7. Newly elected President Trump  opposes the TPP because it will cause the loss of job 
opportunities in the U.S. However, the latest trend in the manufacturing industry is automation. 
Even if Trump can bring American manufacturers back home by quitting the TPP, this does not 
necessarily mean that there will be an increase in job opportunities. What policies will the United 
States implement to alleviate the impact brought about by automation on domestic industries and 
labourers?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective revie ws. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
The United States has a system of unemployment insurance that provides payments to workers 
who are unemployed through no fault of their own, which includes s ituations such as automation, 
loss of demand, and competition. Unemployment insurance benefits are intended to provide 
temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law. 
Each State administers a separate unemployme nt insurance program within guidelines established 
by Federal law. In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on 
employers, although three States require minimal employee contributions. Additional information 
on the Federal -State Unemployment Insurance program can be found on the U.S. Department of 
Labor 's website:  http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp . 
In addition to unemploy ment insurance, the United States has a system of employment training to 
support dislocated workers. National Dislocated Worker Grants are discretionary grants awarded 
by the Secretary of Labor, and provide resources to States and other eligible applicants  to respond 
to large, unexpected layoff events causing significant job losses. This funding is intended to serve 
dislocated workers, and meet the increased demand for federal employment and training services, 
with the goal of reemploying laid off workers a nd enhancing their employability and earnings. 
Additional information on employment training programs for dislocated workers in the United 
States can be found at (https://www.doleta.gov/DWGs/).  
Question 8  
Section 3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and s afeguard measures (3.81)  
3.81. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (PL 114 -125), signed into law on 
24 February 2016, amended the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the application of the U.S. AD and 
CVD law to dumped and subsidized imports.  Title IV of the Act, Prevention of Evasion of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, known also as the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015, 
contains provisions to strengthen enforcement to prevent the evasion of the payment of duties.  
8. Could the US pleas e elaborate on the major changes between the new procedures for 
"Investigating Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders " and the CBP 's 
old system in the aspects of the investigation process, and the measures taken after an affirmativ e 
determination by CBP?  
RESPONSE: The new duty evasion investigation process is separate from any civil or criminal 
penalty proceedings that may take place under U.S. law. It is an entirely new proceeding, and the 
details of those proceedings (including me asures taken after an affirmative determination made by 
CBP) can be found in the two U.S. notifications of the law and implementing regulations, i.e., 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23 (dated 1 April 2016) and G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.25 (dated 
26 August 2016)), as we ll as on CBP 's website at: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade -
enforcement/tftea/enforce -and-protect -act-eapa. WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 378 - 
 
  Questions 9 -11 
Section 3.1.7.2 Anti -dumping (3.84, 3.8 7, 3.90)  
3.84. During the period 2014 to end -June 2016, the number of AD investigation initiations totaled 
85. Although the number of initiations decreased to 19 in 2014 from 39 in 2013, it increased in 
2015 to 42 and there were 24 initiations up to June 2 016 (Table 3.6). Of the 19 investigations 
initiated in 2014, 14 resulted in the imposition of definitive measures (74% of the total), and one, 
regarding sugar from Mexico, resulted in a suspension agreement. The other four investigations 
resulted in termin ation due to a no injury finding, but in two of them provisional measures had 
been imposed. As at 30 September 2016, 14 of the investigations initiated in 2015 had resulted in 
the imposition of definitive measures, and 3 had been terminated due to a no inj ury finding. 
Between 1995 and 2015, the United States initiated 569 AD investigations, the second largest 
number of initiations among WTO Members.  
3.87. Of the 258 AD and 65 CVD measures in place (excluding suspension agreements) at end 
2015, 217 AD and 4 1 CVD had been renewed after a review, that is, they had been in place for 
over five years. The average duration of an AD measure in place at the end of 2015 was around 
seven years. At the end of 2015, 59 AD and 5 CVD measures had  been in place for more th an 
20 years; 104 AD and 14 CVD measures had been in place for over 10 years. The longest lasting 
AD measure in place dates from 1977, and is applied on pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy; 
a measure on pre -stressed concrete steel wire strand from Ja pan dates from 1978.  
3.90. There were 78 sunset reviews of AD orders during 2013 -15; during the same period, there 
were 12 revocations, while 66 orders were continued. In general, from 2013 to 2015, there were 
14 revocations resulting from 5 -year sunset re views of AD and CVD measures. Most of the 
revocations during that period include iron and steel products as well as chemicals; they covered 9 
trading partners. During the same period, there were 93 AD and CVD orders in place for products 
including iron and  steel products, chemicals, paper and food from 24 trading partners that had 
been subject to a 5 -year sunset review.  
9. Once the anti -dumping and countervailing duty investigations are initiated, there will be an 
immediate impact on industry. We are concerned  that if the investigation determines the casual 
link between injuries and dumping is too loose, the trade remedy measures will distort normal 
trade. Could the US please explain the possible reasons for the surge of anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty inv estigations being initiated in 2015?  
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 o f 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 commen t 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.  
10. We are also concerned about some long -continued anti -dumping measures on  certain 
products, and there are over 80% of these cases continued after 2015. We would therefore like to 
ask the reasons for the continuation of these cases after the sunset reviews during the TPR period?  
RESPONSE: In determining whether revocation of a c ountervailing duty order or an antidumping 
duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a 
reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) considers the 
factors set out in U.S. law a t 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). In determining whether revocation of a 
countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy or sales of the subject merchandise at less than fair valu e, 
the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) considers the fa ctors set out in U.S. law at 
19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
11. On September 7, 2016, the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the Dispute Settlement Panel's 
decision, and held that the way in which the U.S. Department of Commerce had calculated 
anti-dumping duty margins in its investigation involving large residential washers from Korea 
(DS464) was contrary to the WTO obligations of the United States. Since the same methodology WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 379 - 
 
  was also used to  determine the final margins for the anti -dumping order imposed on other cases, 
could the US review and recalculate the dumping margins for these cases in a manner consistent 
with the U.S. international obligations under the WTO's Anti -dumping Agreement?  
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes the obligation of WTO Members to act in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreements and Members ' schedules of commitments. Where the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopts a panel or Appellate Body report, which incl udes a finding 
that a measure implemented by a Member is not in conformity with a WTO Agreement, including 
commitments scheduled thereunder, that Member should bring the challenged measure into 
conformity in accordance with provisions of the DSU and other WTO Agreements. In the case of 
the dispute referenced above, after the DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports, the 
United States stated that it intended to implement the DSB recommendations in a manner that 
respects U.S. WTO obligations, and it w ould need a reasonable period of time for implementation. 
The United States currently is in the process of implementing the DSB recommendations.  
Questions 12 -14 
Section 3.2.3. Export Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Licensing (3.135)  
3.135. The United State s maintains restrictions, licensing requirements, additional controls and 
prohibitions on a variety of exports for national security and foreign policy reasons. Export 
measures may be based on domestic legislation, policy decisions, UN Security Council Res olutions, 
international agreements, or U.S. participation in non -binding arrangements such as the 
Wassenaar Arrangement, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Treaty on the 
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Exporters Committee (Zangger Comm ittee), the 
Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Australia Group. Depending on the relevant requirements, the 
exporter may have to identify factors such as the country of destination, end -use, and foreign 
buyer. The categories of items subject to export contro ls did not change during the review period, 
although there have been some modifications to the licensing process for some categories (Table 
3.10).  
12. Natural gas is listed in Table 3.10 and subject to export control under the federal regulation 
15 U.S.C §717 b. Can you provide more detailed information regarding the framework of the said 
law?  
RESPONSE: The Department of Energy 's authority to license U.S. natural gas imports and exports 
arises from the Natural Gas Act (NGA). By law, under 15 U.S.C § 717c, appl ications to export U.S. 
natural gas to countries with which the United States has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) requiring 
national treatment for trade in natural gas are deemed to be consistent with the public interest, 
and the Secretary of Energy must gran t authorizations without modification or delay. The NGA 
directs DOE to evaluate applications to export U.S. natural gas to non -FTA countries. Under the 
NGA, DOE is required to grant applications for authorizations to export U.S. natural gas to non -FTA 
countries, unless the Department finds that the proposed exports will not be consistent with the 
public interest, or where trade is explicitly prohibited by law or policy.  
13. Could the export controls attribute to any adverse effects to those non -FTA countries wh ich 
relied heavily on the import of natural gas? Does your government take into account of such 
potential adverse effect while restricting the export of natural gas?  
RESPONSE: U.S. licensing of imports and exports of natural gas does not adversely affect U .S. 
trade partners. As of December 7, 2016, DOE had issued final authorizations for exports of LNG to 
non-FTA countries totaling 16.30 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. In 2015, global LNG 
trade was just over 30 billion cubic feet per day of natur al gas. Ad ditionally, DOE has approved 
50 long-term applications to export domestically produced LNG from the lower -48 states 
equivalent to 49.38 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to FTA countries. Finally, LNG export 
capacity of approximately 10 b illion cubic feet per day of natural gas at five large -scale facilities 
with both FTA and non -FTA authorizations are in various stages of construction.  
In recent years, U.S. increased natural gas production, decreased imports, and increased exports 
have co ntributed to increased global supplies of natural gas, providing benefits to both the U.S. 
economy and contributing to the energy security of net importing countries. Assuming the 
appropriate authorizations are in place, the decision about whether, where, and when LNG is to be WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 380 - 
 
  exported is between the facility operator and its customers. Since U.S. LNG export facilities started 
operation earlier this year, most LNG export shipments have been shipped to non -FTA countries.  
14. The USA has become one of the major LNG exporting countries due to its technology 
breakthrough of shale gas extraction and consequent price advantage in the international market. 
What is the legal mechanism for your government to balance the domestic need and import 
advantage? Has licensing been used as the major tool to achieve the above -mentioned purposes?  
RESPONSE:  There is no legal mechanism that requires "balance[ -ing] the domestic need and 
import advantage. " The standard for approving import and export authorizations under the NGA is 
that such exports are "not inconsistent with the public interest. " Under the NGA, exports of natural 
gas to FTA countries are deemed to be in the public interest. For non -FTA countries there is a 
rebuttable presumption that exports are in the public interest . The statute neither defines "public 
interest " nor identifies criteria that must be considered. In prior decisions, however, DOE has 
identified a range of factors that it evaluates when reviewing an application for export 
authorization. These factors incl ude economic impacts, international considerations, U.S. energy 
security, and environmental considerations, among others. To conduct its review, DOE looks to 
record evidence developed in the application proceeding. Applicants and interveners are free to 
raise new any issues or concerns they consider relevant to the public interest.  
Questions 15 -19 
Section 3.2.3. Subsidies and other government assistance (3.175)  
3.175. Like other WTO Members, the United States notifies subsidy programmes to the WTO 
without p rejudice to their legal status regarding specificity, or being actionable (or otherwise) 
under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The latest subsidy notification 
covered fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Outside of agriculture, federal -level subsidies are 
overwhelmingly directed towards the energy sector (Table 3.15)  
15. Are there any local content requirements in the Federal programmes relating to energy and 
fuel sectors?  
RESPONSE:  No. 
16. As Table 3.15 shows that federal -level subsidies are overwhe lmingly directed towards the 
energy sector, other than agriculture, can you provide more detailed information on the subsidies?  
RESPONSE: All of the programs in Table 3.15 were included in the United States subsidy 
notification. Please see: G/SCM/N/284/USA . 
17. ARE energy subsidies possibly infringe the international trade regulations due to the 
impairment toward the foreign energy products?  
RESPONSE:  Under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Members are 
permitted to provide subsidies provid ed they: (1) are not contingent upon exporting or the use of 
domestic over imported goods; and (2) do not cause adverse effects. The US energy programs are 
consistent with these rules.  
18. Can your government provide more information regarding your renewable e nergy policies and 
regulations?  
RESPONSE:  Please see the United States ' most recent subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/284/USA) 
and the Department of Energy website at:  http://www.energy.gov/science -innovation/energy -
sources/renewable -energy . 
19. In response of international greenhouse gases mitigating promise under the Paris Agreement, 
will your government implement further renewable energy programmes?  
RESPONSE: We remind Memb ers that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 381 - 
 
  Question 20  
Section 3.3.6. Intellectual Property Rights – Patents (3.251)  
3.251. The USPTO has continued dealing with th e concerns identified in previous years, mainly the 
long pendency period for patent applications and the need to improve their quality applications. In 
this respect, it designed a Strategic Performance Framework to strengthen the capacity of the 
USPTO by f ocusing on a specific set of goals and the steps the USPTO must take to reach them, 
which include to provide timely examination of patent applications, reducing the average time from 
filing until an examiner's initial determination on patentability to 10 m onths and average total 
pendency (average time from filing until the application is issued as a patent or abandoned) to 
20 months. During the period under review, the pendency time continued to decrease. In FY2015, 
the pendency time was 26.6 months, down f rom 27.4 months for FY2014 and 29.1 months for 
FY2013.  
20. What are USPTO 's measures to achieve its goals of reducing the average time from filing until 
an examiner's initial determination on patentability  and average total pendency ? 
RESPONSE:  The USPTO is red ucing the backlog and pendency of unexamined patent applications 
while improving quality thanks to expanded training, improved technology, and the dedication of 
our highly capable employees. As a result, total patent pendency h as fallen to approximately 
26.6 months in fiscal year 2015.  
The USPTO is realizing benefits from the success of various initiatives, pilots, and operational 
improvements. The agency has moved from a one -track patent examination process to a 
multitrack process by adopting procedures a nd initiatives that incentivize abandoning applications 
that are not important to applicants, accelerating critical technologies, permitting an applicant to 
accelerate applications, and exploring other incentive and accelerated examination options. 
Specifi c initiatives include the Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement pilot program, the 
After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, and the Track One Prioritized Examination program.  
The USPTO continues to increase its examination capacity by employing new recru itment and 
development models to hire, train, and retain a highly skilled and diverse workforce. For example, 
the USPTO 's satellite offices support the agency 's mission to foster the growing contribution that IP 
makes to the growing economy.  
In providing m ore effective training, the USPTO further enhances patent examination 
fundamentals, communication, and cooperation between the examiner and applicant. The USPTO 
utilizes a highly successful training and refresher training p rogram that encompasses over 
20 modules designed to enhance examiners ' knowledge and skills in procedural and legal topics 
pertaining to patent examination. In addition, as part of Executive Action No. 6, the USPTO 
expanded its Patent Examiner Technical Training Program (PETTP), which pro vides patent 
examiners with direct access to experts who are able to share their technical knowledge on prior 
art and industry standards in areas of emerging technologies and established technologies. The 
PETTP provides an excellent opportunity for communi cation 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.  
Question 21  
Section 3.3 .6. Intellectual Property Rights – Trademarks and geographical indications (3.260)  
3.260. The Administration noted that an important part of the USPTO's mission is to optimize 
trademark quality and timeliness. The Trademark Electronic Application System (T EAS) allows for 
easy electronic filing by applicants. A new reduced trademark application filing fee option, TEAS 
Reduced Fee (TEAS RF), has been available since 17 January 2015. This new filing option 
promotes electronic communication and application proc essing while giving applicants more 
flexibility in identifying their goods and services. With the TEAS RF option, applicants pay a 
reduced fee if they agree to two -way electronic communication throughout the process. First and 
final action compliance rates , which measure trademark quality, exceed 96%. The number of 
trademark applications processed completely electronically increased to 82.2% in 2015.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 382 - 
 
  21. Could you please introduce the "two-way electronic communication " in details and how it 
works? And we 'd like  to learn more about the "first and final action compliance rates, " and how 
these rates are used to measure the quality of trademarks.  
RESPONSE: With the USPTO 's TEAS RF option, applicants pay a reduced fee if they agree to file 
the application using the U SPTO 's online forms and include an email address and authorization for 
the USPTO to send by e -mail application -related correspondence. Also, the applicant must file 
certain subsequent application -related submissions, such as responses to Office actions, vi a the 
USPTO 's online electronic forms. There is an additional processing fee of $50 fee per class of 
goods/services if the applicant does not satisfy the relevant filing option requirements. Please 
consult the USPTO 's website for more information about the  TEAS RF option at:  
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks -application -process/filing -online/reduced -fees-teas-
application -filing-options.  
Trademark examination quality is indicated by the first and final compliance rate, which is 
determined through an in -process evaluation of the statutory bases for which the USPTO raises 
issues and/or refuses marks for registration based on the first office action and the examiner 's 
approval or denial of the application. Evaluations are conducted on a random sample of 
applications to review the quality of decision making of the examiner 's first office action and a final 
action. The results of an examin er's first action and final action are reviewed for the quality of the 
substantive basis for decision -making, search strategy, evidence, and writing. Quality results 
indicate whether the specialized training, online tools, and enhanced communication effort s that 
are provided to examining attorneys are proving effective. The target is 95.5% for the percentage 
of error -free decisions in the first action and 97% for the final action. A third quality measure is 
the Exceptional Office Action, introduced in FY201 1, that indicates the comprehensive quality of 
excellent first office actions based on search, evidence, writing, and decision -making. For more 
information about USPTO 's quality measures, please consult:  
https://uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY16PAR.pdf . 
Question 22  
Section 4.2.2. Services - Telecommunications (4.120)  
4.120. On 26 February 2015, the FCC adopted a new Open Internet Order (commonly referred as 
the "FCC net neutrality decision") which became effective on 12 June 2015.  
22. We notice that the FCC adopted a new Open Internet Order in 2015. We also notice that Brazil 
has included net neutrality in its e -commerce submission (JOB/GC/98). We would like to know  if 
the U.S. would propose a discussion on net neutrality in the WTO?  
RESPONSE: On July 4, 2016, the United States circulated to the WTO Membership, as part of the 
Work Program on Electronic Commerce, a non -paper outlining a number of trade -related policie s 
that can contribute meaningfully to the flourishing of trade through electronic and digital means. 
The policies discussed included the promotion of a free and open Internet. See Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce, "Non-Paper from the United States, " JOB/GC/91 (July 4, 2016). As stated 
in the non -paper, the United States believes these trade -related policies could be the basis for 
constructive discussion among WTO Members.  
PART II: REGARDING T HE GOVERNMENT REPORT  (WT/TPR/G/ 350) 
Question 23  
Section 2.1 T rade Policy (2.3)  
2.3. In 2015, U.S. goods and services exports supported an estimated 11.5 million jobs in the 
United States alone, including more than one in four jobs in the manufacturing sector. These 
export -oriented jobs pay on average up to 18% highe r wages than the national average. Imports 
helped expand purchasing power in the United States, widen choice for American consumers, 
provide valuable intermediate inputs into U.S. production, and increase U.S. competitiveness. 
Roughly half of U.S. imports in 2015 were intermediate inputs.  
23. In the report, the United States believes that international trade is very important to the 
country 's interests and it also believes that international trade is helpful to its industrial WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 383 - 
 
  development and raising its wages level. However, the recent comments from the President -elect 
might make members wonder about the United States ' determination in further liberalization. 
Would the United States explain what the future measures will be for further liberalization and 
what th e position on global trade is, and how the United States is going to explain the benefit of 
the international trade liberalization to its people in general?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Mem bership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Trade continues to be an important benefit for the United States as well as the rest of the world. 
Trade along with education, technological changes, and business investment are among the factors  
that help raise U.S. productivity, real incomes, and living standards.  
Question 24  
Section 3.2 Public engagement and transparency (3.7 - 3.11)  
3.7. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 marked a 
watershed not only in  the ambitious negotiating objectives it set for the United States, but in the 
reforms it brings to the American trade policymaking process. USTR has encouraged public 
participation and broadened opportunities for input, created new institutional guarantee s of public 
access including the milestone appointment of a Chief Transparency Officer and the formalization 
of comprehensive Guidelines for Consultation and Engagement, and increased the transparency of 
trade policy through initiatives carried out by the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public 
Engagement.  
3.8. Through its blog and website pages  (http://www.ustr.gov ) USTR shares updated information 
about the United States' efforts to support jobs by opening markets  and enforcing America's rights 
in the rules -based global trading system. Interactive tools on the site allow the public to stay 
informed of USTR's day -to-day operations. The public is also invited to sign up on USTR's 
homepage to receive the weekly e -mail newsletter, which highlights USTR's efforts to engage the 
public, open markets, and enforce trade agreements around the world. This is a useful tool for 
small businesses and stakeholders outside Washington, D.C. to stay informed about trade policy 
develop ments and new market opportunities.  
3.9. Throughout 2015 and 2016, USTR has published Federal Register Notices online to solicit 
public comment on negotiations and policy decisions. Public comments received in response to 
Federal Register Notices are avail able for inspection online at : http://www.regulations.gov . Some 
examples of trade policy initiatives for which USTR has sought public comment include: renewal of 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and t he review of South Africa's AGOA eligibility, 
implementation of the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement, the 2015 National Trade 
Estimate report, and the functioning of the Generalized System of Preferences and the Caribbean 
Basin trade preference progr am. USTR also held public hearings regarding a variety of trade policy 
initiatives, including renewal of the AGOA, additions of products to the Generalized System of 
Preferences, and implementation of the Russian and Chinese WTO accession agreements. These  
hearings were web cast live, and the submissions of all parties were posted online.  
3.10. USTR has also taken steps in specific issue areas to increase transparency and augment 
opportunities for public input, such as through the inclusion of stakeholders at the Transatlantic 
Trade and Investment Partnership (T -TIP) and Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. 
Stakeholder engagement events are an important opportunity for USTR and its trade negotiators 
to receive feedback as talks are ongoing, with the  aim of ensuring the strongest possible outcomes 
for trade negotiations. USTR has hosted stakeholder forums during the U.S. -hosted rounds of the T 
TIP negotiations. These events included over 250 global stakeholders at each forum. Stakeholders 
were invited  to give presentations, engage with negotiators, and attend briefings hosted by the 
U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators. In addition, during TPP negotiations, USTR worked with each TPP 
partner hosting negotiating rounds to plan events open to registered stakehol der participation. 
These events, including during the final round of negotiations in Atlanta in 
September -October  2015, included briefings from chief negotiators and provided multiple 
opportunities to provide input into the negotiations, including those wi th respect to chapters 
addressing agriculture, market access for industrial goods, environment, tobacco, investment, 
pharmaceuticals, and intellectual property.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 384 - 
 
  3.11. USTR published the full text of the TPP Agreement on 5 November 2015, well in advance of 
the legal requirement, accompanied by detailed chapter summaries and fact sheets explaining the 
agreement's contents and benefits for workers, manufacturers, ranchers, farmers, services 
providers, and others, and explaining its achievements on issues such as maintaining a free and 
open Internet, raising labor and environmental standards, and helping American small and 
medium -sized businesses export.  
24. The U.S. Government report (paragraph 3.7~3.11) highlights the United States ' efforts to 
solicit public comme nt on trade negotiations and policy initiatives through Federal Register Notices 
online and public hearings. For the congress -led trade bills, is there any transparency mechanism 
for the stakeholders (including U.S. trading partners) to share their views a nd comments in the 
legislative process?  
RESPONSE: The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA) is 
a law which can be amended by Congress at any time through the regular legislative process. For 
information about the U. S. legislative process see: 
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/How+Our+Laws+Are+Made+ -
+Learn+About+the+Legislative +Process . 
Question 25  
Section 4.2.1 The Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) (4.15)  
4.15. The TPP Agreement will open markets and raise standards in the fastest growing region in 
the world, boosting economic growth, promoting innovation, and supporting job cre ation in the 
United States and its TPP partners, as shown by independent economic studies. In addition to 
including ambitious market access commitments, the TPP addresses non -tariff barriers and 
includes commitments that will create common, high standards across the region in such areas as 
intellectual property, labor, environment, and transparency and anti -corruption. The TPP also 
addresses new and emerging issues that affect the ability of businesses and workers to compete, 
including digital commerce, reg ulatory coherence, and disciplines on the competitive behavior of 
state-owned enterprises.  
25. US president -elect Donald Trump  said that he was going to issue a note of intent to withdraw 
from the Trans -Pacific Partnership trade deal, and would instead negotia te fair bilateral trade deals 
that bring jobs and industry back. Could the US please list some of its target sectors?  
RESPONSE:  We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administrat ion comes into place.  
Question 26  
Section 4.2.5. The U.S. -ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (4.27)  
4.27. The United States is pursuing several initiatives to expand and deepen economic 
engagement with the 10 member countries of the Association  of South East Asian Nations 
(ASEAN). ASEAN collectively represents the United States' fourth largest goods export market and 
fifth largest trading partner. Under the Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement signed in 
2006, the United States is working w ith ASEAN countries to enhance and deepen the U.S. -ASEAN 
economic relationship and support ASEAN regional integration. Earlier this year, the United States 
and ASEAN concluded the ASEAN -United States Cooperation in Fostering Transparency and Good 
Regulator y Practices, and the ASEAN -United States Cooperation in Fostering International 
Investment, which will help promote best practices across the region in these areas.  
26. The U.S. Government report (paragraph 4.27) notes the United States is pursuing several 
initiatives to expand and deepen economic engagement with the 10 member countries of the 
ASEAN. Would it be possible for the U.S. to share the detail information of these initiatives with 
Members?  
RESPONSE: In addition to the ASEAN -United States Cooperation i n Fostering Transparency and 
Good Regulatory Practices, and the ASEAN -United States Cooperation in Fostering International 
Investment, which were concluded late this year, we are also pursuing a similar statement related 
to information and communication te chnology. We have also been exchanging information on 
trade and the environment, and on elements of high standard trade agreements.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 385 - 
 
  Question 27  
Section 9. Small and Medium -Sized Business Trade (9.1 -9.3) 
9.1. Under the Obama Administration, USTR announced a  Small Business initiative aimed at 
ensuring that the specific export challenges and priorities of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 
and their workers are reflected in our trade policy and enforcement activities. During 2015, USTR 
continued to engage wit h its interagency partners and with trading partners to develop and 
implement new and continuing initiatives to enhance small business export opportunities.  
9.2 U.S. small businesses are key engines for U.S. economic growth, jobs, and innovation. SMEs 
that export tend to grow faster, add jobs faster, and pay higher wages than SMEs that serve 
purely domestic markets. Studies by the U.S. International Trade Commission, requested by 
USTR, reveal that SMEs play a larger role in the export economy than is sugges ted by traditional 
trade statistics, with direct and indirect exports by U.S. SMEs supporting about four million jobs in 
the United States while accounting for over 40% of the total value of U.S. exports of goods and 
services. But currently, fewer than 5% of American SMEs export goods, and most of those who do, 
export only one product to one foreign country.  
9.3 Several aspects of U.S. trade policy have particular potential to help boost SME exports. These 
include enhancing trade facilitation work, strength ening and enforcing intellectual property rights, 
and targeting services barriers that are especially difficult for SMEs, such as requirements for 
staffing an office in each country to which companies wish to export. Tariff barriers, burdensome 
customs pro cedures, discriminatory or arbitrary standards, and lack of transparency relating to 
relevant regulations in foreign markets present particular challenges for SMEs in selling abroad. On 
an interagency basis, under the Administration's NEI/NEXT initiative, the Trade Promotion 
Coordinating Committee's (TPCC) Small Business Working Group brings together various U.S. 
government agencies to promote small business exports and to connect SMEs to trade information 
online and resources to help them begin or expand t heir exports and take advantage of existing 
trade agreements. USTR is supporting interagency efforts to help more SMEs reach overseas 
markets by improving data, leveraging new technology applications, and empowering local export 
efforts.  
27. The U.S. Governmen t report (paragraph 9.1~9.3) notes that during 2015, USTR continued to 
engage with its interagency partners and with trading partners to develop and implement new and 
continuing initiatives to enhance small business export opportunities. Besides, under the  U.S. 
Administration 's NEI/NEXT initiative, the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee 's (TPCC) small 
Business Working Group brings together various agencies to promote small business exports and 
to connect SMEs to trade information online and take advanta ge of existing trade agreements. 
Could the U.S. provide more information on the details of these initiatives or programs and how 
the U.S. evaluates the effectiveness of these initiatives?  
RESPONSE:  U.S. Government trade agencies help American businesses, i ncluding small 
businesses, provide their high -quality goods and services to global consumers by offering services 
and resources such as small business development counseling, market research, buyer 
match -making, and access to finance.  
These resources are p articularly important for small businesses, which might not otherwise have 
the tools and information resources to engage in domestic and global sales. The U.S. Government 
is increasing access to resources and providing assistance to help American businesse s of all sizes 
to connect with new customers. In 2015, U.S. agencies gathered feedback from U.S. firms and 
other stakeholders to inform the NEI/NEXT initiative, with programs focused on:  
1. Connecting More American Businesses to Their Next Global Customer . 
2. Making International Shipments Easier and Less Expensive . 
3. Expanding Access to Export Finance . 
4. Promoting Exports and Investment as the Next Economic Development Priority for States 
and Metropolitan Areas . 
5. Preparing the Next Global Opportunity for American Bu sinesses by Opening Markets and 
Enforcing International Trade Rules and Laws . WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 386 - 
 
  The National Export Strategy Report prepared by the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee 
(TPCC) serves as a review of results and a path forward, on the Obama Administration 's National 
Export Initiative (NEI) and, NEI/NEXT initiative. For example, the TPCC SME Working Group 
developed and expanded the online FTA Tariff Tool 's coverage of tariff rates and associated  rule of 
origin references, so that smaller firms in particular can use the free tool to determine how tariffs 
will be lowered or eliminated for their products with FTAs. Additionally, in 2015, the U.S. Census 
Bureau eliminated registration costs for USA Trade Online , a dynamic data tool provided by the 
U.S. Census Bureau that gives users access to current an d cumulative U.S. export and import 
data. Users can create customized reports and charts detailing interna tional trade data at different 
levels, which can be especially helpful for small businesses.  
The TPCC used progress metrics to gauge the government -wide impact of federal programs, 
services, and initiatives under the NEI/NEXT. These include, for example, m etrics such as the 
number of new -to-export companies, the number of new markets entered by U.S. companies, the 
number of public -private partners and business counselors trained on export -related requirements 
imposed by trading partners, and small business financing. For further information on these 
initiatives, see : http://www.trade.gov/nei .  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 387 - 
 
   
THAILAND  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 3.1.6.1 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and special requirements (3.58)  
As mentioned in paragraph 3.58 in the Secretariat report that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA Fisheries) published a proposed rule in February 2016 reporting requirements 
for imports of a set of priority speci es for the programme to track domestic and imported seafood 
from point of harvest or production to entry into U.S. commerce. And the final rule was finalized in 
September 2016.  
1. Could the United States please provide the final rule and the priority species  selected for the 
program 's initial phase?  
RESPONSE: NOAA Fisheries published a final rule establishing a Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program on December 9, 2016. The Rule can be found here:  
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/seafood -import -monitoring -
program . 
The priority species covered by the Rule are: Abalone, Atlantic Cod, Blue Crab (Atlantic), 
Dolphinfish (Mahi M ahi), Grouper, King Crab (red), Pacific Cod, Red Snapper, Sea Cucumber, 
Sharks, Shrimp, Swordfish, Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna, Bluefin tuna.  
Question 2  
Section 3.1.9.1 SPS – Basic Legal and Institutional Framework (3.114)  
According to th e U.S. measures on Siluriformes fish and fish products, such products will conduct in 
the same FSIS inspection process as meat and poultry which maybe stricter than necessary and 
there is no scientific evidence to support the measures.  
2. Whether the U.S. Go vernment has a policy to amend or invalidate the measures on 
Siluriformes fish and fish products in the future?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed of relevant developments, in cluding those pertaining to the final rule 
issued and notified to the WTO SPS Committee in December 2015. Currently, the United States 
Department of Agriculture 's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is continuing to 
implement the Siluriformes rule as mandated by the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills.  
Questions 3 -4 
Section 4.1.2.2 Price Loss Coverage (4.8 -4.9) 
The Secretariat report indicates that PLC payments are made on 85% of historical base when current 
average market year price  falls below the refer ence price  and PLC payments are linked to current 
prices as they are triggered when the national average market price falls below reference prices.  
3. Could the United States please clarify whether the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program 
comply with the Annex 2 number 6(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture or any other related 
Article?  
RESPONSE: The PLC program, which complies with international obligations, will be reported in 
the appropriate domestic support notifications.  
4. Could the United States clarify on the  method for setting the reference price? Furthermore, 
whether there is any different pay rate between each individual commodity? If so, does it comply 
with the Annex 2 number 6(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture or any other related Article?  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 388 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Reference prices for the PLC program are set by the 2014 Farm Act for the duration 
of the program. The payment depends on the final market year average price for each commodity. 
See response to question 3.  
Question 5  
Section 4.1.2.3. Agricultural Risk Coverage  (4.10)  
The Secretariat report indicates that "A farmer could thus choose the ARC -CO revenue guarantee for 
some crops and PLC for others… "  
5. Whether both programs (ARC and PLC) are established for the same commodity or not? If 
yes, please explain how to avo id the duplication.  
RESPONSE: A producer cannot enroll the same base acres in both programs.  
Questions 6 -7 
Section 4.1.2.3. Agricultural Risk Coverage (4.11)  
The Secretariat report indicates that when actual county revenue falls below the county benchmark  
guarantee, farmers in that county with eligible base receive a payment of up to 10% of the difference. 
The revenue calculations for ARC -CO are based on current prices and current county yields, not 
farm-level yields, and payments are limited to 85% of the  enrolled historical base.  
6. Could the United States please clarify whether the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) program 
comply with the Annex 2 number 6(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture or any other related 
Article?  
RESPONSE: The ARC program, which compli es with international obligations,  will be reported in 
the appropriate domestic support notifications  
7. Whether there is any different pay rate of ARC (at the county level) between each individual 
commodity? If so, does it comply with the Annex 2 number 6(c)  of the Agreement on Agriculture 
or any other related Article?  
RESPONSE: The payment rate depends on the actual revenue at the county level for each covered 
commodity. See response to question 7.  
Questions 8 -9 
Section 4.1.2.4. Marketing Loan Programme (4.1 3-4.14)  
According to the Secretariat report, under certain circumstances, e.g. if market prices fall below the 
loan rate, a lower repayment rate may be accepted resulting in a marketing loan gain (MLG). 
Alternatively, producers who do not wish to take out a loan on a harvested commodity may elect to 
receive a loan deficiency payment (LDP) instead of the marketing loan gain.  
8. Could the United States please clarify the loan deficiency payment (LDP)?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill authorizes loan deficiency paym ents (LDPs) for 2014 through 
2018.  LDPs are direct payments made in lieu of a marketing assistance loan when the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC) determined value, which is based on the current local price in a county, 
is below the applicable county loan  rate. The payment is the difference between the two rates 
times the eligible quantity.  For a commodity to be eligible for a LDP, the producers must have 
beneficial interest in the commodity, in addition to other eligibility requirements.  
9. Do MLG and LDP co mply with the domestic support reduction commitments in Article 6.3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  
RESPONSE: The United States is in compliance with its domestic support commitments, as the 
U.S. current total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) is be low the U.S. bound total AMS.   WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 389 - 
 
  Question 10  
Section 4.1.2.5. Crop Insurance (4.16)  
10. If farmers are benefiting from high market prices, and crop insurance premiums are tied to 
prices resulting in support under crop insurance being high, whether there is any c onsideration 
given to farmers funding their own insurance programs to decrease the level of premium 
subsidies?  
RESPONSE: Current farm programs are authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill through the 2018 
crop year.   
Question 11  
Section 4.2.1.6. Securities Serv ices (4.102)  
According to the Secretariat report, the Securities Act 1933 mandates that securities sold in the U.S. be 
registered, but there are exemptions from registration requirement, which include: private offerings to 
a limited number of persons and i nstitutions; offering of limited size; intrastate offerings; and securities 
of municipal, State, and Federal governments. Foreign issue can opt to use different registration and 
periodic reporting forms than those use d by domestic users.  
11. Whether foreign i ssuers can get exemptions from registration requirement? If yes, please 
specify the exemptions.  
RESPONSE: Most but not all 1933 Act exemptions are available to foreign private issuers. The 
links below supply commentary on these issues and a reasonably curr ent listing, although neither 
are definitive ( https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign -private -issuers -
overview.shtml#IV  AND 
http://www.trenam.com/uploads/1349/doc/Alternatives_to_Registration_Chart_ -
_FINAL_May_1,_2015.PDF ).  
Question 12  
Section 4.2.3.1.2. Airports (4.137 ) 
The Secretariat report indicates that the buyer American Preferences under 49 U.S.C. §50101 
require that all steel and manufactured goods used in AIP -funded pro jects be produced in the 
United  States however FAA may grant a discretionary waiver when 60% d omestic content reached.  
12. Do the measures comply with GATT 1947, Agreement on Trade -Related Investment 
Measures (TRIMs), or Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures?  
RESPONSE:  Yes. The Buy America requirements of the Airport Improvement Program a re 
attached to grants used by government -owned airports to undertake procurements for 
governmental purposes.  
Report by the United States  (WT/TPR/G/350 ) 
Question 13  
Section 4.2.3. Central America and the Dominican Republic  
The Government  report indicates th at the Dominican Republic -Central America -United States Free 
Trade Agreement (CAFTA -DR) is creating new economic opportunities by reducing barriers to 
services.  
13. Are there any statistics that reflect the measures result in increasing trade in services 
amon g the parties?  
RESPONSE: Yes. U.S. trade of services with CAFTA -DR countries (exports plus imports) have 
increased from $15.4 billion in 2013 (earliest data reported) to $17.2 billion (latest data reported). 
This is an increase of 11.5%. More detail can b e found on the Bureau of Economic Analysis : 
http://www.bea.gov .  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 390 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS  
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WTO SECRETARIAT REPORT  (WT/TPR/S/350 ) 
Question 1  
Summary (Page 11 , Paragraph 22) & Financial services  (Page 120 ) 
According to the Secretariat report, the U.S. has promoted liberalization in New Financial Services 
sector in particular through cross -border trade (Mode 1).  
1. Are there any rules or regulations of the U.S. relating to liberalization in this secto r? If any, 
please provide information.  
RESPONSE: It is not clear to what Thailand's question is referring, as the Secretariat report does 
not discuss the issue of promoting liberalization in new financial services sectors. As described in 
paragraph 22, th e Dodd -Frank Act is the main piece of legislation regulating new markets, entities, 
and activities for financial services.  
Question 2  
Trade Policy Objectives and Trade Policy Formulation (page 28, Paragraph 2.7)  
The Secretariat report indicates that  "Amon g the specific negotiating objectives, the 2015 TPA lists 
four new issues, namely: state -owned and state -controlled enterprises (SOEs); localization 
barriers to trade; currency; and good governance, transparency…"  
2. Please explain how the U.S. incorporates t hese issues into prospective trade negotiations. 
For example, trading partners should have an effective enforcement of national transparency law 
or else the U.S. will halt to trade negotiation.   
RESPONSE: These new objectives, along with pre -existing ones,  will continue to guide the work of 
negotiators in all relevant aspects of current and future negotiations during the period covered by 
the Trade Promotion Authority. We will continue to encourage all U.S. trading partners to adopt 
transparent practices bo th in the context of these negotiations and in other forums.  
Question 3  
Anti-dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures - Legislation and administration (page 56, 
Paragraph 3.79)  
Referring to paragraph 3.79, the American Trade Enforcement Effectivene ss Act expressly states 
that the USITC may not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an 
industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the 
performance of that industry has recently i mproved.  
3. Thailand would like to know that what is the specific evidence or information that the USITC 
will take into account to identify the industry, which still made a profit or is in good improvement, 
has material injury or threat of material injury.  
RESPONSE: In making a determination whether dumped or subsidized imports materially injure 
or threaten material injury to a domestic industry, the USITC considers the factors specified in 19 
USC 1677(7) in all investigations. The USITC will collect from do mestic producers information 
concerning the impact factors specified in 19 USC 1677(7)(C)(iii) and will evaluate that 
information, together with the information in the record of the investigation concerning the other 
factors listed in the statute, in makin g its determination. Examples of how, since enactment of the 
American Trade Enforcement Effectiveness Act, the USITC evaluates information in the context of 
particular investigations can be found at: 
https://usitc.gov/trade_remedy/publications/opinions_index.htm . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 391 - 
 
  Questions 4 -5 
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) (page 68, paragraph 3.125)  
The Secretariat report indicates that  "The 2008 Farm Act amended the Federal Meat Insp ection Act 
(FMIA) to transfer food safety inspection authority for Siluriformes fish and fish products  from the 
FDA to the FSIS."  
Thailand would like to ask the US the following questions;  
4. What are the details of regulatory requirements for inspecting Sil uriformes and fish 
products?  
RESPONSE: The details of the regulatory requirements for inspecting Siluriformes fish and fish 
products are outlined in the Final Rule issued on December 2, 2015  (Federal Register Vol. 80, 
No. 231, page 75591+). The final rule can be accessed on -line at : 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/878aa316 -a70a-4297-b352-2d41becc8f73/2008 -
0031F.pdf?MOD=AJPERES . Additionally, information and guidance on the implementation of this 
new rule is available on the FSIS webpage at : 
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/ins pection/siluriformes . 
5. What is the definition and scope of "fish products"?  
RESPONSE: The scope of the rule includes any fish or fish products derived from fish of the Order 
Siluriformes.  
Question 6  
Trademarks (page 99)  
6. Thailand would like to know the cri teria used for determining the registrability of certification 
marks and collective marks and how these criteria are different from those of normal trademarks.  
RESPONSE: Certification marks and collective marks are examined based on the same criteria as 
trademarks with a few exceptions. Specifically as to geographic matter in certification and 
collective marks, there are some special considerations. These are elaborated in the following 
documents.  
For more information about certification marks, see : 
https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP -1300d1e585.html .  
For more information about collective trademarks and collective service marks, see : 
https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP -1300d1e347.html Question 7 .  
Question 7  
Copyright (page 101, paragraph 3.267)  
The Secretariat report indicates  that "Registration is not required for protection, although in addition 
to establishing a public record of the copyright claim, there are additional benefits that accrue with 
timely registration".  
7. Could the United States please elaborate what are the add itional benefits of copyright 
registration under the U.S. copyright system?  
RESPONSE: Copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not a requirement for 
protection, but there are several advantages to registration, including creating a public r ecord of 
the copyright claim. Section 410 of the 1976 Copyright Act establishes that if made before or 
within five years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the 
validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the certificate. Further, according to Section 412, a 
timely registration will make statutory damages and attorney's fees available to the owner in court 
actions. Registration also allows the owner to record the registration with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protec tion for protection against the importation of infringing copies into the United States. 
Although Section 410 of the Act makes copyright registration a prerequisite for civil infringement WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 392 - 
 
  actions, this only applies to United States works. Accordingly, ther e is no mandatory registration 
requirement for the works of foreign authors, and their copyrights are protected in the United 
States to the same extent as domestic authors' rights.  
Question 8  
Intellectual Property Rights - IP Enforcement (page 102, paragra ph 3.274 and Footnote 260)  
The Secretariat report indicates that "The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 
conducts annual reviews of the state of IPR protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners 
around the world, known as the Spe cial 301 Report. In 2016, 73 trading partners were reviewed. 
In the 2016 Report, the USTR listed 34 trading partners, placing 11 of them on the Priority Watch 
List and on the Watch List." In addition, the Report (Footnote 260) noted that " The report is 
prepared pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade 
and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and the Trade Facilitation 
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  (19 U.S.C. §2242). "  
8. According to sectio n 610 paragraph (b)(1)(g)(2) of Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement 
Act 2015 which is specified that the President may take appropriate action with respect to the 
foreign country if they fail to meet action plan benchmarks. In this regards, could you please 
clarify that what type of actions the U.S. will impose to countries in the priority watch list which 
have not substantially complied with the benchmarks in the action plan developed with USTR.  
RESPONSE: The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 provides the following: "If, 
as of one year after the date on which an action plan is developed under paragraph (1)(A), the 
President, in consultation with the Trade Representative, determines that the foreign country to 
which the action plan a pplies has not substantially complied with the benchmarks described in 
paragraph (1)(D), the President may take appropriate action with respect to the foreign country." 
The United States continues to engage countries identified in the Special 301 Report an d urges 
them to address the concerns described in the Report.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 393 - 
 
   
UKRAINE  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.4 Investment regime (2.40)  
"The foreign investment regime in the United States remained unchanged during the period unde r 
review. The regime is generally open and liberal, although some restrictions apply, primarily for 
prudential or national security reasons (Table 2.2). Restrictions on foreign ownership principally 
apply in specific areas such as: atomic energy operations ; oil pipeline right of way; the mining of 
coal and certain minerals, or petroleum exploration; and certain fishing operations. " 
1. Could the United States kindly inform if any review of measures governing foreign 
investment and reducing of appropriate restri ctions is considered (for example, in such areas as 
maritime, aircraft, banking)?  
RESPONSE: No proposed legislation is currently pending before the U.S. Congress that would 
significantly revise measures governing foreign investment in specific sectors of t he U.S. economy.  
Question 2  
Section 3.1.4.2 Applied rates (3.39)  
According to the Report "Tariffs above 25% ad valorem are concentrated in agriculture (notably 
dairy, tobacco, and vegetable products), footwear, and textiles. " 
2. Could the United States kin dly inform about its plans concerning possible changes in tariff 
policy? Does the U. S. intend to reduce or eliminate any tariffs on agricultural goods, footwear and 
textiles?  
RESPONSE: Congress has the authority to unilaterally adjust MFN tariff rates, co nsistent with 
WTO commitments. In 2016 Congress passed legislation establishing the process for consideration 
of a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, authorizing the International Trade Commission to accept and review 
petitions to temporarily suspend the applicati on of customs duties on certain imports. The deadline 
for petitions is December 12, 2016. We will keep the membership apprised of any temporary duty 
suspensions.  
Question 3  
Section 3.1.5.1.1 Merchandise processing fee (3.45, 3.46)  
The Report notes that "Formal and informal imports are subject to a Merchandise Processing Fee 
(MPF). The fee amounts to 0.3464% of the customs value (not including duty, freight, or insurance 
charges), with minimum and maximum of US$25 and US$485, for formal entries. " 
It is menti oned in the Report that "CBP has undertaken an analysis to develop a new MPF 
structure, and has begun sharing information with the public on the proposed new structure. " 
3. Could the United States kindly provide rationale behind establishing such the MPF a mount (to 
0.3464%), including scale difference between minimum and maximum (of US$25 and US$485), 
and clarify the procedure of its application for formal and informal imports?  What approaches in 
developing a new MPF structure are considered now?  
RESPONSE: The MPF is a user fee paid by the importer to CBP for the processing of merchandise 
at the time of entry of merchandise into the United States. Currently, the MPF for formal entries 
(shipments valued over $2500) is an ad valorem fee of 0.3464 percent, subj ect to a cap. The fee 
is based on the value of the merchandise being imported, not including duty, freight, and 
insurance charges, and may not exceed $485 or be less than $25. For informal entries of 
merchandise (less than $2500) the fee is $3, 6, or $9, d epending on how the entry information is 
submitted. For more information about the development of a new MPF structure please see : WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 394 - 
 
  https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016 -
Apr/MPF%20Briefing%20for%20External%20Stakeholders_April2016.pdf . 
Questions 4 -5 
Section 3.1.7.2 Anti -dumping (3.84 -3.85)  
The Report states  that "Between 1995 and 2015, the Unite d States initiated 569 AD investigations, 
the second largest number of initiations among WTO Members. " Ukraine currently is subject to 
7 antidumping measures with amount of duties from 41.69% to 237.91%. Most duties were first 
put in place in the late 1990 's and early 2000 's - before  the U.  S. granted market economy status 
to Ukraine.  
Circumstances have dramatically changed in Ukraine since then. As for now, Ukraine is an 
independent state that has transitioned from predominantly state ownership to a privat e 
market -based economy. Ukraine joined the WTO in 2008. Ukrainian producers currently operate 
on the basis of market principles, profit maximization, competition, transparency and behave as 
responsible players in the global market. Moreover, due to the war -like activity in the East of 
Ukraine, Ukrainian export capacity decreased significantly as steel and chemical productions have 
been substantially ruined and unbalanced.  
4. Would the United States please clarify how the U. S. ensures that measures that hav e been in 
force for more than 10 years comply with Article 11.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the GATT 1994?  
RESPONSE: In determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or an antidumping 
order would be likely to lead to  continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably 
foreseeable time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) considers the factors set out in 
U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. sec. 1675a(a). The USITC considers these factors in the context of t he 
record of the five -year review; it establishes a new record for each five -year review of an order. In 
determining whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a coun tervailable subsidy or sales of the subject 
merchandise at less than fair value, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) considers the 
factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. sec. 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
The determinations in each sunset revie w conducted by the USITC and Commerce are case 
specific. The results for all sunset reviews can be found on the USITC's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). From this website, Members can obtain, on  a case by case 
basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation or termination of a countervailing 
duty or an antidumping duty order.  
We recognize that difficult circumstances confront a range of Ukraine 's industries. In terms of U.S. 
imports, Commerce and USITC must administer the U.S. laws governing antidumping and 
countervailing duties, including sunset reviews, in an objective and consistent manner, regardless 
of whether the orders are of a relatively long duration.  
5. Would the U. S.  explain what should be done to have measures on Ukrainian steel and chemical 
products reviewed by the U. S. International Trade Commission given the changed circumstances 
in Ukraine that are of a long -term character?  
RESPONSE: U.S. law permits parties to request a changed circumstances review. The 
requirements for requesting such a review can be found at 19 CFR sec. 207.45 and 19 U.S.C. 
§ 1675(b). We also note that, in conducting a five -year review, the USITC takes into account 
information concerning chang es in the conditions of competition as one of the factors specified in 
19 U.S.C. sec. 1675a(a).  
Question 6  
Section 3.2.4.3 Drawback regime (3.153)  
According to the Report "The United States Code (19 U.S.C. 1313) authorizes drawback of customs 
duty on impor ted articles subsequently exported or incorporated in products that are exported or 
destroyed. Paid duty on unused imported merchandise, exported or destroyed under CBP WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 395 - 
 
  supervision, may also be recovered as drawback. The drawback amounts to 99% of customs 
duties, certain excise taxes, as well as fees lawfully collected at importation, including the 
merchandise processing fee and the harbour maintenance tax. Claims for the refund of duties and 
taxes, addressed to one of the four CBP drawback offices, should generally be filed within three 
years of exportation or destruction of the articles. According to CBP, the drawback is the most 
complex commercial programme it operates as it involves every aspect of CBP's business, 
including imports and exports. " 
6. Ukrai ne would appreciate if the United State could elaborate information on its drawback regime 
regarding the top imported agricultural products exported or incorporated in products that are 
exported, the export destinations for those products and the amount of  the refund of duties, taxes 
or other fees gathered at importation under the drawback regime during the period under review.  
RESPONSE: The United States does not currently track such data. However, some agricultural 
products include tobacco, sugar, and be verages. For fiscal year 2016, CBP refunded via drawback 
approximately $748 million, inclusive of all drawback and commodity types.  
Question 7  
Section 3.3.6.2 General regulatory framework (3.242)  
The Report mentions that "On 17 December 2005, the United St ates accepted the Protocol 
Amending the TRIPS Agreement adopted by the General Council on 6 December 2005. " 
7. Could the United States kindly clarify how the provisions of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS 
Agreement are implemented in the U. S. legislation? Please provide information on the relevant 
legislative provisions.  
RESPONSE: The United States strongly supports the implementation of paragraph 6 on the Doha 
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health as provided under the 2005 Protocol and 
congratulates the countries who have formally accepted the amendment. The provisions of the 
2005 Protocol did not require changes to U.S. law. We encourage other Members to notify their 
acceptance of the amendment so that it can enter into force, and direct Me mbers to the WTO 
TRIPS webpage where Members can find an "Illustrative guide to notifying under the Paragraph 6 
System. " 
Question 8  
Section 4.1.2 The 2014 Farm Act (4.9, 4.11)  
 
The Report states that "PLC payments are linked to current prices as they are t riggered when the 
national average market price during the marketing year or the national average loan rate, 
whichever is higher, falls short of reference prices (per bushel or pound) established in the 2014 
Farm Act for the covered crops (Table A4.1). The  payment to the farmer equals the difference 
between the national average market price/loan rate and the reference price multiplied by the 
eligible base. According to the USDA Farm Service Agency, payments under PLC had totalled 
US$776.2 million by 20 May 2016 on base acres of long grain rice (US$399.5 million), peanuts 
(US$321.5 million), and canola (US$55.2 million). " 
The Report alleges that "ARC-CO sets benchmark revenues for each of the covered commodities, 
which is 86% of the five -year average of natio nal market price times the five -year average county 
yield. When actual county revenue falls below the county benchmark guarantee, farmers in that 
county with eligible base receive a payment of up to 10% of the difference. The revenue 
calculations for ARC -CO are based on current prices and current county yields, not farm -level 
yields, and payments are limited to 85% of the enrolled historical base. The benchmark revenue 
for ARC -IC is based on a farm's five -year average planted acres and yields of all covered  
commodities on the farm. Payments are made when the actual revenue from all covered 
commodities on the farm falls below the benchmark guarantee, but the payment rate is limited to 
65% of the historical base of covered commodities on the farm. For both PLC  and ARC, landowners 
were allowed to reallocate, but not increase, their base acres acc ording to planted acres in 
2009-12." WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 396 - 
 
  8. Ukraine kindly asks the U. S. to confirm that the PLC and ARC programmes have no effect of 
providing price support to farmers and  to explain how such programmes will be presented by the 
U. S. in its Table DS:1 notification . 
RESPONSE: These programs will be notified in the appropriate notifications.  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 9  
Section 4.2.7 U.S. –EU Trade (4. 33) 
The Report notes that "The United States and the EU completed the 15th round of T -TIP 
negotiations in New York City in October 2016. Significant progress has been made toward 
completing negotiation of a comprehensive agreement, with notable advancement  toward the 
elimination of duties and on various regulatory issues. The United States and EU have also made 
progress toward agreement on a number of other provisions that would expand market access, as 
well as rules -based commitments which will build on ru les in the WTO. The parties continue to 
work toward completing negotiation of a comprehensive and ambitious T -TIP agreement. "  
9. Please describe the main provisions on which the United States and the EU have made progress 
toward agreement during the 15th round of T -TIP negotiations in October 2016. How many tariffs 
and on what goods are expected to be affected? What are plans for expanding market access for 
services in the framework of the T -TIP agreement? How does the U. S. assess possibilities and 
effect s of concluding the T -TIP agreement for its economy and for world trade? Is there any 
timeframe for completion of T -TIP negotiations?  
RESPONSE: T-TIP negotiations have made technical progress across the board, including in areas 
such as intellectual proper ty, textiles, customs and trade facilitation, regulatory coherence, and 
greater regulatory compatibility in key sectors. U.S. objectives for market access for agricultural 
and non -agricultural goods include the elimination of all duties on bilateral trade,  with substantial 
elimination of tariffs upon entry into force, and a phasing out of all but the most sensitive tariffs in 
a short time frame. With respect to services market access, the United States seeks to bind 
market access with a limited number of re servations.  
Question 10  
Section 9. Small and Medium -Sized Business Trade (9.1)  
The Report provides that "Under the Obama Administration, USTR announced a Small Business 
initiative aimed at ensuring that the specific export challenges and priorities of Smal l and Medium 
Enterprises (SMEs) and their workers are reflected in our trade policy and enforcement activities. 
During 2015, USTR continued to engage with its interagency partners and with trading partners to 
develop and implement new and continuing initia tives to enhance small business export 
opportunities. " 
10. Could the United States please provide further details on the Small Business initiative? What 
initiatives governed by USTR are implemented in 2016 and expected to be extended in future to 
enhance s mall business export opportunities?  
RESPONSE: Under the Small Business initiative, USTR is working to better integrate specific SME 
issues and priorities into our trade policy development, increase outreach to SMEs around the 
country, and expand collaborat ion and coordination with our interagency colleagues.  
U.S. small businesses are key engines for our economic growth, jobs, and innovation. SMEs that 
export grow faster, add jobs faster, and pay higher wages —up to 18 percent higher than SMEs 
that serve only  domestic markets. According to research by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (USITC), direct and indirect exports by U.S. SMEs support an estimated four million 
jobs in the United States and account for over 40 percent of the total value of U.S. exp orts of 
goods and services.  
For example, the United States concluded negotiations of the TPP, including the first -ever chapter 
on SMEs in a U.S. trade agreement. This reflects a recognition of the important role that SMEs play WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 397 - 
 
  in increasing exports, promp ting economic growth, and creating jobs. This further reflects broad 
recognition that costly tariff and non -tariff trade barriers can disproportionately burden smaller 
firms. Additionally, T -TIP negotiations including an SME chapter, and several other aspe cts of the 
U.S. trade policy agenda have the potential to help SMEs boost exports. These include enhancing 
trade facilitation work – notably through the landmark WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, which 
will help eliminate red tape and bureaucratic delay fo r goods shipped around the globe. The U.S. is 
also leading efforts to strengthen and enforce intellectual property rights, reduce services market 
barriers, and simplify government procurement rules. For additional information, see the U.S. 
Trade Policy Age nda and Annual Report : https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -
office/reports -and-publications/2016/20 16-trade-policy -agenda -and-2015-Annual -Report . 
USTR participated in numerous engagements around the country to hear directly from local small 
businesses, workers, and other stakeholders about the trade opportunities and challenges they 
face. These engagem ents included briefings through small business associations, in -person 
roundtables, and direct outreach to over 500 SMEs about their experience accessing overseas 
markets. USTR 's new website also includes helpful links, fact sheets, and resources for SMEs,  and 
blogs which highlight small business export success stories around the country and USTR trade 
policy efforts supporting small business. In 2015, USTR created a report, the United States of 
Trade, including examples throughout the 50 states of U.S. sma ll businesses in manufacturing, 
services, and agriculture successfully exporting to countries around the world, accompanied by 
state-by-state trade statistics to help educate SMEs about the benefits of trade in their state.  
On an interagency basis, USTR i s working with interagency partners to improve trade information 
relevant for SMEs and highlight interagency programs to assist SMEs with their individual export 
needs.  
Questions 11 -12 
Not specific to a particular section  
11. According to the Catalog of Fe deral Domestic Assistance, there are about 2,360 Federal 
assistance programs in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, etc. Some programs provide 
social support, but several other programs appear to meet the notification requirements under the 
Article  25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Could the United States 
address whether it plans to notify such programs, including, for example, the Biorefinery 
Assistance Program, Fishermen's Contingency Fund and the Beginning Farmer and R ancher 
Development Program?  
RESPONSE: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a very broad listing of government 
support programs, many of which, as noted in the question posed, are social support programs. 
The Catalog is not based upon, or relevant to the definitions and provisions of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. As to the specific programs mentioned, the Beginning 
Farmer and Rancher Development Program is available to the entirety of the agricultural sector 
and therefore, is not specific. The Fishermen's Contingency Fund is funded by the oil and gas 
industry to compensate fishermen for harm caused to their fishing activities from offshore drilling 
operations. The program does not involve government funding, and merely legit imately 
compensates fishermen for harm caused, and therefore, is not a subsidy. As the United States has 
previously noted in answering the questions of another Member in the Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures, we will consider including the  Biorefinery Assistance program in our 
next subsidy notification.  
12. As travel is one of the main trade categories of the U. S. cross -border services, could the 
United States kindly provide information on its approaches for providing sustainable tourism 
development and examples of good practices in marketing activities and promotion of the national 
tourism product, introduced in the U. S. (such as "Brand USA ")? 
RESPONSE: A substantial amount of information can be found both on the website of Brand USA, 
a p ublic-private partnership for marketing tourism in the United States 
(https://www.thebrandusa.com ) as well as the website of the National Travel and Tourism Office 
of the Department of Commerce ( http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/ ). WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 398 - 
 
   
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.3.1 WTO (2.15)  
"The United States has a steadfast commitment to the multilateral trading system, and endeavors 
to "co ntinue to take a leadership role at the WTO, working to ensure that trade makes a powerful 
contribution in expanding the global economy". The United States views the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference as a "turning point for the WTO", and, going forward, it "e xpects to work with other 
ready WTO Members to identify specific opportunities to negotiate meaningful agreements in the 
WTO in an effort to move beyond the Doha Development Agenda". The United  States attaches 
great importance to sustaining and enhancing t he WTO's critical role in transparency, including 
monitoring."  
Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration states "while we concur that officials should prioritize work 
where results have not been achieved, some wish to identify and discuss other issues for 
negotiation; others do not. Any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on such issues would 
need to be agreed by all Member States".  
1. Further to the Nairobi Declaration, what new agenda items and negotiating issues in the 
multilateral trading syste m are of key interest to the United Sates?  
RESPONSE: Our observation is that the membership is continuing to struggle to find new and 
more promising directions for our negotiating work. We ‎are encouraged to see good engagement 
in areas such as digital, ag riculture, and fish, as well as an emphasis on relevance to current 
trends in trade. For the long -term health of the institution, we believe is it best to take the 
necessary time to carefully prepare the ground for future negotiations on both "old" and "ne w" 
issues.  
Question 2  
Section 2.3.2.2.3 Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) (2.38)  
"The United States provides duty -free treatment to eligible products from Caribbean countries 
through the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). The CBI comprises, inter alia , the C aribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), CBERA 
covers 17 beneficiaries at present, of which eight are also beneficiaries under CBTPA."  
In 2012, seven (7) CARICOM Member States (The Bahamas, Dominic a, Grenada, Montserrat, 
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname) submitted requests to the 
United States Trade Representative (USTR), through the CARICOM Secretariat, for beneficiary 
status under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partners hip Act (CBTPA).  
At the CARICOM -United States Trade and Investment Council (TIC) held on 18 May 2016, the 
United States committed to reviewing the status of outstanding CBTPA applications.  
2. Further to the Seventh Meeting of the TIC, can the US provide an y further updates on the status 
of outstanding CBTPA applications?  
RESPONSE: Eligibility criteria for the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act and the Caribbean 
Basin Trade Partnership Act can be found at, 19 U.S.C. 2702 and 19 U.S.C. 2703, respectively. 
The criteria are also described in the USTR's Eleventh Report to Congress on the Operation of the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, submitted on December 20, 2015, along with the 
relevant country reports. USTR's report is available at : https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2015 -
CBI-Report -Final.pdf . Suriname is not covered in the report because it is not a beneficiary of 
CBERA. The United States continues to work with the app licant countries to meet the eligibility 
criteria.  
Question 3  
Section 3.1.6.1 Prohibitions and restrictions (3.56, 3.58)  
"On behalf of some 40 federal agencies, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces laws 
that may prohibit or restrict the importa tion of certain goods for various purposes. Importation WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 399 - 
 
  may be prohibited outright, or allowed under certain conditions, or be subject to special 
requirements such as designated ports of entry or routing restrictions (Table A3.2)."  
The Seventh and last me eting of the CARICOM -United States Trade and Investment Council (TIC) 
was held on 18 May 2016. At the meeting, CARICOM reiterated its concerns with the potential 
listing of queen conch as an endangered species. The United States provided an update of the 
issue and committed to keeping CARICOM updated on developments in the area.  
3. Further to the Seventh Meeting of the TIC, can the United States provide any updates on the 
potential listing of queen conch as an endangered species?  
RESPONSE: There are no upda tes since the Meeting. The litigation over the listing of the queen 
conch as an endangered species is ongoing.  We remain committed to keeping CARICOM updated 
on developments.  
Question 4  
Section 3.1.6.1 Prohibitions and restrictions (3.56, 3.58)  
"In June 20 14, the President established a task force to develop recommendations to enhance 
coordination and implement a comprehensive framework to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 
The task force provided an action plan to implement 15 recommendations on 15 Marc h 2015. Two 
of the recommendations address the establishment of a risk -based programme to track domestic 
and imported seafood from point of harvest or production to entry into U.S. commerce. In 
February 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra tion (NOAA Fisheries) published a 
proposed rule for public comment, and expected to publish a final rule in September 2016. The 
proposed rule would establish reporting requirements (through ACE) for imports of a set of priority 
species, applicable to U.S. importers. The proposed rule focuses on imports because, for the 
priority species selected for the programme's initial phase, equivalent information for domestic 
products is already being collected through existing programmes. The importer will need to kee p 
records regarding the product's chain of custody to point of entry into U.S. commerce and make 
those records available to NOAA Fisheries upon request. The rule does not institute new labelling 
requirements."  
The United States is a major market for fish a nd fish products exported by Trinidad and Tobago. 
The implementation of the fifteen (15) recommendations will directly affect the fishing and fish 
processing sector in Trinidad and Tobago and the wider CARICOM Region as the recommendations 
seek to strength en US enforcement, create and expand partnerships with state and local 
governments, industry, and non -governmental organizations, and create a risk -based traceability 
program to track seafood from harvest to entry into US commerce. The plan also highlights  ways 
in which the United States will work with foreign partners to strengthen international governance, 
enhance cooperation, and build capacity to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud.  
4. What is the status of implementation of the fifteen (15) recommend ations of the United States 
Presidential Task Force on IUU fishing and seafood Fraud?  
RESPONSE: The website at the following link serves as a portal to the U.S. activities and the 
federal agencies involved with  implementing  the recommendations of the Presi dential Task Force 
to comprehensively combat  illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing  and seafood fraud 
from entering the U.S. market place. The website includes links to recent developments and public 
meetings: http://www.iuufishing.noaa.gov/ .  
Report by the United States WT/TPR/G/350  
Question 5  
Section 4.2.2 North American Free Trade Agreement (4.17)  
"On 1 January 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, 
Canada, and  Mexico (NAFTA) entered into force. Under NAFTA, the Parties progressively eliminated 
tariffs, with final tariffs eliminated, as scheduled, on 1 January 2008. NAFTA created the world's 
largest free trade area, which now links 478 million people producing r oughly US$20.7 trillion 
worth of goods and services. By dismantling barriers, NAFTA has led to increased trade and 
investment, growth in employment, and enhanced competitiveness. Trade between the WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 400 - 
 
  United  States and its NAFTA partners has soared since the a greement entered into force. 
U.S. goods exports to NAFTA partners increased by 264% between 1993 and 2015, from 
US$142  billion to an estimated US$516 billion."  
5. During the review period what were the shortcomings/challenges/disadvantages of NAFTA for 
the United States?  
RESPONSE: The NAFTA has been in force for more than 20 years and provides an extensive set of 
rules governing trade between the Parties, reflecting their priorities at the time of its negotiation. 
Trade irritants between two or more of the Parties are resolved through the mechanisms provided 
in the Agreement.  
Question 6  
Section 4.2.7 U.S. –EU Trad e (4.33)  
"The United States and the EU completed the 15th round of T -TIP negotiations in New York City in 
October 2016. Significant progress has be en made toward completing negotiation of a 
comprehensive agreement, with notable advancement toward the elimination of duties and on 
various regulatory issues. The United States and EU have also made progress toward agreement 
on a number of other provision s that would expand market access, as well as rules -based 
commitments which will build on rules in the WTO. The parties continue to work toward completing 
negotiation of a comprehensive and ambitious T -TIP agreement."  
6. During the review period, what hav e been the key challenges/ obstacles faced in the 
negotiations of the T -TIP with the EU?  
RESPONSE: As stated in the 2016 U.S. TPR Government Report, the U.S. trade and investment 
relationship with the EU is the largest and most complex economic relationshi p in the world. While 
differences remain in several key areas of the T -TIP negotiations, the work of negotiators over the 
past three years has brought greater clarity to our differences and enabled both sides to explore 
potentially promising avenues for re conciling them.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 401 - 
 
   
TURKEY  
Report by the United States (WT/TPR/G/350)  
Question 1  
Section 2.2 Economic Growth (2.6)  
It is stated in the government report that "The primary contributor to real growth since 2014 has 
been consumer spending. Personal consumption expenditures, which account for nearly 70% of 
U.S. GDP, increased 2.9% in 2014, 3.2% in 2015, and 3.0%, on an annual basis, for the first half 
of 2016. Consumer spending has contributed roughly three quarters of the increase in U.S. real 
GDP since the end of the recession. " 
1. Does the US consider revising its consumption -oriented economic growth model in the wake of 
positive signs in basic economic indicators? If so, could the US express certain details about the 
basis of this model?  
RESPONSE: Consumption led growth has been successful in the United States.  To ensure 
sustainability of this growth, U.S. households have been successfully deleveraging in recent years 
and the U.S. consumer has been an important engine for global demand.  Concerning any future 
policy, we remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping the 
Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 2  
Section 2.8. Challenges to the US and Global Recovery/Economy (2.19)  
The Government repor t states that "…the United States still runs a larger current account deficit 
than its sustainability target as estimated by the IMF… " 
2. Could the US elaborate on how the US Government approaches the deficit problem and what 
kind of technical policies at the government level is applied to deliver solutions to it? Which policies 
are assessed to be more convenient to tackle this problem?  
RESPONSE: It is not clear whether the question refers to the current account deficit or the fiscal 
deficit.  The fiscal def icit reached 2.5 percent of GDP in 2015, the lowest level since 2007 and 
below the U.S. 40 -year average.  The President 's fiscal year 2017 budget proposed ways to 
continue to drive down deficits and maintain our fiscal progress through smart savings from he alth 
care and tax reforms. The current account deficit depends heavily on factors outside of the United 
States, like how fast our trading partners are growing relative to our domestic economy and 
expectations of interest rates and asset prices domestically  versus abroad.   
Question 3  
Section 3. Openness and Accountability (3.1)  
The Government report states that "… Consultation and engagement is vital to ensuring that trade 
policy reflects American interests and American values. Advice from such stakeholders is both a 
critical and integral part of the trade policy process. " 
3. Regarding this statement, could the US provide information about the mechanism used for 
consultation and engagement? How do you feed the results of regulatory practices? Which one 
prevai ls if the outcomes of consultation and engagement contradict with what has been conceived 
as American interest or values?  
RESPONSE: The mechanisms used for consultation and engagement are explained in Section 3.2 
Public engagement and transparency. USTR is  always looking for new ways to engage the public 
and seek views to help inform and guide trade policy, consistent with our ability to deliver the 
maximum possible benefits of trade to the American people. We seek to put our objectives front 
and center, wo rk hand -in-hand with Congress, participate in a robust public conversation, and 
engage with a diverse array of stakeholders.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 402 - 
 
  Questions 4 -5 
Section 4.1 WTO Agreements and Initiatives (4.4, 4.7)  
It is stated in the government report that "In July 2014, the United States and 13 other WTO 
members, accounting for 86% of global trade in environmental goods, launched the EGA 
negotiations. The current 17 WTO Members participating in the EGA negotiations have made 
significant progress to develop a list of environme ntal technologies that will be subject to tariff 
elimination. At the G20 Leaders' summit in September 2016, Ministers achieved a landing zone to 
conclude the EGA negotiations by the end of 2016. Achieving global free trade in environmental 
goods is a key p art of both the President's Climate Action Plan and U.S. trade and environmental 
policy. " 
4. Following the recent domestic developments in the US, is it likely to decline U.S ' ambition level 
towards the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) that can result i n withdrawing from the 
negotiations of or suspend its entry into force?  
RESPONSE: We note that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the WTO 
Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
It is stated in the government  report that  "At the WTO's Tenth Ministerial Conference (MC10) in 
December 2015,… for the first time since the launch of the DDA in 2001, Ministers could not agree 
to reaffirm the Doha mandates going forward. The United States joined a number of other 
Memb ers in insisting that the moment had come to move on from the DDA given its limited results 
and multiple failures in 14 years of negotiations. As a result, the United States expects that future 
discussions in the WTO will focus on developing new approaches  and taking up new issues in 
negotiations, without being constrained by the DDA architecture established over 15 years ago. " 
5. By stating  new approaches and new issues in negotiations, does the U.S implicitly intend the 
shift from multilateralism to plura lism for future discussions in the WTO?  
RESPONSE: The United States has a clear and demonstrated commitment to multilateralism. We 
are open to any and all approaches that are pragmatic, that are cognizant of negotiating history, 
and that can lead to succes sful, positive outcomes.  
Question 6  
Section 4.2 Regional Initiatives (4.16)  
It is stated in the government report that  "TPP has been designed as a regional platform, and 
following the conclusion of the TPP negotiations, a number of other Asia -Pacific econ omies 
expressed interest in potentially seeking to join TPP in the future. The 12 TPP partners have 
welcomed this interest, while noting that their current focus is on completing their respective 
domestic approval processes and having the agreement enter i nto force. " 
6. It seems that the destiny of TPP will become quite ambiguous following the inauguration of 
President Trump. Could the U.S express its road map regarding TPP 's internal approval process?  
RESPONSE: With respect to the incoming Administration t hat will take office in January 2017, we 
remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the Membership 
informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into place.  
Questions 7 -9 
Section 4.2.8 African Growth and Opportunity Act (4.35)  
The Government report notes that "… By providing duty -free entry into the United States for 
almost all products of beneficiary countries, AGOA has helped to expand and diversify two -way 
trade between the United States and sub -Saharan Africa … AGOA was extended to 2025 by the 
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The renewed AGOA provides additional tools to support 
compliance with the AGOA eligibility criteria, including by providing greater flexibility to withdraw, 
suspend or limit benefits unde r program if it is determined that such action would be more 
effective than termination of AGOA eligibility… " WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 403 - 
 
  7. Regarding the AGOA eligibility criteria, could the US elaborate on the discretion of the US 
government to determine the criteria and the benefi ciary countries? Besides AGOA, could the US 
give information on what kind of trade strategies the US government has in order to increase 
two-way trade with African countries?  
RESPONSE: The AGOA eligibility criteria are established by statute and implement ed by the 
Executive Branch, which annually conducts a comprehensive review of each country that has 
requested designation as an AGOA beneficiary. During each annual review, a number of concerns 
surface for each country. Addressing these concerns is an impo rtant aspect of targeted U.S. policy 
objectives to be pursued with specific governments. As a result of discussions between the United 
States and sub -Saharan African trade partners since AGOA 's enactment in 2000, many countries 
have been encouraged to intr oduce significant reforms into their policies and practices in order to 
meet AGOA 's eligibility requirements, including as regards economic management, improved 
governance, transparency, accountability, and improved protection of workers ' rights and human 
rights.  
The U.S. Government employs a range of strategies to increase two -way trade with African 
countries. For instance, the U.S Agency for International Development operates Trade and 
Investment Hubs in Accra, Ghana; Pretoria, South Africa; and Nairobi, Kenya. The Hubs implement 
new and innovative initiatives to reduce bottlenecks along major trade corridors, as well as boost 
exports through the formation of sustainable business associations with international membership. 
Supporting such investment allows  key value chains to scale up and create stable, long -term 
employment opportunities. Other examples include: (1) U.S. Department of Agriculture 
capacity -building programs geared to increase agricultural trade both regionally and with the 
United States, hel p develop trade policies based on sound science, support agricultural sector 
growth in partner countries, and promote regional food security; (2) trade -related support 
provided by the Millennium Challenge Corporation to its partner countries; (3) Export -Import Bank 
of the United States financing the export of U.S. goods and services to Africa; and (4) the work of 
the U.S. Trade and Development Agency to help build infrastructure for trade, match U.S. 
technological expertise with overseas development needs, and help create lasting business 
partnerships between the U.S. and emerging economies.  
8. Could the US give information on how the US government integrates its bilateral trade 
assistance programs and Aid for Trade initiative commitments?  
RESPONSE : The Unit ed States supports the international "Aid for Trade " agenda, helping 
developing countries integrate into the global trading community. An important element of this 
work involves coordinating U.S. Government technical assistance activities with other donors  in 
order to identify and take advantage of synergies in programming and avoid duplication. This 
includes coordination through international organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank, the 
IMF, the OECD, the regional development banks, and the United Na tions. The United States works 
in partnership with these institutions and other donors to ensure that, where appropriate, trade -
related assistance is an integral component of development programs and trade agreements, 
tailored to the circumstances within e ach developing country.  
The United States coordinates its efforts through internal meetings and discussion between Federal 
agencies engaged in trade policy implementation. Through such discussions, the United States 
maintains an ongoing process of consult ation and coordination on trade capacity building issues.  
9. Could the US provide information on monitoring issues of trade -related technical assistance 
programs? Does the US prioritize any of such programs in terms of its target country strategies? If 
yes, which programs are they?  
RESPONSE: Relevant and high -quality evaluation is an important tool to track the results, 
effectiveness and impact of international development programs. Evaluation can help explain why 
programs are succeeding or failing and can  provide recommendations for how best to adapt to 
improve performance. Along with monitoring, evaluation contributes evidence to improve strategic 
planning, project design and resource decisions, and evaluations are part of a greater body of 
knowledge and learning.  
With the release of the Evaluation Policy in 2011, the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID) made an ambitious commitment to building an evaluation practice that values good WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 404 - 
 
  planning and design, independent judgment, high -quality meth ods and evidence -based findings for 
what is and is not working in USAID programs. Through the Development Experience 
Clearinghouse (DEC), USAID has made accessible its evaluation reports. The database is available 
at: https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx . 
Through an interagency consultation process, (see previous answer), the United States 
coordinates its activities across agencies to ensure that its programs are effective and meet the 
needs  of partner countries. In some cases, certain programs are applicable only to certain 
countries (e.g., utilization of specific U.S. preference programs), or are relevant only for a 
particular trade issue (e.g., the Standards Alliance, which is related to t echnical barriers to trade). 
In such cases, the United States seeks to make specific programs available to appropriate 
beneficiary countries.  
Question 10  
Section 4.3.6 United States –Jordan Free Trade Agreement (4.57)  
It is stated in the Government Report t hat "In 2016, the United States and Jordan continued to 
benefit from their economic partnership. A key element of this relationship is the United States -
Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on 17 December 2001, and was 
implemented fully on  1 January 2010. In addition, the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZs), 
established by the U.S. Congress in 1996, allow products to enter the United States duty free if 
manufactured in Jordan, Egypt, or the West Bank and Gaza, with a specified amount of Isra eli 
content. The program has succeeded in stimulating significant business cooperation between 
Jordan and Israel. " 
10. Will the US Government consider extending similar practices like QIZ to Syrian refugees in 
order to address the refugee crisis?  
RESPONSE:  The existing qualifying industrial zones may provide jobs for Syrian refugees. There 
has not been a request to expand the program for the purpose of addressing the refugee crisis.  
Question 11  
Sections 4.2.7 U.S. -EU Trade, 6.2 Regional Iniatives (4.33)  
It is stated in the Government Report that "The United States and the EU completed the 15th round 
of T-TIP negotiations in New York City in October 2016. Significant progress has been made 
toward completing negotiation of a comprehensive agreement, with nota ble advancement toward 
the elimination of duties and on various regulatory issues. The United States and EU have also 
made progress toward agreement on a number of other provisions that would expand market 
access, as well as rules -based commitments which w ill build on rules in the WTO. The parties 
continue to work toward completing negotiation of a comprehensive and ambitious T -TIP 
agreement ."  
11. Could the US give more detailed information regarding the ongoing negotiations on regulatory 
issues on sectora l basis i.e. motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics and 
chemicals? To what extent does the US plan to liberalize its trade with the EU through concluding 
mutual recognition, equivalence or harmonization arrangements for each specific s ector?  
RESPONSE: In the T -TIP negotiations, the United States has sought to promote greater 
regulatory compatibility with the EU in a number of sectors, including motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, chem icals, pesticides, and 
information and communication technologies. The U.S. objective is to promote greater regulatory 
compatibility that yields regulatory efficiencies and commercial benefits, while maintaining our 
high levels of health, safety, and envir onmental protection. The ideas that have been discussed 
vary by sector and draw on the full range of regulatory cooperation tools, including information 
exchanges, mutual recognition, equivalence, and harmonization, among others. As the 
negotiations are on going, it is too early to indicate which methods will be used -- the goal will be 
to select an approach appropriate for each specific objective and regulatory context.  
Question 12  
Section 8. Trade and Labor (8.3)  
It is stated in the government report that,  "As an essential component of the Administration's 
trade agenda, President Obama signed into law renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 405 - 
 
  programs to assist workers, firms and farmers adversely affect ed by global competition. On 
29 June 2015, Pres ident Obama signed the Trade Adjustment As sistance Reauthorization Act 
of 2015 (TAARA). The TAA Program ensures that workers harmed by foreign trade have the best 
opportunity to acquire skills and credentials to get good jobs, by offering trade -affected wo rkers 
retraining to prepare them for the 21st century economy. The TAA Program currently offers the 
following services to eligible workers: training, out of area job search and relocation allowances, 
weekly income support (Trade Readjustment Allowances (TR A)), wage supplements for older 
workers (RTAA), and a health coverage tax credit to eligible TAA recipients. In FY2015, 
US$507,434,200 was available to carry out the program. "  
12. What is the time limit of benefiting from weekly income support, wage suppl ement and health 
coverage tax credit for a worker adversely affected from trade? Is it a horizontal program or 
limited to specific sectors? What was the proportion of these programs to the FY2015 budget?  
RESPONSE:  The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for  Workers program offers a variety of 
benefits and services to workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade. Workers in the 
manufacturing sector have received the most TAA benefits, and the program was expanded to 
include service -sector workers in 2015. Through the provision of a number of benefits and 
services, the TAA program provides trade -affected workers with opportunities to obtain the 
support, resources, skills, and credentials they need to return to the workforce. These include 
training, emp loyment and case management services, job search allowances, relocation 
allowances, reemployment and TAA wage supplements for older workers, and income support in 
the form of Trade Readjustment Allowances. Income support benefits under the TAA for Workers 
program are available for up to 117 weeks, and time limits for other benefits vary depending on 
the type of assistance. Further information on the TAA for Workers program can be found on the 
U.S. Department of Labor 's website for TAA ( http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/ ). In FY2015, 
US$507.4 million was available to carry out the TAA for Workers program, and total expenditures 
of the federal budget of the United States were approximately US$3.7 trillion.  
Report by  the United States (WT/TPR/S/350)  
Questions 13 -14 
Section Summary (7) , 2.3.2 Preferential agreements, 2.3.2.1 R eciprocal agreements, and 
Table  2.1 Free trade agreements in force, July 2016  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "No new free trade agre ement has entered into force in 
the United States since the U.S. –Panama FTA in 2012. " Additionally, this fact is presented under 
Table 2.1, showing Free trade agreements in force, July 2016 . 
13. TPP was signed in February 2016 and the TTIP negotiations are  still ongoing. Could the US 
provide information whether TPP and TTIP are the only FTA negotiations that US has focused on 
after the U.S. –Panama FTA in 2012?  
RESPONSE: The United States did not conduct FTA negotiations after 2012 with countries other 
than our TPP and T -TIP partners.  
14. Could the US elaborate on its ongoing FTA negotiations and the list of the countries that it had 
initiated to launch FTA negotiations?  
RESPONSE: T-TIP negotiations are the only FTA negotiations that are ongoing for the 
United States. The United States has not initiated any new FTA negotiations.  
Question 15  
Section 1.2.1 Merchandise trade (1.33)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "China, the EU, and Canada, the largest suppliers of 
goods to the U.S. market, continue  to consolidate their top importers status, and this trend has 
been steady since the previous review, concomitantly with the declining shares of the Middle East 
oil-producing countries. " WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 406 - 
 
  15. Does the U.S anticipate a sharp decline on the share of imports f rom China and Mexico given 
the political stance with regard to restricting imports from those countries? If that is the case and 
also considering the ambiguity about the future of TPP and TTIP, could the U.S explain its 
expectations regarding the change in  import pattern in terms of other suppliers?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews.  We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.  
Question 16  
Sections 2.1 General Framework (2.5), 3 .1.8 Standards and other technical requirements (3.101)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "Under the U.S. federal structure of government, state 
governments have considerable independent regulatory authority. Most public procurement and 
some serv ices sectors, such as banking, insurance and professional services, are regulated at the 
state level. States may also adopt technical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary measures ." 
It is also stated in the Secretariat Report that "Standardization ac tivities in the United States are 
decentralized and demand -driven. Voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) are developed by private 
sector standards developing organizations (SDOs) in response to specific concerns and needs 
expressed by industry, government, and consumers ." 
16. Could the US explain the functioning of the states ' autonomy with regard to adopting and 
applying technical regulations and standards? What type of federal government intervention is 
made when the state based technical regulations/stand ards contradict with federal based ones? 
Which one prevails over the other?  
RESPONSE : State -level government authorities may adopt technical regulations for application 
within their individual States. In a situation where there is a conflict of laws betwee n state and 
federal measures, federal level measures will generally prevail.  
17. How does the US plan to negotiate 'regulatory coherence ' chapter with the EU in the course of 
TTIP negotiations?  
RESPONSE: U.S. objectives in the regulatory coherence chapter  of T-TIP draw from the direction 
provided in the joint High Level Working Group Report which accompanied the launch of T -TIP 
negotiations in February 2013. The report calls for disciplines on the Parties in the area of 
transparency and other "good regulat ory practices, " an area which has been explored and 
developed in the WTO and APEC as a way to complement, and reinforce implementation of, the 
WTO TBT and SPS Agreements. From the U.S. perspective, commitments should include providing 
meaningful opportunit ies for the public to comment on draft texts of regulations under 
consideration by authorities of the executive branch, ways to encourage decision -making based on 
evidence, and central coordinating mechanisms to ensure compliance with trade agreements and 
avoid regulatory burdens and duplication.  
Question 18  
Sections 2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements, 2.3.2 P referential Agreements, 
2.3.2.1  Reciprocal agreements (2.24)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "Negotiations between the United States an d the 
European Union (EU) on the Trans -Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T -TIP) are ongoing. 
The President's 2016 Trade Policy Agenda sets out TPP implementation and conclusion of the T -TIP 
negotiations as U.S. trade policy priorities. " 
18. Concer ning the President's Trade Policy Agenda, could the US indicate if there is a prospective 
policy change due to the latest Presidential Elections in the US in terms of its priorities regarding 
the implementation of the TPP and the conclusion of the TTIP neg otiations?  
RESPONSE: With respect to the incoming Administration that will take office in January 2017, we 
remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping the Membership 
informed as the new U.S. Administration comes into plac e. WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 407 - 
 
  Question 19  
Section 2.8 Trade Policy Objectives (2.8)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "The 2015 TPA updates other specific negotiating 
objectives from earlier TPAs. Electronic commerce becomes digital trade in goods and services and 
cross-border data flows. "  
19. Could the US provide explanation about the update in terms of electronic commerce, which is 
mentioned as that electronic commerce becomes digital trade in goods and services and 
cross-border data flows in the 2015 TPA? Moreover, coul d the US elaborate on whether that refers 
to a contextual update that structures the negotiations on electronic commerce henceforth?  
RESPONSE: The 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) reflects the current negotiating objectives 
of the United States.  
The p rincipal negotiating objectives of the United States with respect to digital trade in goods and 
services, as well as cross -border data flows, are five -fold, name: (1) to ensure that current 
obligations, rules, disciplines, and commitments under the World T rade Organization and bilateral 
and regional trade agreements apply to digital trade in goods and services and to cross -border 
data flows; (2) to ensure that electronically delivered goods and services receive no less favorable 
treatment under trade rules and commitments than like products delivered in physical form, and 
that the classification of such goods and services ensures the most liberal trade treatment 
possible, fully encompassing both existing and new trade; (3) to ensure that governments refrain 
from implementing trade -related measures that impede digital trade in goods and services, restrict 
cross-border data flows or require local storage or processing of data; (4) where legitimate policy 
objectives require domestic regulations that affect digit al trade in goods and services or cross -
border data flows, to obtain commitments that any such regulations are the least trade -restrictive, 
non-discriminatory, and transparent; and, (5) to extend the moratorium of the World Trade 
Organization on duties on electronic transmissions.  
These objectives do not reflect a substantial change in the negot iating objectives of the 
United  States. There has been, however, an evolution of the approach of the U.S. to issues 
associated with electronic commerce and digital t rade that reflects the increased integration of 
information and communications technology (ICT) into the entire economy and the importance of 
ICT to trade in general.  
Question 20  
Section 3.1.4.2 Applied rates (3.40)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report t hat "Legislation providing temporary tariff suspensions on 
several hundred products of importance to U.S. manufacturing enterprises expired at the end of 
2012, and tariff suspensions on two other lines expired at the end of 2014. The American 
Manufacturing  Competitiveness Act of 2016 (PL 114 -159) provides a new process for the 
consideration of temporary tariff suspensions. " 
20. Could the US specify whether there is any temporary tariff suspension(s) in force within the 
framework of the American Manufacturin g Competitiveness Act of 2016?  
RESPONSE: All but two of the chapter 99, subchapter II rate lines had expired by the close of 
December 31, 2012, and two lines expired on December 31, 2014. No such temporary measures 
are currently in effect.  
Question 21  
Section 3.1.5.1.3 Harbor Maintenance Tax (3.48 -3.49)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "CBP collects a 0.125% tax on all commercial imports 
arriving by vessel, admissions into foreign trade zones, domestic cargo shipped through a port, 
and cruise shi p passengers. The tax is not collected on exports in accordance with a decision of the 
U.S. Supreme Court in 1998.  
The proceeds are remitted to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), from which Congress 
appropriates amounts to maintain harbours and unde rtake development work through the WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 408 - 
 
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 2015, the tax generated revenue (including earnings on 
investment) of approximately US$1.5 billion. Over the years, about US$8.6 billion has been 
accumulated in the HMTF. " 
21. Could the US  explain the conformity of collecting this tax from imports but not exports to 
Article III of GATT? Within this framework, can the US inform about the current status of DS118 
(United States — Harbour Maintenance Tax )? In addition, according to the allegati ons regarding 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, it has considerable surpluses since Harbour Maintenance Tax 
is not limited in amount to the approximate cost of services. Hence, could the US clarify this issue 
within the context of Article VIII of GATT?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not agree with the characterization of the HMT as not limited 
to the approximate cost of services. Additionally, the United States notes that domestic shipments 
of merchandise are subject to the HMT. Please see the link provi ded in the Secretariat 's report to 
U.S. legislation and plans for spending the HMT to benefit users of U.S. waterways and ports, 
namely traders.  
Question 22  
Section 3.1.6.2 Import licensing (3.59)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "The Steel Impo rt Monitoring and Analysis System, an 
automatic system designed to provide statistical data five to six weeks in advance of when it would 
normally become available, was extended until 21 March 2017 under a decision taken in 2013. 
Licensing requirements app ly to all basic steel mill imports from all countries. " 
22. Could the US inform on whether the extension of SIMA for another four -year period is 
considered or not?  
RESPONSE: Yes, another extension is being considered through March 2022.  
Question 23  
Section  3.1.9.4 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (3.127)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "...APHIS regulates imports of live plants; grain, oilseeds, 
and horticultural products; animals, including semen, embryos and ova; research and  exhibition 
animals; and animal products. "  
23. Does the US government plan to strengthen the institutional capacity of APHIS in line with 
allegations that the processing of import permits take quite long times?  
RESPONSE: APHIS is not aware of the specifi c 'allegations' noted in the question, but encourages 
countries  to work with U.S. SPS authorities to address any concerns.  
Question 24  
3.2.4.1 Institutional structure (3.147)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "At its meeting in December 2015, the  Council adopted a 
letter outlining priorities for action in 2016. Among its recommendations, the President 's Export 
Council (PEC) recommended the President's Administration: engage Congress to implement the 
Trans -Pacific Partnership as soon as possible; a ccelerate the pace of the TTIP and China BIT 
negotiations; accelerate efforts to conclude a new Safe Harbour framework with the EU; advance 
the negotiations for a Trade in Services Agreement and, in the WTO, an Environmental Goods 
Agreement; secure the ent ry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement as soon as possible 
with broad coverage… " 
24. Could the US clarify whether during the new President 's tenure, PEC will also retain its position 
regarding the abovementioned recommendations made especially a bout TPP, TTIP and EGA or 
revise its position? In case of revision, could the US express details about the revised approach?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Admi nistration comes into place.  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 409 - 
 
  Questions 25 -26 
Section 3.2.5.1 The Export -Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) (3.157, 3.159)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "Although independent in its day -to-day operations, EXIM 
Bank's lending authority is established by Congress. EXIM Bank's maximum allowable financial 
exposure was set at US$130 billion for 2013, and US$140 b illion until 30 June 2015. On 
4 December 2015, the President signed legislation reauthorizing the Export -Import Bank of the 
United Sta tes until 30 September 2019. EXIM Bank's lending authority is capped at US$135 billion 
during this period. " 
25. Could the US explain whether the lending cap is set for a specific loan/loan group (direct loans, 
loan guarantees etc.) or covers all types of c redits that the US EXIM Bank grants?  
RESPONSE: EXIM's lending authority cap extends to all of its lending programs; it is not specific 
to a particular loan group or program type.  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "Despite the resumption of new au thorizations, an 
important operational drawback remains. As outlined in its charter, EXIM Bank has a five -member 
Board of Directors to consider individual transactions, Bank policies, and other matters that arise. 
Members of the Board are appointed by the President of the United States and with the advice and 
consent of the U.S. Senate. While certain small - and medium -term loans can be approved by EXIM 
Bank staff, medium and long -term authorizations above US$10 million require approval by the 
Bank's Board o f Directors. At present, with three of its five seats vacant, the EXIM Bank does not 
have the quorum to take such decisions. " 
26. Could the US give a time line about when the US EXIM Bank will reach quorum to take 
long-term authorization decisions above US $10 million?  
RESPONSE: We remind Members that TPRs are retrospective reviews. We look forward to keeping 
the Membership informed as the new Administration comes into place.   
Question 27  
3.3.5.3 Market Access Conditions (3.209)  
It is stated in the Secretari at Report that "…Domestic purchasing requirements are maintained for 
procurement not covered by the GPA, the WTO plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, or 
preferential trade agreements ." 
27. Could the US please specify the sectors in which dome stic purchasing requirements are applied 
to third countries (non -GPA Parties or non -FTA partners) both at central and sub -central levels?  
RESPONSE: For federal procurement, restrictions apply to the acquisition of foreign supplies, 
services, and constructi on materials (see Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 25). However, those 
restrictions are waived for procurements of supplies, services, and construction material covered 
under the GPA or a Free Trade Agreement (see FAR Subpart 25.4).   
The federal governm ent does not regulate or track State procurement systems.  
Question 28  
Section 3.3.6 Intellectual Property Rights (3.275)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "In the 2016 Special 301 Report, the USTR highlighted 
serious and ongoing concerns with re spect to the environment for IPR protection and enforcement 
in a number of countries. The Report also identified a wide range of concerns, including: (a) the 
deterioration in IPR protection, enforcement, and market access for persons relying on IPR in a 
number of trading partners; (b) reported inadequacies in trade secret protection as well as an 
increasing incidence of trade secret misappropriation; (c) troubling "indigenous innovation" policies 
that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders;  (d) conti nuing online copyright piracy and 
trademark counterfeiting; and (e) reportedly non -transparent and potentially discriminatory 
measures, including measures that could impede market access for U.S. entities that rely upon IPR 
protection. " WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 410 - 
 
  28. Could US elabor ate on the indigenous innovation policies implemented by other countries and 
their adverse effects on U.S. rights holders by referring to the specific policies that are intended in 
the paragraph?  
RESPONSE: Right holders operating in a number of countries r eport an increasing variety of 
government measures, policies, and practices that are touted as means to incentivize domestic 
"indigenous innovation, " but that, in practice, can disadvantage U.S. companies, such as by 
requiring foreign companies to give up their IPR as the price of market entry. Such initiatives serve 
as market access barriers, discouraging foreign investment and hurting local manufacturers, 
distributors, and retailers. Such government -imposed conditions or incentives may distort licensing 
and other private business arrangements, resulting in commercially suboptimal outcomes for the 
firms involved and for innovation, generally. Further, these measures discourage foreign 
investment in national economies, slowing the pace of innovation and econ omic progress. 
Government intervention in the commercial decisions that enterprises make regarding the 
ownership, development, registration, or licensing of IPR is not consistent with international 
practice, and may raise concerns regarding consistency wit h international obligations as well. 
Further information on indigenous innovation policies and their adverse effects may be found at : 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/ USTR -2016-Special -301-Report.pdf . 
Question 29  
Section 4.2.1.6 Securities services (4.114)  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 
2012 aims to help businesses raise funds in public capital markets by lessening regulatory 
requirements. The JOBS Act is designed to facilitate capital formation and help innovative, 
emerging growth companies access the capital they need to grow and create jobs . The Act also 
allows for an exemption for up to five years from the Sarbanes -Oxley Act Section 404's 
requirement to obtain an annual verification report from a registered public accounting firm.  
29. Considering the growing importance of innovative technology start -ups in driving productivity 
and economic growth, could the US provide a brief assessment on the impact of "The Jumpstart 
Our Business Startups Act " in relation with the development of the start -up ecosystem in the US, 
covering the period 2012 -2015?  
RESPONSE: The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, thro ugh changes to the rules 
governing public and private capital raising, has improved access to capital for small and emerging 
businesses while preserving important investor protections. The following link includes information 
for rulemakings and studies req uired by the JOBS Act: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/jobs -
act.shtml . 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS   
THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
Question 1  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures, pg. 54, 3. 71  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "To initiate an investigation, the USDOC must determine 
that a petition has been filed by an interested party and that it has the support of the industry 
producing the domestic like product in the United Stat es (industry support). To determine if the 
petition has industry support, it must meet two criteria: (a) the 25% test, meaning that the 
domestic producers or workers who support the petition must account for at least 25% of the total 
production of the dome stic like product; and (b) the 50% test, meaning that the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition must account for more than 50% of the production 
of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for t he 
petition. The petition must also clearly identify and define the domestic like product as well as all 
its producers. In addition, the petition must include information relating to the degree of industry 
support for it, including: (a) the total volume an d value of U.S. production of the domestic like 
product; and (b) the volume and value of U.S. production of the domestic like product produced by 
the petitioner(s) and each domestic producer identified. "  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 411 - 
 
  Could the US provide information on whether "captiv e production " is taken into consideration or 
not regarding the production of the domestic industry?  
RESPONSE: Yes, in evaluating whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the USDOC 
will consider whether any U.S. companies produce and then con sume internally the domestic like 
product (i.e., captive production). If U.S. companies that produce the domestic like product have 
captive production, we will ask the domestic petitioner to demonstrate how it accounted for such 
captive production in the i ndustry support calculation if it is not clear from the petition.  
Question 2  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures, pg. 54, 3.72  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "A determination on whether or not to initiate an 
investigati on is usually made within 20 days of the date of filing of the petition, as specified in 
Section 732(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351.203. Following the initiation of the 
investigation, the USITC makes a preliminary injury determination: if this  is negative, the 
investigation is terminated, if it is affirmative, the ITA issues a preliminary determination of 
dumping or subsidization. The investigation continues, whether the ITA's preliminary 
determination is affirmative or negative. In the case an  affirmative determination is made, 
provisional measures may be applied.67 If the ITA's final determination finds a margin of dumping 
or a subsidy rate above the de minimis level, the USITC issues a final injury determination. If the 
USITC determination is  affirmative, the ITA issues an order imposing AD or CVD duties, if it is 
negative, the investigation is terminated, no order is issued, provisional measures are lifted, and 
cash deposits returned, with interest. "  
Could the US provide detailed information  on "de minimis " levels for anti -dumping reviews? Does it 
differ from the level referred to during the initiation of an investigation?  
RESPONSE:  In making its determination in an administrative review, USDOC will treat as de 
minimis any weighted -average du mping margin or countervailable subsidy rate that is less than 
0.5 percent. This de minimis level differs from that in an investigation. The de minimis level in an 
antidumping investigation is a rate less than two percent. The de minimis level in a counter vailing 
duty investigation is a rate less than one percent for developed countries and two percent for 
developing countries. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative determines which countries will 
be considered developing countries for purposes of de m inimis levels in U.S. countervailing duty 
investigations.  WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 412 - 
 
   
VIET NAM  
Question 1  
Section 3.2.4.2. The  National Export Initiative: (Page 73 -74, Para  3.150 -3.151 ) 
The report notes that "The National Export Initiative (NEI) was launched in 2010 as a 
government -wide programme to promote exports, with focus on improved access to finance, trade 
promotions and advocacy, a lowering of barriers, and enforcement of trade rules. Applying the 
lessons learned from NEI to develop a tailored, more hands -on approach, the Ad ministration 
announced in May 2014 a long -term strategic framework (NEI/NEXT) for continued export growth. 
The objectives of NEI/NEXT are to connect more US businesses to global customers, streamline 
export -related services and processes, expand access to finance, promote exports and FDI, and to 
assist developing economies in improving their business environment."  
1. Could the US provide more information on the NEI/NEXT's mechanism and its specific 
support activities to businesses as well as conditions, if an y, of those supports?  
RESPONSE: Publication of the National Export Strategy Report is anticipated for this month 
(December 2016). The Report describes all of the related support activities in detail. It will be 
available at: http:// www.trade.gov/publications .  
Question 2  
Section 3.2.5.2. Small Business Administration (SBA) Export Loan Programs  : (Page 75 , 
Para 3.161 )  
The report notes that "Applicants for SBA export loans must provide export business loans,  
including historical data, projections, and written information supporting the likelihood of increased 
export sales."  
2. Viet Nam would appreciate if the US could elaborate these conditions and procedures.  
RESPONSE: SBA guarantees commercial loans for smal l and medium enterprises (SMEs). 
Although SBA guaranteed business loan programs fall under section 7(a) of the Small Business 
Act, the names and allowable uses of proceeds vary depending on the programs. Three loan 
programs are directed at companies that e xport or will begin to export, as part of their business 
activities, although any SBA loan program can be used by companies that export in addition to 
selling into the domestic market. The interest rate on such loans is negotiated between the 
borrower and lender. A substantial fee is paid to SBA for the guaranty. The total cost of an SBA 
guaranteed loan is comparable to the cost of a commercial loan.  
Question 3  
Section 4.1.2 2014 Farm Act: (P age 107 , Para 4.5)  
The report notes that "The Agricultural Act of  2014, henceforth referred to as the 2014 Farm Act, 
was signed into law on 7 February 2014." Viet Nam notes that under the Section 12106 of the 
2014 Farm Bill, the inspection program for Siluriformes (which include pangasius, tra and basa) 
applies terrestr ial animal meat inspection procedures to only one type of aquatic animal. This 
regulation apparently is not based on any international standards or scientific risk assessment.  
3. Could the US provide clarification and justification on this matter?  
RESPONSE:  The final rule, which implements provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, was 
developed consistent with U.S. international trade obligations under the WTO Agreements, 
including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures . WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 413 - 
 
  Question 4  
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures (P age 54 , Para  3.73)  
The ITA uses two types of AD calculation methods: (i) market -economy (ME); and (ii) non -market 
economy (NME). In both cases, the ITA compares prices in the  United States to a normal value 
(NV). However, the determination of the NV varies according to whether the ITA is dealing with an 
ME or an NME. In ME calculations, the ITA bases NV on the company's actual costs and prices in 
the comparison market, which c an be either the home country of the respondent or another 
suitable third country. If the ITA does not find a suitable comparison market, it bases NV on the 
constructed value (CV) which is a cost -based build -up of a surrogate price. In NME AD calculations,  
NV is comprised of the company's factors of production valued in an appropriate surrogate country  
4. Could the U.S. elaborate on the compliance of the NME AD calculations with its obligations 
under the Antidumping Agreement?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. NME AD calcula tions are consistent with all U.S. obligations under the AD 
Agreement.  With respect to Vietnam, the United States would also note that paragraph 255 of 
Vietnam's Working Party Report states that WTO Members can "use a methodology that is not 
based on a str ict comparison with domestic prices or costs in Viet Nam if the producers under 
investigations cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry 
producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that pro duct."  
 
Question 5  
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures (Page 55 , Para 3.76) 
 …In determining whether revocation of an order or termination of a suspended investigation 
would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of du mping, the USDOC considers the margins 
established in the investigation and/or reviews conducted during the sunset review period, as well 
as the volume of imports for the periods before and after issuance of the order or acceptance of 
the suspension agreem ent. It may also consider other economic factors if interested parties can 
demonstrate good cause.  
5. Please give some examples of economic factors that USDOC considers in determining 
whether revocation of an order would likely lead to continuance or recurren ce of dumping. Give 
some examples of cases where USDOC did actually consider these factors.  
RESPONSE: The determinations in each sunset review conducted by Commerce are case -specific. 
The results for all sunset reviews can be found on Commerce 's website 
(http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ). From the re, Members can obtain, on a 
case-by-case basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation or termination of a 
countervailing  duty or an antidumping duty order.  
Question 6  
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures (Page 56, Para  3.78) 
….(iii) Section 504 amends sections 771(15) and 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, to modify the 
definition of ''ordinary course of trade'' and the provisions governing the treatment of a ''particular 
market situation'' in AD proceedings  
6. Please explain in detail the provisions governing the treatment of a "particular market 
situation". In what cases did the USDOC apply these provisions (give some examples).  
RESPONSE: The term "particular market situation" in 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677 and 1677b is also 
referenced in Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Any analysis of whether a particular 
market situation exists will depend on the facts and circumstances the administering authority has 
before it on the administrative record and will be consistent with Article 2.2. The United States has 
not yet made a determination that a "particular market situation" exists under the amended 
statutory provisions.   WT/TPR/M/350/Add.1  
 
- 414 - 
 
  Question 7  
Section 3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  (Page 57, Para 3.82)  
The USDOC also decided to continue not to apply its withdrawn targeted dumping regulations in 
less-than-fair-value investigations and  to continue to determine whether to apply an alternative 
comparison method as appropriate based upon the particular facts in each case . 
7. The Appellate Body has recently issued determinations about the approach of applying 
alternative comparison method in a  stricter manner. Please indicate whether the USDOC's 
approach will follow that recommendation . 
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes the obligation of WTO Members to act in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreements and Members ' schedules of commitments . Where the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopts a panel or Appellate Body report, which includes a finding 
that a measure implemented by a Member is not in conformity with a WTO Agreement, including 
commitments scheduled thereunder, that Member should  bring the challenged measure into 
conformity in accordance with provisions of the DSU and other WTO Agreements. In Washers from 
Korea (DS464), the only dispute where the DSB has adopted panel and Appellate Body reports 
referencing "targeted dumping, " the United States has stated that it intends to implement the DSB 
recommendations in a manner consistent with U.S. WTO obligations.  
Question 8  
Section 4. WTO Agreements and Initiatives (Page 13, Para  4.5) 
On 14 September 2016, the United States and 12 other WT O members announced their intent to 
negotiate a plurilateral fisheries subsidies agreement to address the urgent challenges facing 
global fisheries. Our goal is to eliminate harmful subsidies, including those subsidies that 
contribute to overfishing and ov ercapacity, and subsidies linked to illegal, unreported and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing.  
8. Viet Nam is concerned that such agreement would have a significant impact on its exports 
to the U.S. market. Therefore, could the U.S. provide more detailed information on the status of 
implementation?  
RESPONSE: As set out in the September 14, 2016 Joint Statement, the United States and other 
participants in the plurilateral Fisheries Subsidies Agreement (FSA) negotiations are seeking to 
negotiate an ambitious, high stand ard agreement, with the goal of eliminating harmful fisheries 
subsidies, including those subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, and subsidies 
linked to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We will also seek to strengthen the rep orting 
and transparency of fisheries subsidies, and enhance cooperation to help developing countries to 
build their capacity to implement these types of subsidy disciplines. At the same time, we will 
continue to work with all WTO Members to make progress t oward a multilateral outcome in the 
WTO. We believe this plurilateral initiative will provide new momentum on an issue that has 
long-stalled in the WTO, primarily because of linkages to unrelated issues that some WTO 
Members have made. The agreement has no t yet been negotiated. Participants in the FSA are 
aiming to conclude an agreement by MC11. The Joint Statement is available at:  
https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -office/press -releases/2016/september/obama -
administration -undertaking . 
Question 9  
Section 7. Trade and the Environment (Page 28, Para  7.8) 
In June 2014, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum on Combating Illegal Fishing and 
Seafood Fraud. The memorandum established a Presidential Task Force that developed a 
comprehensive framework to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and 
seafood fraud, which is outlined in the Action Plan on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and 
Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Action Plan), released in March 2015. The Action 
Plan specifically calls for the United States to seek commitments from U.S. trading partners to 
combat IUU fishing and elimi nate harmful fisheries subsidies, such as those that go to illegal 
fishers. The TPP Environment  WT/TPR/M/3 50/Add.1  
 
- 415 - 
 
  Chapter includes commitments in this areas, and the United States is seeking similar commitments 
in the T -TIP negotiations.  
9. Could the United States provide furt her details on such policy in particular how to deal with 
seafood fraud as well as on the capacity building program to assist foreign nations in combating 
IUU fishing and seafood fraud?  
RESPONSE:  On December  9, 2016,  NOAA  Fisheries  published  a final rule for establishing  a 
Seafood  Import  Monitoring  Program  that will establish  permitting,  data reporting,  and 
record -keeping  requirements  relating  to the importation  of certain  priority  fish and fish products  
identified  as being  particularly  vulnerable  to IUU fishing  and/or  seafood  fraud.  The Rule can be 
found  here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/09/2016 -29324/seafood -import -
monitori ng-program . The rule addresses  seafood  fraud by requiring  the reporting  and 
recordkeeping  of catch  and chain  of custody  information  so that there  is a verifiable  chain  of 
documents  that proves  that seafood  entering  the U.S. market  is not misrepresented.   
Subject  to the availability  of resources,  NOAA  and the broader  U.S. Government  intend  to provide  
assistance  to exporting  nations  and domestic  imports  to support  compliance  with the requirements  
of the rule, including  providing  assistance  to build capacity  to: (1) undertake  effective  fisheries  
management;  2) strengthen  fisheries  governance  structures  and enforcement  bodies  to combat  
IUU fishing  and seafood  fraud;  and (3) establish,  maintain,  or support  systems  to enable  export  
shipments  of fish and fish products to be traced  back to point of harvest.  U.S. Government  
priorities  for capacity  building  are identified  in a Strategic  Action  Plan for Building  International  
Capacity  to Strengthen  Fisheries  Management  and Combat  IUU Fishing  (See: 
https://bit.ly/NOCCIUUcapacity ). 
__________