WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1
13 March 2015
(15-1447)  Page: 1/174
Trade Policy Review Body  
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
UNITED STATES  
Revision 
This report, prepared for the 12th Trade Policy Review of the United States, has been drawn up by 
the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility. The Secretariat has, as required by the Agreement 
establishing the Trade Policy Review Mech anism (Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization), sought clarification from the United States on its trade policies and practices.  
Any technical questions arising from this report may be addressed to Denby Probst 
(tel: 022/739 5847), Pierre Latrille (tel: 022/739 5266), Ricardo Barba (tel: 022/739 5088), Thomas Friedheim (tel: 022/739 5083), Michael Kolie (tel: 022/739 5931), and Raymundo Valdés 
(tel: 022/739 5346). 
 Document WT/TPR/G/307 contains the policy statement submitted by the United States. 
 
 
Note: This report was drafted in English. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 2 - 
 
  CONTENTS 
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 10 
1   ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 13  
1.1   Main features  of the economy .................................................................................... 13 
1.2   Recent econom ic developments .................................................................................. 13 
1.3   Policy  measur es ....................................................................................................... 16 
1.4   Outlook ................................................................................................................... 17 
1.5   Trade Performance ................................................................................................... 17 
1.5.1   Trad e in goods ...................................................................................................... 17 
1.5.2   Trade in services ................................................................................................... 20 
1.6   Foreign Dire ct Invest ment ......................................................................................... 22 
2   TRADE AND INVE STMENT RE GIME ............................................................................ 25  
2.1   Genera l Framework .................................................................................................. 25 
2.1.1   Trade prom otion auth ority ...................................................................................... 25 
2.1.2   Role of the private se ctor and other stakeholders ....................................................... 26 
2.1.3   New developments ................................................................................................. 28 
2.1.3.1   Interagency Tr ade Enforcemen t Center .................................................................. 28 
2.1.3.2   Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking ........................................................................... 28 
2.1.3.3   Comprehensive Framework to Comb at Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 
Fishing and Se afood Fraud ................................................................................................ 29 
2.2   Trade Poli cy Objectives ............................................................................................. 29 
2.3   Trade Agreements and Arrangements .......................................................................... 29 
2.3.1   Participat ion in the WTO ......................................................................................... 29 
2.3.2   Regional and pr eferential agreements ....................................................................... 30 
2.3.2.1   Reciprocal trade agreements ................................................................................. 31 
2.3.2.2   Unilateral pr eferential regimes .............................................................................. 32 
2.3.2.2.1   African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) ......................................................... 34 
2.3.2.2.2   Generalized Syst em of Preferences (GSP) ............................................................ 34 
2.3.2.2.3   Caribbean Basin Economic Reco very Act (CBERA) and the U.S.-Caribbean 
Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), incl uding the HOPE and HELP amendments ..................... 35 
2.3.2.2.4   Andean Trade Preference Act as  amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and 
Drug Eradication Ac t (ATPA/ATPDEA) .................................................................................. 35 
2.3.2.2.5   Other unilateral preferences ............................................................................... 36 
2.3.3   Other agreements and arrangements ........................................................................ 36 
2.3.3.1   Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement ..................................................................... 36 
2.4   Investment Flows and Regime .................................................................................... 36 
2.4.1   Investment agreements .......................................................................................... 37 
2.4.2   Investme nt promotion ............................................................................................ 38 
2.4.3   Investment regulations and restrictions ..................................................................... 39 
2.4.3.1   The Committee on Foreign Inve stment in the United States (CFIUS) ........................... 39 
2.4.3.2   National Industrial Security Program (NISP) ............................................................ 39 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4.3.3   Other investment  laws or re strictio ns ..................................................................... 40 
3   TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE ........................................................ 42  
3.1   Measures Direct ly Affectin g Imports ............................................................................ 42 
3.1.1   Customs procedur es and requirements ..................................................................... 42 
3.1.1.1   Trade facilitation measures ................................................................................... 43 
3.1.1.1.1   Single window.................................................................................................. 43 
3.1.1.1.2   Border Interagenc y Executive Counc il (BIEC) ....................................................... 43 
3.1.1.1.3   Advance rulings ............................................................................................... 44 
3.1.1.1.4   Simplified Entr y Pilot/ACE Ca rgo Release ............................................................. 44 
3.1.1.1.5   Trusted Trader Programs ................................................................................... 44 
3.1.1.1.5.1   Customs-Trade Partne rship Against Terro rism (C-TPAT) ...................................... 44 
3.1.1.1.5.2   Importer Self-Assessment Program (ISA) .......................................................... 45 
3.1.1.1.5.3   Free and Secure Trade System (FAST) .............................................................. 45 
3.1.1.1.5.4   Trusted Trader Program Test ........................................................................... 46 
3.1.1.2   Import security initiatives ..................................................................................... 46 
3.1.1.2.1   Container Secu rity Initiati ve (CSI) ...................................................................... 46 
3.1.1.2.2   Secure Frei ght Initiati ve (S FI) ............................................................................ 47 
3.1.1.3   Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) .................................................................................. 47 
3.1.2   Custom s valuation ................................................................................................. 47 
3.1.3   Rules of origin .......................................................................................................  48 
3.1.3.1   Non-preferential ................................................................................................. 48 
3.1.3.2   Preferential ........................................................................................................  48 
3.1.3.3   Country- of-origin marking .................................................................................... 49 
3.1.3.4   Certification of origin ........................................................................................... 49 
3.1.4   Tariffs ............................................................................................................... ... 49 
3.1.4.1   No menclatu re ..................................................................................................... 49 
3.1.4.2   Applied rates ...................................................................................................... 50 
3.1.4.3   Bindings ............................................................................................................  52 
3.1.4.4   Tariff rate qu otas ................................................................................................ 52 
3.1.5   Other charge s affecting imports ............................................................................... 52 
3.1.5.1   Customs user fees ............................................................................................... 52 
3.1.5.1.1   Merchand ise Processi ng Fee ............................................................................... 52 
3.1.5.1.2   COBRA fees ..................................................................................................... 52 
3.1.5.1.3   Harbor Maintenance Tax .................................................................................... 53 
3.1.5.1.4   Agriculture fees ................................................................................................ 53 
3.1.5.2   Ex cise taxes ....................................................................................................... 54 
3.1.6   Import prohibitions, restrictions, an d licensing ........................................................... 56 
3.1.6.1   Prohibitions and restrictions .................................................................................. 56 
3.1.6.2   Import licensing .................................................................................................. 58 
3.1.6.3   Sanctions, controls, or special procedures ............................................................... 60 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.1.7   Anti-dumping, countervai ling, and safegu ard measures ............................................... 61 
3.1.7.1   Anti-dumping and countervailing duties .................................................................. 61 
3.1.7.2   Sunset reviews ................................................................................................... 64 
3.1.7.3   Safeguards ........................................................................................................ 65 
3.1.8   Technical regu lations and standards ......................................................................... 65 
3.1.9   Sanitary and phyt osanitary requ irements .................................................................. 68 
3.1.9.1   Food and Drug Administration ............................................................................... 68 
3.1.9.2   Food Safety and Inspection  Service ....................................................................... 68 
3.1.9.3   Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................................................. 69 
3.1.9.4   Environmenta l Protection Agency .......................................................................... 69 
3.2   Measures Directly Affecting Exports ............................................................................. 69 
3.2.1   Export procedur es and requirements ........................................................................ 69 
3.2.2   Export taxes, charges, an d levies ............................................................................. 71 
3.2.3   Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing ............................................................ 71 
3.2.3.1   Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative ................................................................... 73 
3.2.4   Export suppo rt and pr omotion ................................................................................. 74 
3.2.4.1   Structures .......................................................................................................... 74 
3.2.4.1.1   Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) and National Export 
Strategy ...................................................................................................................... ... 74 
3.2.4.1.2   President's Export Counc il (PEC) ......................................................................... 75 
3.2.4.1.3   Export Promotion Cabinet .................................................................................. 75 
3.2.4.2   National Export In itiative (NEI) and NEI/ NEXT ......................................................... 75 
3.2.4.3   Export Trade Promotion Activi ties of U.S. Government Departments ........................... 75 
3.2.4.4   U.S. Trade and De velopment Agen cy (USTDA) ........................................................ 76 
3.2.5   Export finance, insurance, gu arantees ...................................................................... 76 
3.2.5.1   Export-Impor t Bank (Ex- Im Bank) ......................................................................... 76 
3.2.5.2   Overseas Private In vestment Corpor ation (OPIC) ..................................................... 77 
3.3   Measures Affectin g Production and Trade ..................................................................... 78 
3.3.1   In centives ............................................................................................................  78 
3.3.2   Subsidies and othe r government assistan ce ............................................................... 79 
3.3.3   Competition policy ................................................................................................. 80 
3.3.4   State trading, state-owned en terprises ..................................................................... 83 
3.3.5   Governme nt procurement ....................................................................................... 84 
3.3.5.1   Overview ........................................................................................................... 84 
3.3.5.2   Procedures ......................................................................................................... 85 
3.3.5.3   Foreign participation ............................................................................................ 86 
3.3.6   Intellectual property rights ...................................................................................... 88 
3.3.6.1   Trade context ..................................................................................................... 88 
3.3.6.2   Participation in WTO and international initiatives ...................................................... 91 
3.3.6.3   The pa tent sy stem .............................................................................................. 93 
3.3.6.4   Trade secret protection ........................................................................................ 94 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.3.6.5   Copyright ........................................................................................................... 95 
3.3.6.6   Regist ered designs .............................................................................................. 97 
3.3.6.7   IP enforcement ................................................................................................... 98 
4   TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR ................................................................................... 100  
4.1   Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 100 
4.1.1   Agricultur al Act of  2014 ........................................................................................ 100  
4.1.1.1   Overview ......................................................................................................... 10 0 
Crop sector  ................................................................................................................... 101  
Livestock sector  ............................................................................................................. 102  
4.1.1.2   Title I (Commodities) ......................................................................................... 104  
4.1.1.2.1   Elimination of direct pa yments ......................................................................... 104  
4.1.1.2.2   Price Loss Coverage ........................................................................................ 104  
4.1.1.2.3   Agriculture Risk Coverage ................................................................................ 106  
4.1.1.2.4   Marketin g loan prog ramme .............................................................................. 106  
4.1.1.2.5   Sugar ........................................................................................................... 1 07 
4.1.1.2.6   Dairy ............................................................................................................ 108 
Elimination of the Dairy Product Price Support Program  ....................................................... 108  
Elimination of the Dairy Export Incentive Program  .............................................................. 108  
Elimination of the Milk Income Loss Contract Program  ......................................................... 108  
Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers  ................................................................... 108  
Dairy Product Donation Program  ...................................................................................... 109  
Other Dairy Programmes  ................................................................................................ 109  
4.1.1.2.7   Supplemental agricultural  disaster assist ance prog ram ........................................ 109  
4.1.1.2.8   Eligibility criteria ............................................................................................ 1 10 
Payment limitations ........................................................................................................ 110  
Adjusted gross income limitation  ...................................................................................... 110  
4.1.1.3   Title II (Conservat ion) ....................................................................................... 110  
4.1.1.4   Titl e III (Tra de) ................................................................................................ 11 1 
4.1.1.4.1   Food aid ........................................................................................................ 111  
4.1.1.4.2   Export cr edit guarantees ................................................................................. 112  
4.1.1.4.3   Export promotion ........................................................................................... 112  
4.1.1.5   Title IV (Nutrition) ............................................................................................. 112  
4.1.1.6   Title V (Credit) .................................................................................................. 112  
4.1.1.7   Title VI (R ural Development) .............................................................................. 113  
4.1.1.8   Title IX (Energ y) ............................................................................................... 113  
4.1.1.9   Title X (Horticulture) .......................................................................................... 114  
4.1.1.10   Title XI (Crop Insura nce) .................................................................................. 114  
4.1.1.10.1   Overview ..................................................................................................... 114  
4.1.1.10.2   Supplemental Coverage Option ....................................................................... 115  
4.1.1.10.3   Stacked Income Protection Plan for Producers of Upland Cotton ........................... 115  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.1.1.11   Title XII (Miscellan eous) ................................................................................... 115  
4.1.1.11.1   Non-insured crop  disaster a ssistance  ............................................................... 115  
4.1.2   Agricultural tariffs and tariff rate  quotas .................................................................. 115  
4.1.3   Level of support ................................................................................................... 116  
4.2   Services ................................................................................................................  117 
4.2.1   Financial services ................................................................................................. 117  
4.2.1.1   Main features ................................................................................................... 117  
4.2.1.2   Recent developments ........................................................................................ 118  
4.2.1.3   Other policy actions ........................................................................................... 121  
4.2.2   Telecom ............................................................................................................. 1 22 
4.2.2.1   Recent developments ........................................................................................ 122  
4.2.2.2   Legal and inst itutional framework ........................................................................ 123  
4.2.2.3   Polic y actions ................................................................................................... 12 4 
4.2.3   Audiovisual services ............................................................................................. 127  
4.2.3.1   Statistical overview ........................................................................................... 127  
4.2.3.2   Trade regu latory re gimes ................................................................................... 132  
4.2.3.2.1   GATS  commitments ........................................................................................ 132  
4.2.3.2.2   FTA commitments .......................................................................................... 133  
4.2.3.2.3   Applied regime ............................................................................................... 133  
4.2.4   Health, medical and medical insurance services ........................................................ 136  
4.2.4.1   Statistical overview ........................................................................................... 136  
4.2.4.2   Regulatory regime ............................................................................................. 137  
4.2.4.2.1   Recent development in the general regulato ry framework .................................... 137  
4.2.4.2.2   Regulato ry trade re gimes ................................................................................ 138  
4.2.4.2.2.1   GATS  commitments ..................................................................................... 138  
4.2.4.2.2.2   FTAs  commitments ...................................................................................... 139  
4.2.4.2.2.3   Applied regime ............................................................................................ 139  
4.2.5   Maritime  transport ............................................................................................... 141  
4.2.5.1   Recent developments ........................................................................................ 141  
4.2.5.2   Institutional and legal framework ........................................................................ 141  
4.2.5.3   Polic y actions ................................................................................................... 14 3 
REFERENC ES ................................................................................................................ 145  
5   APPENDIX TABLES .................................................................................................. 150  
 
CHARTS 
 Chart 1.1 Value added by industry, 2013 ............................................................................. 13
 
Chart 1.2 Contributions to percent ch ange in real GD P, 2008 Q1- 14 Q2 ................................... 14 
Chart 1.3 U.S. current account an d net financial flows, 2006-13  ............................................. 15 
Chart 1.4 U.S. current account and o il products trade,  2010 Q1-13 Q4 .................................... 16 
Chart 1.5 Merchandise trade,  by product,  2012 and 2013 ...................................................... 18 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.6 Merchandise trade, by main origin and destinat ion, 2012 an d 2013 ........................... 19 
Chart 1.7 Foreign direct investment  into the United  States, 2008-13 ....................................... 23 
Chart 1.8 Direct investment position  by selected part ners, 2008 an d 2013 ............................... 24 
Chart 2.1 Overview of Tr ade Promotion Authority ................................................................. 26 
Chart 2.2 Imports, by import regi me, 2013  ......................................................................... 31 
Chart 2.3 Preferential  imports,  2006-13  .............................................................................. 32 
Chart 2.4 Unilateral pref erential impo rts, 2006-13 ................................................................ 33 
Chart 2.5 Dutiable lines eligible for unilateral preferences, by regime  and HS se ction, 2014 ........ 33 
Chart 3.1 The U.S. import process ...................................................................................... 42 
Chart 3.2 Rules-of-o rigin procedure .................................................................................... 48 
Chart 3.3 Frequency distribution  of MFN tariff  rates,  2014...................................................... 51 
Chart 3.4 Anti-dumping investigatio ns initiated by region, 2010-14  ......................................... 62 
Chart 3.5 Anti-dumping investigatio ns initiated by product, 2010-14  ....................................... 63 
Chart 3.6 Countervailing measures  initiated by region, 2010-14 ............................................. 63 
Chart 3.7 Countervailing measures  initiated by product,  2010- 14 ........................................... 64 
Chart 3.8 Overview of sunset reviews, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, 
2007-1 4 ....................................................................................................................... .. 65 
Chart 3.9 Trade flows in royalt ies and licence fees, 2 009-13  .................................................. 89 
Chart 3.10 IP licence and royalty receipts, by af filiation , 2006- 12 ........................................... 90 
Chart 4.1 Projected outlays under the 2014 Farm Bill, fisca l years 2014 -18 ............................ 100  
Chart 4.2 Crop insurance subsidies and other farm safety net payments ................................ 101  
Chart 4.3 Level and composition of support to agricultural producers ..................................... 117  
Chart 4.4 Motion picture stud io revenue stre ams, 2011  ....................................................... 129  
 
TABLES 
 Table 1.1 Commercial services exports, by type, 2010-13 ...................................................... 20
 
Table 1.2 Commercial services  imports, by  type, 2010-13 ...................................................... 21 
Table 1.3 U.S. commercial services exports (modes 1, 2, and 4), by destination, 2010-12 .......... 21 
Table 1.4 Commercial services imports (mod es 1, 2, and 4), by origin , 2010-12  ....................... 22 
Table 2.1 Overview of the Trade Advisory Committee System ................................................. 26 
Table 2.2 The Investment Agreements Framework ................................................................ 37 
Table 2.3 Overview of CFIUS covered tr ansactions by country, top 10, 2010-12 ........................ 39 
Table 2.4 Foreign invest ment restri ctions ............................................................................ 40 
Table 3.1 Changes to Preferential Ru les of Origin, J une 2012-July  2014 ................................... 49 
Table 3.2 Structure of the tariff schedules, selected yearsa ..................................................... 50 
Table 3.3 COBRA fees ....................................................................................................... 52 
Table 3.4 Agricultural fees ................................................................................................. 53 
Table 3.5 Federal Excise Taxes .......................................................................................... 55 
Table 3.6 Prohibitions, restrictions , or other special requirements ........................................... 56 
Table 3.7 Products subjec t to import licensing ...................................................................... 58 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Table 3.8 Anti-dumping and countervailing du ty measures, by trad ing partner,  2010-13 ............ 61 
Table 3.9 Items subject to export re strictions, controls , or licensing ........................................ 71 
Table 3.10 Commerce Control List (CCL) and U.S. Munitions List (USML) ................................. 72 
Table 3.11 Main Changes to Export Administ ration Regulations, July 2012-J une 2014 ................ 74 
Table 3.12 Specific government progra mmes supporting expo rt activities ................................ 76 
Table 3.13 Ex-Im Bank authorizatio ns, 2011- 13 ................................................................... 77 
Table 3.14 Overview of OPIC activi ties, 2011-13 .................................................................. 78 
Table 3.15 Federal subsidy programmes, 2012 ..................................................................... 80 
Table 3.16 Exemptions from federal competition legislation .................................................... 81 
Table 3.17 U.S. cooperation agreem ents on compet ition ma tters ............................................ 82 
Table 3.18 U.S. Memoranda of underst anding on compet ition matters ..................................... 82 
Table 3.19 U.S. regional agreements containing compet ition chapters ..................................... 82 
Table 3.20 Government-sponsored enterprises ..................................................................... 84 
Table 3.21 Services excluded by the United States from trade agreements ............................... 87 
Table 3.22 Thresholds for the application of trade agreements, 2014 ....................................... 88 
Table 3.23 Summary of intellectual property pr otection in the Unit ed States, May 2014 ............. 92 
Table 4.1 Overview of ma in programme changes in  the 2014 Fa rm Bill .................................. 102 
Table 4.2 Key domestic support prog rammes ..................................................................... 104  
Table 4.3 Reallocation of base acreage .............................................................................. 105  
Table 4.4 Selected telecommuni cations indicato rs, 2009-1 3 ................................................. 122  
Table 4.5 Imports and exports of audiovisual serv ices, 2010- 12 ........................................... 127  
Table 4.6 Film and television tape dist ribution, top 10 tradin g partners , 2012 ......................... 128  
Table 4.7 Inward and outward foreign a ffiliates statistics (FATS), 2009 -11 ............................. 128  
Table 4.8 Motion picture production and distribution services, 2010 and 2011 ......................... 128  
Table 4.9 Main economic indicators of th e TV and video programming subsector ..................... 129  
Table 4.10 Non-exhaustive inventory of state-level support schemes for the production of 
films and television  programs , 2013 ................................................................................. 134  
Table 4.11 Health-related travel : imports and ex ports, 2010-12 ........................................... 137  
Table 4.12 Inward and outward foreign affiliates trade sales and value added employment 
for health and social wo rk activiti es, 2009- 11..................................................................... 137  
Table 4.13 Main economic indicators for the U.S. health insurance sector ............................... 137  
Table 4.14 Subsidies granted by the Department  of Health and Human Services by type, 
fiscal year  2014  ............................................................................................................. 140 
Table 4.15 Main support programmes to US maritime transport ............................................ 143  
 
BOXES 
 
Box 3.1 Trusted Trade Program Test ................................................................................... 46 
Box 4.1 Telecoms Universal Service and Intercarrier Compen sation Re forms .......................... 125  
Box 4.2 Main economic indicators of the radio subsector ...................................................... 131  
Box 4.3 Main economic indicators of the sound-recording/recorded-music subsector ................ 131  
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 9 - 
 
  APPENDIX TABLES 
 Table A1. 1 Merchandise exports and re-exp orts by groups of products, 2008-13 .................... 150
 
Table A1. 2 Merchandise imports by  groups of prod ucts, 2008- 13 ......................................... 152  
Table A1. 3 Merchandise exports and re-e xports by trading partner, 2008-13 ......................... 154  
Table A1. 4 Merchandise imports by trading part ner, 2008- 13 .............................................. 156  
 
Table A2.1 U.S. Involvement in dispute settl ement cases, 1 July 2012-30 June 2014, .............. 158  
Table A2.2 Selected notifications to the WTO, 1 July 2012-30 June 2014 ................................ 161  
Table A2.3 Eligibility coverage, U.S. unilateral tr ade preferences, status as of 30 June 2014 ..... 164  
 
Table A3. 1 Summary analysis of the MFN tariff, 2014 ......................................................... 169  
 
Table A4. 1 Main features of the Price Loss Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage 
Programmes, Agricult ural Act of 2014 ............................................................................... 171  
Table A4. 2 Commodity loan rates and Price Loss Coverage reference prices, Agricultural 
Act of  2014 ...................................................................................................................  172 
Table A4. 3 Main provisions of  the Affordable  Care Act ........................................................ 173  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 10 - 
 
  SUMMARY 
1. The U.S. economy has largely recovered from the recession of 2007-09. GDP growth has 
been steady albeit downsized by weaker import d e mand  in the  EU marke t. During  m os t of the 
review period, private consumption, the main component of U.S. GDP,  continued to expand 
steadily as the labour market improved, personal  disposable income grew, and household wealth 
invigorated as a consequence of rising stock and home prices. Private domestic investments and exports also performed well and determined the overall positive growth performance.  
2. The recent boom in shale oil and gas production in the United States has affected various 
aspects of the economy. It has lowered energy pr ices and has contributed to lowering production 
costs in the manufacturing sector, which has become an important job provider. The current account deficit improved to a four-year low in 2013 as a consequence of an important reduction in 
the oil trade deficit, which accounts for nearly half of the total deficit in trade in goods and 
services. While merchandise trade continued to expand during the review period, and exports grew to an all-time high in 2013, imports decreased for the first time in five years. The United States 
remains the world's leading services exporter, and its positive trade balance rose during the review 
period. 
3. Macroeconomic policies continued to actively support the U.S. economy with a view to 
boosting economic growth and unemployment. Step s were taken to correct the large fiscal deficit 
caused by expansionary policies that prevailed during the recession; and although unconventional 
monetary policies continued to be implemented, the Fed announced in December 2013 that it would start scaling down its quantitative easing measures. 
4. The United States remained the world's largest single recipient of foreign direct investment, 
although inflows have declined over the last tw o years. In order to counteract this trend, the 
government maintains or continues to develop programmes to promote foreign investment. The 
2011 SelectUSA programme continues to serve as the centralized hub to attract and retain 
investment, and the 2012 "Make it in America" programme is designed to accelerate insourcing, i.e. bring back investments and jobs. 
5. One of the most significant trade policy developments during the review period was the 
enactment of the new Farm Bill on 7 February 2014. This is a considerable change in agriculture policy for some commodities. Two long-standing pi llars of dairy market support – price supports 
and export subsidies - have been removed. The new Farm Bill eliminates the decoupled direct 
payments system, a cornerstone of U.S. agricult ural policy since the end of the Uruguay Round 
negotiations, and reforms the price-based and revenue-based commodity support programmes. The new Farm Bill moves from decoupled payments towards deficiency-payment-type instruments 
linked to current prices, such as the new Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage 
programmes. The 2014 Farm Bill also continues a long-term policy shift from the traditional 
commodity, conservation, and disaster payments towards subsidized crop insurance. 
6. While there have been no major changes in th e United States' main trade policy framework 
some initiatives have been put in place by th e Administration to improve trade enforcement, 
through the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, and to combat wildlife trafficking and fishing fraud, through the establishment of task forces and related policies or strategies. Trade promotion 
authority remains lapsed, since 2007. Although Congress made some efforts during the review 
period to reauthorize it, no legislation has been enacted to date.  
7. The United States continues to conduct the majority of its trade under MFN treatment; but 
approximately 22% of imports enter through FTA or unilateral preferential regimes. Imports 
entering through FTAs rose slightly during th e review period, while those entering through 
unilateral preferential programmes declined, in part due the expiry of GSP, as well as the 
ATPA/ATPDEA, in July 2013. To date, Congress has not reauthorized these programmes, and no 
new FTAs were concluded during the review period. 
8. In terms of policies affecting imports, developments on trade facilitating measures include 
the gradual implementation of a single window  application, expansion of simplified entry 
programmes, and new or expanded trusted trader programmes. Regarding import prohibitions or 
restrictions, a few new measures were implemen ted during the review period. The legal and WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 11 - 
 
  regulatory frameworks for tariffs, rules of origin, import licensing, customs valuation, and other 
charges on imports remained unchanged during the review period. 
9. Developments relating to exports include the on-going Export Control Reform (ECR) 
initiative, which aims to create a new export control system including a single control agency and a 
unified control list; and the creation of the NEI/ NEXT programme, as a successor to the National 
Export Initiative, to provide a strategic framewor k to continue to support and promote exports. 
The United States continues to maintain a number of agencies or programmes to support exports 
such as the Ex-Im Bank for export credit and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for 
development financing. 
10. The regulatory regime for trade remedies remained relatively unchanged during the review 
period with the exception of four changes relati ng to targeted dumping regulations, internal 
regulations relating to submissions, selection of respondents in administrative review proceedings, 
and a change in practice regarding non-market economies. Anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
investigations were on the upswing, with a signific ant rise in 2013, in particular on steel products. 
Safeguards, on the other hand, remained dormant with no changes to policy and no investigations 
launched. 
11. The United States is currently reviewing its TB T regulatory practices with respect to the use 
of voluntary consensus standards in technical regulations and federal procurement. The FDA Food 
Safety Modernization Act, a major reform of legislation on food safety and the safety of animal feed, entered into force in 2011, and the FDA is in  the process of developing the regulations to 
implement some of the key elements of this new law. 
12. The United States maintained its preeminent position in IP-related trade, as evidenced from 
its receipts of royalties and licence fees, which comprised 43% of the global total in 2012. While 
the U.S. intellectual property industry is among the world's most mature and well established, the 
dynamic character of intellectual property in the United States' economy led to various 
developments during the review period, includ ing 21 legislative changes, patent regulatory 
reforms, a strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U. S. Trade Secrets, and the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan 
on Intellectual Property Enforcement. 
13. The services sector continues to play an impo rtant role in the U.S. economy, and several 
services sectors underwent reforms during the re view period. A number of enhanced prudential 
standards on financial services have been established, including on liquidity, risk management, 
and capital, to strengthen the supervision and regulation of financial institutions. Under the new 
rules, foreign banks with U.S. assets of at least US$50 billion are required to establish intermediate holding companies for their U.S. financial operations and to meet, with some 
exceptions, the same capital, liquidity, and othe r standards as U.S. bank holding companies of 
comparable size. Domestic banks will need to co mply by 1 January 2015, and foreign banks will be 
required to do so by 1 July 2016. U.S. financial firms in general have strengthened their position 
over the last few years. Nonetheless, more progress  is needed in some areas, including on "too big 
to fail" banks, which receive an implicit subsidy of about US$70 billion. 
14. During the review period, the United States eliminated the International Settlements Policy 
in order to modernize its international telephony rules, further lower the price for international 
calls, and increase competition. Measures have also been taken to reform the universal service and 
inter-carrier compensation systems to make available affordable voice and broadband services, both fixed and mobile. Moreover, new Open Internet  rules are expected to be adopted by the end 
of 2014, with the aim of enhancing transparency, reinstating the no-blocking rule with certain 
clarifications, and requiring fixed (and potentially mobile) broadband providers to ensure that their 
practices are commercially reasonable.  
15. The institutional and legal framework for maritime transport has not changed over the last 
few years. Cabotage of goods and passengers cont inues to be restricted by Section 27 of the 
Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act). The United States finances various maritime security programmes designed to protect the U.S.-flagged fleet and shipyards, such as the Maritime 
Security Programme. Port infrastructure projects are also eligible for support. The United States 
aims to address port congestion by doubling the cargo-handling capacity in every major port by 2020. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 12 - 
 
  16. The United States is by far the largest market for health services with total spending of over 
US$2.5 trillion in 2010. Private spending was ab out US$1.2 trillion, and per capita spending 
approximately US$8,000. The health insurance market is also the largest in the world as it ensures and finances a proportionally much larger share of the health expenditures than in other developed 
countries where public social security systems dominate. The main recent regulatory development 
is the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care  Act, whose provisions are scheduled to enter 
into force between 2010 and 2015. It is intended to considerably enlarge the number of persons 
covered and to improve the conditions of coverage  for all insured individuals. It will therefore 
affect supply and demand of healthcare and health insurance services, and hence have an impact on trade. The United States is one of the few WTO Members with significant GATS commitments on health services. 
17. The U.S. audiovisual industry is the largest in the world, with revenues (2011) of about 
US$46 billion for the motion picture production and distribution segment, US$161 billion for the 
television segment (including broadcast television stations, cable TV, satellite TV, and online video 
distribution), US$18 billion for the radio segment, and US$8 billion for the music segment (record 
production and distribution). Exports largely exceed  imports, as do outward foreign affiliate sales 
(sales by U.S. subsidiaries established abroad) co mpared to inward foreign trade affiliates sales. 
The trade relevant aspect of audiovisual services is fairly stable and the only major development 
during the review period was the relaxation by  the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) of 
the foreign ownership policy scheduled under the GATS and FTA commitments.  
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1  ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.1  Main features of the economy 1.1.  The United States' nominal GDP was estimated at US$16.8 trillion in 2013, making it the 
world's largest single economy. Well-developed in frastructure, high factor productivity, and a 
sound business environment contribute to its growing and diversified economy. Commercial 
services are the main contributor to its output, with an estimated contribution of 65% of GDP (Chart 1.1). 
Chart 1.1 Value added by industry, 2013 
Gross domestic product: US$16,800 b illionGovernt
13.0%
Other services
19.4%Federal
4.2%
Educational, health care
8.3%Manufacturing
12.4%
Retail trade
5.7%Utilities
1.7%
Private industries
87.0%
Finance, insurance, 
real estate
19.6%State & local
8.9%Construction
3.6%
Professional & business 
services
11.9%Agri., forestry, 
fishing & hunting
1.6%Mining
2.7%
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) online information. 
1.2.  The United States remains one of the world's largest manufacturers, with manufacturing 
value added of US$2.1 trillion in 2013.1 Main industries include petroleum, steel, automobiles, 
construction, machinery, aerospace, agricultural machinery, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, and food processing. 
1.2  Recent economic developments 
1.3.  The U.S. economy has largely recovered from recession. During the review period, real GDP 
continued to grow, driven by buoyant personal consumption expenditures, which represented over 
60% of national expenditures. Private domestic investments and exports have also contributed to 
the recent performance (Chart 1.2). 
1.4.  The economy has suffered from major adverse events such as Hurricane Sandy, which was 
estimated to have contributed to lower real GDP gr owth in the fourth quarter of 2012. In addition, 
the drought in the Midwest was estimated to have  lowered real GDP growth in the second and 
third quarters of 2012.
2 However, rebuilding activities are likely to support subsequent economic 
growth. 
                                               
1 Bureau of Economic Analysis, online information. Viewed at: 
http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm ?ReqID=1#reqid=51&step=2&isuri=1 . 
2 The White House (2013b). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Chart 1.2 Contributions to percent change in real GDP, 2008 Q1-14 Q2 
(Percentage point) 
 
-15-10-50510
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Personal consumption expenditures Gross private domestic investment
Total GDP growthExports of goods & services Imports of goods & services
Government consumption & gross investment
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Econom ic Analysis (BEA) online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov . 
1.5.  Export growth has slowed in recent years. Since first quarter 2012, the volume of exports of 
goods and services has risen at less than 2%, as a consequence of weak global economic growth 
and, specifically, the effects of fiscal consolidation in Europe which slowed the European economies and import demand.  
1.6.  Growth in compensation of employees, in co mbination with moderate inflation (nearly 2% in 
2012 and 2013), due to a drop in energy price in flation, has substantially increased personal 
disposable income - a key determinant of private consumption. The extension in January 2011 of the payroll tax cut under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
Creation Act also played a significant part in  supporting private spending. Household wealth, 
another determinant of private consumption, also invigorated as a result of rising homes and stocks prices.  
1.7.  Growth in private consumption expenditure is still below its pre-crisis levels, as some legacies 
of the economic downturn have not entirely vanished. In 2012 for instance, deleveraging was still perceptible (although at a slower pace), as household debt continued to decline (since 2008). However, recent reports show a noticeable revi val of consumer debt as from third quarter 2013.
3  
1.8.  The labour market situation continued to improve during the review period, as the 
unemployment rate dropped from 7.9% in January 2013 to 6.2% in July 2014, however it remains historically high.  
1.9.  After a decade of sluggish performance, the manufacturing sector has become an important 
aspect of U.S. economic recovery. Over 700,000 jo bs have been created in the sector since 2010. 
However, these still represent a small proportion of overall job growth. Several factors contributed 
to that favourable economic context, and there has been some reporting of "in-sourcing", i.e. the 
                                               
3 FRBNY (2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 15 - 
 
  homecoming of U.S. manufacturing. Soaring transpor tation costs, induced by rising oil prices have 
made production-close-to-customer more advantageous. The recent shale oil and gas development and low energy prices have also contributed to lowering production costs in the manufacturing sector. Other factors, such as increasing labour costs in some developing countries, the 
depreciating U.S. dollar, and the highly competitive workforce in the United States, have also 
played a crucial role in the recent recovery in manufacturing.
4 However, the authorities expressed 
doubts regarding a genuine in-sourcing move in the United States as capital stock in 
manufacturing has not increased in a decade. 
1.10.  In 2013, the U.S. current account deficit sh rank to a four-year low, as a consequence of a 
boom in shale oil/gas production and reduced demand, leading to a sharp reduction in the oil trade deficit, which accounts for nearly half of the total deficit in trade in goods and services. This is an 
important trend, as the deficit shrank from a pe ak of 5.8% of GDP to 3% between 2006 and 2012. 
Factors such as weaker domestic demand for imports, together with increased market shares for U.S. products, improved income balance, and healthier services balance supported the ongoing 
improvement.  
Chart 1.3 U.S. current account and net financial flows, 2006-13 
(US$ billion) 
-900-800-700-600-500-400-300-200-1000100200300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Balance on current account Balance on goods
Balance on services Balance on income
Unilateral current transfers, net
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Bure au of Economic Analysis. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov . 
                                               
4 PwC (2012). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Chart 1.4 U.S. current account and oil products trade, 2010 Q1-13 Q4 
(US$ billion) 
-150-100-50050
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2010 2011 2012 2013
Balance on current account Balance on oil products 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Bure au of Economic Analysis. Viewet at: http://www.bea.gov . 
1.3  Policy measures  
1.11.  During the recent recession, as well as the ongoing recovery, U.S. authorities have been 
active on the macroeconomic front. With a view to promoting economic growth and employment, various fiscal and monetary policies were implemented with direct influence on domestic consumption, investments, and export competitiveness. 
1.12.  Federal fiscal policy during the recession was clearly expansionary, reflecting automatic 
stabilizers and legislative tax and spending ch anges such as the 2009 American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. However, fiscal policy has turned contractionary during the last two years, as a 
result of deliberate deficit-reduction measures. These include the Budget Control Act of 2011, 
which led to sequestration spending cuts, the increase in taxes on top earners in early 2013, as well as the ending in 2013 of the temporary payroll tax holiday instituted as part of the Tax Relief, 
Unemployment Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. 
1.13.  Contractionary fiscal policies along with stronger economic growth, which boosted revenues 
and reduced the need for automatic stabilizers that  raise outlays, reduced the federal government 
deficit from US$1.1 trillion (6.8% of GDP) to  US$680 billion (4.1% of GDP) between 2012 and 
2013. Furthermore, lower government spending has pushed down domestic demand, with the 
concomitant downward pressure on the current account deficit.  
1.14.  Moderate growth in domestic consumption,  mainly government expenditure, has played a 
part in slower GDP growth through the multiplie r effect. Analysts have recently discussed the 
extent and causes of the related fiscal drag, and estimates foresee a reduction in real GDP growth of about 1 percentage point per year over the next three years.
5 
1.15.  With respect to monetary policy, the fede ral funds rate, the conventional monetary policy 
tool to promote price stability and maximum sustainable employment, is still low, with a target of between 0% and 0.25%. 
1.16.  However, in a context of relatively high unemployment, where the Fed cannot provide any 
further stimulus through conventional policy, since 2009 it has had rounds of large-scale asset 
                                               
5 FRBSF (2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 17 - 
 
  purchases of Treasury securities and securities issued by government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs).6  
1.17.  The unconventional monetary policy instrument , referred to as quantitative easing, aims at 
providing further stimulus to the economy by purchasing assets beyond Treasury and GSE 
securities. For example, purchases of mortgage-bac ked securities held by private banks. During 
the review period, a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) took place, in September 2012, in the context of high, although dropping, unemplo yment. In December 2013, the Fed announced 
that it would start scaling down its purchases. In addition, the Maturity Extension Program, under 
which the Fed purchased US$667 billion in long-term Treasury securities and sold an equivalent amount of short-term Treasury securities from its portfolio, expired at the end of 2012.  
1.18.  The Fed also resorted to Central Bank liquidity swaps in order to provide liquidity to private 
banks in foreign currencies. The swaps have been operational with ten Central Banks, including the 
Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Euro pean Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the 
Swiss National Bank.  
1.19.  In September 2012, the Fed committed to keep  the federal fund rates at their exceptionally 
low level until mid-2015, with a view to triggering long-term investment decisions. 
1.4  Outlook 
1.20.  After stabilizing and achieving positive growth rates during the last three years, the 
U.S. economy is poised for further economic grow th. According to the mid-session review of the 
U.S. Government Budget, GDP is expected to grow  between 2.6% and 3.3% during the four years 
through 2017.
7 According to the authorities, with continued growth, the unemployment rate is 
projected to continue to fall, and to stabilize at 5.4% by 2017.  
1.21.  Overall inflation, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), has been roughly stable in 
the 1% to 2% range. Core inflation, excluding food and energy prices, was 2% during the 
12 months through May 2014, close to the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) target. In 
the long run, the overall CPI inflation rate is projected to be 2.3% per year. The chained price 
index for gross domestic product, another key me asure of inflation, is projected to increase 
by 1.5% in 2014, and rise gradually to 2.0% in 2017 where it is expected to remain stable. 
1.22.  In general, yields on Treasury securities  are set to rise, although below their long-term 
averages. The three-month Treasury bill rate is expected to average only 0.1% in 2014. It is 
expected to begin to rise in 2015 and to reach 1. 3% in 2016. The yield on the ten-year Treasury 
note is expected to average 2.8% in 2014 and to edge up to an average of 3.7% during 2016. 
1.5  Trade Performance  1.5.1  Trade in goods 
1.23.  U.S. merchandise trade continued to expand  during the review period. While exports grew 
by some 2% between 2012 and 2013 to reach an all-time high, imports decreased, by 0.2%, for the first time in five years. 
1.24.  The merchandise trade deficit, mainly driv en by fuel products, improved significantly in 
2013 following weaker U.S. demand for foreign oil, higher exports, and an increase in U.S. production. Several economic indicators such as current account, consumer price index and production costs have recently benefited from the oil boom (section 1.2).  
1.25.  Export performance remains on an upward trend but at a slower pace. In addition, 
increased oil and gas production pushed up U.S. ex ports of energy products from 6.7% to 9.4% of 
total exports between 2010 and 2013. Manufactured products dominate merchandise exports, with 
some 65% of the total in 2013 (Chart 1.5 and Table A1.1). Exports of agriculture products 
remained relatively high (over 11%) during the review period. 
                                               
6 Congressional Research Service (2014b). 
7 The White House (2014a). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Chart 1.5 Merchandise trade, by product, 2012 and 2013 
2012 2013
(a)    Exports and re-exports
Total: US$1,546 billion
(b)    Imports
Manufactures
69.3%
Total: US$2,334 billion Total: US$2,328 billionTotal: US$1,578 billionIron & steel
1.3%Iron & steel
1.3%Other 
agriculture
2.2%
Other 
manuf.
16.1%
Machinery & 
transport equip.
34.4%Agri.
11.1%
Chemicals
13.4%Food
9.0% Other 
agriculture
2.1%
Fuels
9.4%
Other mining
3.0%
Chemicals
13.2%Other 
manuf.
16.3%Mining
12.3%Agri.
11.1%
Mining
12.1%
Other 
agriculture
1.1%
Chemicals
8.6%
Other semi-
manuf.
5.7%Machinery & 
transport equip.
38.0%Other 
manuf.
15.1%
Other mining
2.3%Fuels
18.6%Food
5.0%
Chemicals
8.6%Other 
agriculture
1.0%Food
5.3%
Agri.
6.3%
Manufactures
70.9%Mining
18.9%Agri.
6.1% Mining
20.8%Fuels
16.7%
Other mining
2.2%
Other semi-
manuf.
6.0%Machinery & 
transport equip.
38.8%Other 
manuf.
15.8%Food
8.9%
Manufactures
65.2%Manufactures
64.6%Other mining
3.2%Fuels
8.9%
Iron & steel
1.9%Iron & steel
1.7%Other
11.5%
Machinery & 
transport equip.
33.8%Other
12.0%
Other
3.8%Other
3.9%
 
 
Source: UNSD, Comtrade database (SITC Rev.3). 
1.26.  During the review period, the United States  continued to export to its traditional markets, 
led by the EU, Canada and Mexico. Between  2012 and 2013, the export shares of, inter alia , 
China, Mexico, and Canada increased, while the re lative importance of the EU dropped from 17.6% 
to 17% (Chart 1.6 and Table A1.3).  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Chart 1.6 Merchandise trade, by main origin and destination, 2012 and 2013 
2012 2013
(a)    Ex ports and re-ex ports
Total: US$1,546 billion
(b)    Imports
Total: US$2, 334 billion Total: US$2,328 billionChina
7.2%
Total: US$1,578 billionMexico
14.0%Others
7.6%
Canada
18.9%
Mexico
14.3%
Other 
America
9.0%Other Asia
15.7%
America
44.9%Canada
19.0%
Brazil
2.8%
Other 
America
8.8% EU (28)
17.0%Other Europe
2.8%Other Asia
15.5%Others
7.9%
America
44.7%
Canada
14.0%
Other America
5.9%
EU (28)
16.7% Other 
Europe
1.7%Japan
6.4%
China
19.0%Other Asia
12.9%Others
9.6% Canada
14.5%
Other 
America
5.6%
EU (28)
17.0% Other 
Europe
1.8%Japan
6.1%
China
19.8%Other Asia
13.3%Others
8.3%
America
33.6% America
33.7%EU (28)
17.6%Brazil
2.8%China
7.7%
Mexico
12.0% Mexico
12.2%Europe
19.8%Europe
20.3%
Europe
18.4%Asia
38.4%Asia
39.2%
Europe
18.9%Other Europe
2.8%Japan
4.5%Asia
27.4%Asia
27.4% Japan
4.1%
Bol. Rep. of 
Venezuela
1.7%Bol. Rep. of 
Venezuela
1.4%
 
 
Source: UNSD, Comtrade database (SITC Rev.3). 
1.27.  Imports declined slightly during the review period. The composition is dominated by 
manufactured products, which made up over 70% of total imports. Machinery, transport 
equipment, and fuels constitute the main impo rted manufactures (Table A1.2). The relative 
importance of oil imports has continued its downward trend, with a decrease between 2012 and 
2013, as the United States reduced its reliance on foreign sources as domestic production boomed.  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.28.  China, the EU, and Canada, the largest suppliers of goods to the U.S. market further 
consolidated their positions during the review period. To some extent, this reflects declining import market share from oil-producing countries in the Middle East, and Nigeria (Table A1.4).  
1.5.2  Trade in services 
1.29.  Services constitute the backbone of the U.S. economy, contributing nearly 80% of GDP and 
employment. Furthermore, the United States is th e world's leading services market, in terms of 
both imports and exports. Services exports continue to outpace services imports, with a positive 
contribution to the current account balance (section 1.2). 
1.30.  Recent trends in the services sector have mirrored overall trends in the U.S. economy. 
Between 2006 and 2011, average annual increases in services sector GDP, employment, and wages were within 1% of their respective ov erall annual growth rates registered for the 
United States.
8  
1.31.  The United States is the world's leading services exporter. Its positive trade balance 
continued to rise during the review period. Th e expanding services exports are led by travel 
services, which accounted for 26% of total exports of commercial services in 2013, as well as 
royalties and licence fees (19%) (Table 1.1). 
1.32.  Services imports are as diversified as exports. Transport, travel, and insurance services are 
the main categories (Table 1.2). While the United States is a net exporter in the major services 
categories, its balance continues to be negative in transport, communication, and computer and information services.  
1.33.  The EU is the major export market for U.S. commercial services (one third of total 
U.S. exports in 2012), followed by Canada, Japan, China, and Mexico (Table 1.3). The EU is also 
the main commercial services provider for the U.S. market (Table 1.4). 
1.34.  Efforts have been under way since 2012 to boost the U.S. tourism trade. In May 2012 the 
Government launched the National Travel and Tourism Strategy to develop and further increase 
travel and tourism to the United States. Its long-term goal is for 100 million foreign visitors annually by 2021.
9 In May 2014, the President issued a report detailing progress made, including 
significant increases in the use of the Trusted Travel Programs, and significant reductions in visa 
waiting times, especially in Brazil and China.10 The United States is the world's largest tourism 
exporter.  
Table 1.1 Commercial services exports, by type, 2010-13 
(US$ million)  
 2010 2011 2012 2013
Services pursuant to modes 1, 2, and 4     
Total commercial services 540,587 597,925 630,284 662,041
   Transportation 71,426 79,600 82,826 86,467 
   Travel 133,620 147,774 160,733 172,577 
   Other commercial services 335,541 370,551 386,725 402,997 
      Communications services 11,141 13,081 14,398 14,813 
      Construction 2,804 3,248 3,335 n.a. 
      Insurance services 14,397 14,959 16,067 15,639 
      Financial services 72,348 78,243 76,418 83,862 
      Computer and information services 14,127 16,841 17,340 18,198 
      Royalties and licence fees 107,521 120,717 124,182 127,830 
      Other business services 112,206 122,638 134,225 138,242 
      Personal, cultural and re creational services 997 824 760 .. 
                                               
8 United States International Trade Commission (2013b). 
9 Viewed at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/05/189651.htm. 
10 Viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents /Travel%2Band%2BTourism%2BProgress%2BReport.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 21 - 
 
   2010 2011 2012 2013
Memorandum items:     
Government services, n.i.e. 17,045 21,229 21,208 21,432 
Services pursuant to mode 3 1,155,178 1,287,021 .. .. 
 
.. Not available.  Source: WTO (2014 forthcoming), International Trade Statistics . 
Table 1.2 Commercial services  imports, by type, 2010-13  
(US$ million) 
 2010 2011 2012 2013
Services pursuant to modes 1, 2, and 4     
Total commercial services 374,894 400,561 416,813 431,524
   Transportation 78,097 85,348 89,657 95,694 
   Travel 83,057 86,247 91,918 95,914 
   Other commercial services 213,740 228,966 235,238 239,916 
      Communications services 8,347 8,153 8,449 8,585 
      Construction 2,510 2,965 3,276 .. 
      Insurance services 61,478 55,794 52,564 49,849 
      Financial services 15,502 17,566 16,952 18,657 
      Computer and information services 21,029 24,331 25,657 26,279 
      Royalties and licence fees 32,551 34,786 39,889 39,399 
      Other business services 71,767 84,844 87,621 93,001 
      Personal, cultural and re creational services 556 527 830 .. 
Memorandum items:     
Government services, n.i.e. 31,961 31,293 27,861 25,345 
Services pursuant to mode 3 690,623 744,388 .. .. 
 
.. Not available.  Source: WTO (2014 forthcoming), International Trade Statistics . 
Table 1.3 U.S. commercial serv ices exports (modes 1, 2, and 4), by destination, 2010-12  
(US$ million) 
  2010 2011 2012 
Total 540,587 597,925 630,284 
EU (27) 175,327 194,723 199,120 
Canada  52,452 58,445 61,214 
Japan  43,487 44,346 46,479 
China  21,323 27,081 30,034 
Mexico  24,356 25,617 27,350 
Switzerland  21,472 22,920 26,338 
Brazil  17,236 22,286 23,864 
Korea, Republic of  15,013 16,371 18,082 
Australia  13,274 16,206 17,179 
Singapore  9,544 10,505 12,249 
India  10,401 11,243 11,932 
Chinese Taipei 9,151 10,527 11,311 
Bermuda  11,245 10,556 9,612 
All others  116,306 127,099 135,520 
 
Source: WTO (2014 forthcoming), International Trade Statistics . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Table 1.4 Commercial services imports (m odes 1, 2, and 4), by origin, 2010-12  
(US$ million) 
  2010 2011 2012 
Total 374,894 400,561 416,813 
EU (27) 128,761 140,637 143,204 
Canada 26,460 28,422 29,778 
Japan 23,325 24,847 26,916 
Bermuda 31,986 29,106 25,919 
Switzerland 19,692 18,940 21,094 
India 14,602 17,460 18,527 
Mexico 13,591 13,904 15,129 
China 9,940 11,570 12,989 
Korea, Republic of 7,715 8,577 9,357 
Chinese Taipei 6,018 6,556 7,390 
Hong Kong, China 6,414 6,811 7,048 
Brazil 5,553 6,922 6,861 
Australia 5,625 6,459 6,777 
All others  75,212 80,350 85,824 
 
Source: WTO (2014 forthcoming), International Trade Statistics. 
1.6  Foreign Direct Investment 
1.35.  The United States continues to be the world's single largest recipient of foreign direct 
investment (FDI) stocks, and the leading destination for inward FDI flows. Inward FDI constitutes 
an essential component of the U.S. economy, in terms of production, exports, and jobs creation. 
U.S. subsidiaries of majority-foreign-owned companies employ some 5.6 million U.S workers.11 
Recent empirical studies have shown a positive effect of FDI on output growth in the 
United States.12  
1.36.  Although the great recession negatively affected FDI figures (inflows decreased by over 
50% between 2008 and 2009), government policy responses and various incentive schemes have 
helped FDI flows to gradually recover (section 3.3.1). The decrease in 2012 coincided with a 16% 
decrease in global merger and acquisition activity.13 By industry, these decreases were largest in 
the finance sector (except banking). Manufacturing is now the main recipient of FDI in the 
United States (Chart 1.7). 
                                               
11 BEA online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/internatio nal/fdius2011_preliminary.htm . 
12 Kornecki and Ekanayake (2012). 
13 BEA (2013a). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 23 - 
 
  Chart 1.7 Foreign direct investment into the United States, 2008-13 
(US$ billion) 
 
050100150200250300350
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Manufacturing Wholesale trade Banking and finance All others
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau of Econ omic Analysis online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov . 
1.37.  The EU, Japan, and Canada hold the largest share of inward FDI stock in the United States 
(Chart 1.8). 
1.38.  With an outbound direct investment posi tion of US$4.66 trillion in 2013 the United States 
remains the largest contributor to global FDI. However, its contribution in absolute terms, 
decreased significantly in the wake of the recent global crisis. The EU and Canada were the major 
recipients for U.S. investments between 2008 and 2013 (Chart 1.8). 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Chart 1.8 Direct investment position by selected partners, 2008 and13 
(% of total investment) 
 
In the United States2008
Total: US$2,047 billion
2013
Total: US$2,764 billion Total: US$4,661 billionTotal: US$3,233 billionAustralia
1.8%
Australia
2.6%Japan
11.5%EU (27)
50.3%
Canada
7.6%Bermuda
6.4%United Kingdom 
Islands, Caribbean
4.2%Japan
3.1%
Switzerland
7.6%Australia
1.6%
Canada
8.6%
Japan
12.4%EU (27)
61.0%Japan
2.6%
Canada
7.9%EU (27)
50.5%
Bermuda
6.2%United Kingdom 
Islands, Caribbean
5.0%Australia
3.4%Switzerland
2.8%EU (27)
62.7%Switzerland
7.7%
Canada
8.2%Others
8.1%
Switzerland
4.1%Others
18.8%
Others
8.8%
Others
18.2%Abroad
In the United States AbroadSingapore
2.9%
Singapore
3.3%
 
 
Source: Direct investment position on a historical-cost basis. WTO Secretariat, base d on Bureau of Economic 
Analysis online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov . 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 25 - 
 
  2  TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1  General Framework 2.1.  The U.S. legislative (Congress) branch an d the executive branch, under the President, have 
roles in the development and execution of U.S. trade policy.
1 These roles have not changed since 
the last Review of the United States and the same institutions and framework exist for the 
government process of law-making, consultation, and implementation of trade policies and instruments. 
2.2.  In the U.S. Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives 
and the Senate Finance Committee in the Senate have the main jurisdictional responsibilities for trade. The Office of the United States Trade Repr esentative located in the Executive Office of the 
President, is the executive branch entity re sponsible for coordinating the development and 
implementation of U.S. trade policy. It conducts its functions through a statutory inter-agency 
trade policy mechanism, composed of the Trade Po licy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy 
Staff Committee (TPSC). The National Economic Council (NEC) an inter-agency cabinet-level body, 
with the participation of the President, coordinates policy for domestic and international economic 
issues. 
2.3.  Other executive branch agencies that ha ve important roles in trade policy include the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, St ate, and the Treasury. These and fourteen other 
executive branch agencies and offices are members of the TPRG and TPSC. 
2.1.1  Trade promotion authority 2.4.  A key procedural mechanism that demonstrates the unique balance between the executive 
and legislative branches on trade policy is the use of trade promotion authority (TPA), to delegate 
and share certain trade negotiation powers and provisions. Some powers are granted by the Constitution to the Congress, i.e. regulation of foreign commerce, including the power to lay and 
collect duties, and to the President, i.e. to negotiate treaties. This separation of powers, combined 
with the unique qualities of trade agreements, have led to the establishment, through statutes effective for a period of years, of procedures for considering, negotiating, and approving trade 
agreements, including how the executive branch must consult with Congress. Since its formal 
establishment in the Trade Act of 1974, the TPA' s main elements are the provision of expedited 
treatment of the agreements in Congress, and cons ultation and notification provisions between the 
President and Congress. Subsequent renewals of the authority have also included provisions on 
negotiating objectives, such as inclusion of labour and environmental provisions.
2 Historically, TPA 
has been backed by bi-partisan support when it has been granted. 
2.5.  Procedures set out in the Trade Act of 1974 and its predecessor have been used for 
consultations and approvals of most multilateral an d reciprocal trade agreements entered into by 
the United States in recent years. Following its establishment, TPA was renewed regularly, except during 1995-2002, and more recently since it lapsed in 2007 (Chart 2.1). 
2.6.  Recently, the President highlighted the im portance of obtaining TPA authority in 2013 and 
2014, given the two major regional negotiations which the United States intends to conclude or make significant progress on.
3 A proposal to reauthorize TPA was introduced in the Congress in 
2014, but to date no legislation has been approved. 
                                               
1 For further details, see WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. 
2 For example, see the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (BTPAA) of 2002. 
3 USTR (2014d). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Chart 2.1 Overview of Trade Promotion Authority 
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, compiled from various sources. 
2.1.2  Role of the private se ctor and other stakeholders 
2.7.  The United States has a long history of involving the private sector in trade policy advice. In 
1974, a USTR-led trade advisory committee system was created, to enable public- and private-sector input in the formulation and impl ementation of U.S. trade policies. There are 
currently 28 trade advisory committees covering, inter alia , agricultural, intergovernmental, 
labour, environmental, and U.S.-Africa issues. Ther e is also a system of committees on industry 
trade, which includes 16 industry trade advisory committees (ITACs)--thirteen industrial sectors, 
three functional on intellectual property, customs matters, and standards and technical barriers; 
and an ITAC Committee of Chairs (Table 2.1).
4 
2.8.  While the trade committees have remained relatively static in recent times, USTR has 
authority, pursuant to Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, to establish policy advisory 
committees. In February 2014, USTR proposed a new trade advisory committee covering public interest issues.
5 This proposal, including its scope and purpose, is currently under consideration 
pending review and evaluation of public comments. 
Table 2.1 Overview of the Trad e Advisory Committee System  
Type and Name Maximum or 
approximate number 
of membersa Appointments by Subject 
President's Advisory Committee  
Trade Policy and 
Negotiations (ACTPN) 45 President Examines U.S. trade policy 
and agreements 
Policy advisory committees  
Intergovernmental 
Policy Advisory 
Committee (IGPAC) 35 USTR Representation of States 
and non-federal 
government entities 
                                               
4 USTR online information. Viewed at: http ://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-
affairs/advisory-committees. 
5 79 FR 10596. TPA in placeTokyo Round 
Israel + Canada FTAs 
Uruguay Round
Chile, Singapore, Australia,  Morocco, CAFTA DR, Bahrain, Oman, Peru, Colombia, Panama, Rep. of Korea 
FTAs 1988 
1993 
1994 
2002 
2007 
2014 1979 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Type and Name Maximum or 
approximate number 
of membersa Appointments by Subject 
Trade and 
Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC) 35 USTR Trade and environmental 
policy issues 
Trade Advisory 
Committee for Africa 
(TACA) 30 USTR Trade and development 
issues of sub-Saharan 
Africa 
Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) 35 USTR and the 
Department of Agriculture Agriculture issues 
Labor Advisory 
Committee for Trade 
Negotiations and 
Trade Policy (LAC) 30 USTR and the 
Department of Labor Representation from 
labour unions 
Technical advisory committees  
Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees (ATACs): 
Animals and Animal 
Products 35 USTR and the 
Department of Agriculture Animals and animal 
products 
Fruits and Vegetables 35 USTR and the 
Department of 
Agriculture Fruits and vegetables 
Grains, Feed, and Oilseeds 35 USTR and the 
Department of Agriculture Grains, feed, and oilseeds 
Processed Foods 35 USTR and the 
Department of 
Agriculture Processed foods 
Sweeteners and 
Sweetener Products 35 USTR and the 
Department of Agriculture Sweeteners and sweetener 
products 
Tobacco, Cotton, 
Peanuts, and Planting 
Seeds 35 USTR and the 
Department of 
Agriculture Tobacco, cotton, peanuts, 
and planting seeds 
Industry Trade Advisory  Committees (ITACs): 
Committee of Chairs 
of the Industry Trade 
Advisory Committee 16 Consists of Chairs of the 
16 ITACs Trade matters of common 
interest to the ITACs 
Aerospace Equipment 
(ITAC 1) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Aerospace Equipment 
Automotive Equipment 
and Capital Goods 
(ITAC 2) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Automotive equipment and 
capital goods  
Chemicals, 
Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and Services (ITAC 3) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Chemicals, 
pharmaceuticals, health/science products and services  
Consumer Goods 
(ITAC 4) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Consumer goods  
Distribution Services (ITAC 5) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Distribution services  
Energy and Energy 
Services (ITAC 6) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Energy and energy 
services  
Forest Products 
(ITAC 7) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Forest products  
Information and 
Communication 
Technologies Services 
and Electronic 
Commerce (ITAC 8) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Information and 
communication 
technologies services and 
electronic commerce  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Type and Name Maximum or 
approximate number 
of membersa Appointments by Subject 
Building Materials, 
Construction, and Nonferrous Materials (ITAC 9) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Building materials, 
construction, and nonferrous metals 
Services and Finance 
Industries (ITAC 10) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Services and finance 
industries  
Small and Minority Business (ITAC 11) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Small and minority 
business  
Steel (ITAC 12) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Steel  
Textiles and Clothing (ITAC 13) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Textiles and clothing  
Customs Matters and 
Trade Facilitation 
(ITAC 14) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Customs matters and 
trade facilitation  
Intellectual Property 
Rights (ITAC 15) 50 USTR and the 
Department of Commerce Intellectual property rights 
Standards and 
Technical Trade 
Barriers (ITAC 16) 50 USTR and the 
Department of 
Commerce Standards and technical 
trade barriers  
 
a For the APAC and ATACs, there is no maximu m number for membership. The charter indicates 
"sufficient membership" and suggests between 20-40 members. 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on: http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/ , and 
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergove rnmental-affairs/advi sory-committees. 
2.1.3  New developments 
2.1.3.1  Interagency Trade Enforcement Center 2.9.  In early 2012 the United States established the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center 
(ITEC) to advance U.S. foreign policy and protec t the national and economic security of the 
United States through strengthened enforcement of U.S. trade rights.
6 The mission of ITEC is: 
(a) to be the primary forum for federal agencies to coordinate enforcement of U.S. rights; (b) to assist in the exchange of information related to potential violations; and (c) to conduct outreach 
for greater participation in the identification and elimination of foreign trade barriers. ITEC is 
established within USTR and involves coordination among the Departments of State, the Treasury, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security , and the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence.
7 
2.10.  During its first year of operation, the ITEC  was involved in a number of trade matters which 
resulted in the United States taki ng up at least four issues in th e WTO DSB. ITEC was also involved 
in identifying priority projects for research and analysis regarding a number of countries and 
issues.8 
2.1.3.2  Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking 2.11.  In 2013 the President established a task force on wildlife trafficking to develop and 
implement a national strategy to combat wildlife trafficking, in particular poaching and illegal 
trade.
9 The task force issued a national strategy in February 2014. The strategy focuses on 
(a) strengthening the enforcement of laws and th e implementation of international agreements 
                                               
6 Executive Order 13601. 
7 Other agencies may be designated by the President or USTR. 
8 USTR (2014d). 
9 78 FR 40619. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 29 - 
 
  that protect wildlife; (b) reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products in the United 
States and abroad; and (c) strengthening partnerships with foreign governments, local communities, NGOs, and the private sector to enhance global commitment to combat wildlife trafficking. The third prong of the strategy provid es for engaging trading partners regionally and 
bilaterally under existing and future free- trade agreements, environmental cooperation 
mechanisms, and other trade-related initiatives, to take measures to combat wildlife trafficking and to integrate wildlife trafficking and resource protection as priority areas for information 
exchange, cooperation, and capacity building.
10 
2.1.3.3  Comprehensive Framework to Comb at Illegal, Unreport ed, and Unregulated 
Fishing and Seafood Fraud 
2.12.  In June 2014, the President established a task force to enhance coordination of 
U.S. Government efforts to combat illegal, unrep orted, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood 
fraud and directed the task force to develop and implement a comprehensive framework to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
11 Further, the President noted the national interest to promote 
sustainable fishing practices and the plan to implement the UNFAO Agreement on Port State 
Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Il legal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.12 The 
framework acknowledges that the United States will continue to promote its policy of legally and 
sustainably caught, and accurately labelled seafood, and will assist foreign nations in building 
capacity to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 
2.2  Trade Policy Objectives 2.13.  The President reports annually to the U.S. Congress on the full range of the trade activities 
conducted in the previous year as well as the trade policy agenda for the upcoming year. During 
the review period the President's trade agenda em phasized the importance of trade in supporting 
job creation and economic growth. By opening markets through trade and investment, and 
keeping a level playing field through enforcement, the United States hopes to capitalize on its 
strengths, including its comparative advantage in innovation, to raise standards of living and strengthen the middle class. 
2.14.  A number of trade priorities identified for 2013-14 included initiatives at the national, 
multilateral, bilateral, and regional levels: to continue progress towards the National Export Initiative (NEI) goals; to advance and conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement; launch and advance the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) agreement; lead 
creative and effective efforts at the WTO to open markets, enforce rules, and combat 
protectionism; advance negotiations including with respect to services, environmental goods, and information technology products; support American job growth through increased agriculture, 
manufacturing, and services trade; promote and protect intellectual property rights associated 
with innovation and creativity; combat non-tariff barriers to trade and investment; expand trade opportunities through regional economic integration; and advance trade policy that reflect 
U.S. values, noting labour and environmental protection considerations. In addition to these 
specific trade priorities, the United States also emphasizes the importance of enforcement of trade 
rights, enhancing investment relationships, and fighting poverty and fostering economic growth through trade and development.
13 
2.3  Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.1  Participation in the WTO 2.15.  The United States takes an active leadership role in the WTO and, according to its trade 
policy agenda, plans to continue to play a major role in strengthening the multilateral trading 
system. It has identified a number of priority ar eas with respect to WTO work or initiatives, 
                                               
10 The White House (2014c). 
11 White House, Presidential Memorandum , 17 June 2014. Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2014/06/17/presidential-memorandum-comprehensive-framework-combat-illegal-unreporte. 
12 The United States has signed the agreement but has not ratified nor accepted it, thus it is currently 
not in force. FAO online information. Viewed at: h ttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/5_037s-
e.pdf. 
13 USTR (2014d) and (2013a). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 30 - 
 
  including concluding the expanded product coverage negotiations under the ITA, launching 
negotiations on an environmental goods agreem ent (EGA), supporting im plementation of the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), and supporting accession negotiations, in particular Kazakhstan. As a strong supporter of transparency, the United States is committed to promoting 
and strengthening the WTO's core functions. On the DDA, the United States has stated its 
intention to take a leadership role following the Bali Ministerial, to inject new direction and seek creative approaches to other aspects of the round.
14 
2.16.  In terms of the day-to-day work of the WT O ,  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  i s  a c t i v e  i n  w o r k  o f  a l l  
Committees, the trade monitoring exercise, acce ssions, dispute settlement, and plurilateral 
initiatives such as the GPA and ITA. It has been committed to re-energizing the work of the regular committees. In terms of dispute settlement, the United States remains an active participant in 
DSU processes. During the period under review, the United States was a complainant in 
4 disputes, a respondent in 6 disputes, a third pa rty in 16 disputes, and in volved in a number of 
appeals or arbitrations (Table A2.1). The United States submitted its instruments of acceptance of 
the revised GPA on 2 December 2013. It has been an active participant in the ongoing negotiations 
to enlarge the product coverage of the ITA.  
2.17.  In the on-going Doha Round, the United States played an active role in the Trade 
Facilitation negotiations, submitting 31 new or revised proposals. It has been a strong supporter of 
and participant in the TFA, including in reaching the successful Bali outcome. It continues to support developing and least developed countries in technical assistance activities. During the review period, the United States did not submit any proposals to other negotiating bodies. 
2.18.  Recently, the United States completed its domestic consultation procedures to enter into 
EGA negotiations. The United States and 13 other WTO Members announced their intention to start negotiations of an EGA in Davos in January 2014 and in June, shared information about this 
initiative in the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment.
15 The negotiations were launched in 
July, with the aim of eliminating tariffs on a broad set of environmental goods. 
2.19.  U.S. notifications during the review period have mainly covered trade remedies, technical 
barriers to trade, agriculture, and intellectual property (Table A2.2). The United States maintains a 
strong record of notifications, however, three notifications on agriculture are overdue or require updating (on export subsidies, domestic support, and tariff quota utilization). 
2.3.2  Regional and preferential agreements 
2.20.  While the United States continues to conduct the majority of its trade through the 
MFN regime it has a long tradition of offering unilateral preferences to developing countries and more recently through bilateral or regional reciprocal free-trade agreements. Since the last Review 
of the United States, imports under reciprocal pref erences have grown while unilateral preferential 
imports have declined as a percentage of total imports. In 2013, reciprocal trade preferences amounted to 18.3% and unilateral trade preferences to 3.3% of total imports (Chart 2.2). 
                                               
14 USTR (2014d). 
15 "Joint Statement Regarding Trade in Environmental Goods", 24 January 2014, Davos, Switzerland. 
Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/EG s-Announcement-joint-statement-012414-FINAL.pdf ; 
WT/CTE/M/57; and "Joint Statement Regarding the Launch of the Environmental Goods Agreement 
Negotiations", 8 July 2014, Geneva, Switzerland. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/July/Joint-Statement-Regarding-Launch-of-Environmental-Goods-Agreement-Negotiations. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Chart 2.2 Imports, by import regime, 2013 
Reciprocal trade 
agreementsa
18.3%
Unilateral 
preferences
3.3%
MFN dutiable
31.1%MFN duty freea
47.3%
 
 
a "Reciprocal trade agreements" covers trade benefiti ng from the RTA, and "MFN duty free" covers all 
trade entering MFN duty-free, because the RTA ma y provide concessions at zero that are already 
MFN duty-free. 
 Note Non-MFN trade statistically rounds to zero.  Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. Internationa l Trade Commission (USITC ), Trade Data Web; and 
information provided by the U.S. authorities. 
2.3.2.1  Reciprocal trade agreements 
2.21.  There have been no major developments in reciprocal trade agreements since the last 
Review of the United States when the free-trade agreements with the Republic of Korea, Panama, 
and Colombia were entering into force. No new FTAs have been concluded or entered into force 
since that time. However, the United States is negotiating with the European Union on T-TIP, and 
with a group of countries in Asia, the Pacifi c, and the Americas, with TPP (section 2.2).16 At this 
time, neither has been concluded. 
2.22.  The share of imports under reciprocal trade agreements increased from 16.4% to 18.3% of 
total imports, between 2011 and 2013 (Chart 2.2). The United States has 14 bilateral or regional 
free-trade arrangements covering trade with 20 co untries (Chart 2.3). The growth in reciprocal 
trade imports can be attributed to the more recent  FTAs, in particular with the Republic of Korea 
and Colombia. 
2.23.  Imports entering from NAFTA partners conti nued to increase during the period and NAFTA is 
the single largest FTA block. The Republic of Korea and Colombia are now the United States' 
second and third largest FTA trading partners due to significant growth since the entry into force of 
their FTAs. The United States maintains an overall trade deficit with FTA partners due mostly to its trade deficit with NAFTA partners. 
2.24.  The United States has notified all of its reciprocal trade agreements to the WTO Committee 
on Regional Trade Agreements. However, three factual presentations involving the United States have not yet been considered under the Transparency Mechanism due to a lack of comments from one or both of the parties concerned.
17 
                                               
16 TPP participants are:  Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada , Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Viet Nam. 
17 WTO document WT/REG/W/84, 13 June 2014. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 Preferential imports, 2006-13 
(US$ billion) 
0510152025303540
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rep. of Korea Colombia Chile CAFTA-DR NAFTA
Australia Peru Israel Singapore Others a250
200300350400
 
 
a Includes Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and Panama.  Note Preferential imports covers only trade benefi ting from the FTAs, and not trade entering at MFN 
duty-free levels, although the FTAs may provide conc essions at zero that are already MFN duty-free. 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on U.S. International Trade Commissi on (USITC), Trade Data 
Web. 
2.3.2.2  Unilateral preferential regimes 
2.25.  The United States continued to provide unilateral preferences to a number of countries or 
territories during the review period, although so me programmes are in decline, have expired, or 
are undergoing review. The programmes are not mutually exclusive and some developing and 
least developed countries are eligible to participate in more than one programme (Table A2.3). In particular, there is overlap in the GSP and AGOA, with trade figures under each programme often changing year-to-year as traders choose one preference programme over another (Chart 2.4). 
2.26.  The product coverage of the programmes is not identical, nor are other aspects, such as 
rules of origin or textile provisions. In terms of tariff coverage, preferences granted to Caribbean countries and those granted under GSP are nearly identical, with the greatest product coverage. 
AGOA builds on GSP by providing AGOA beneficiaries (all are GSP beneficiaries) with additional 
product coverage, most notably for textile and foot wear products. The ATPA has expired, but when 
it was in force ATPA coverage was built upon the GSP benefits that the ATPA countries also 
enjoyed. Generally, the least preferential coverage is given for textiles and apparel, which has 
traditionally been an import-sensitive industry for the United States (Chart 2.5). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Chart 2.4 Unilateral preferential imports, 2006-13 
(US$ billion) 
0102030405060
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013AGOA GSP ATPA CBERA / CBTPA Other
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on U.S. International Trade Commissi on (USITC), Trade Data 
Web. 
Chart 2.5 Dutiable lines eligible for unilatera l preferences, by regime and HS section, 
2014 
(%) 
020406080100
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
GSP GSP LDCs/AGOA AGOA ATPA CBERA and CBTPA01 Live animals & prod.
02 Vegetable products03 Fats & oils
04 Prepared food etc.
05 Minerals06 Chemical products07 Plastics & rubber
08 Hides & skins09 Wood & articles thereof
10 Pulp, paper etc.11 Textile & articles
12 Footwear, headgear
13 Articles of stone14 Precious stones, etc.15 Base metals & prod.
16 Machinery17 Transport equipment
18 Precision equipment19 Arms & ammunition
20 Miscellaneous manufacturing
21 Works of art, etc.
 
 
Notes: No preferences are given for sections 10 and 21, as 100% of the tariff lines are MFN duty free. 
 
AGOA provides additional preferences to those of  the GSP, as AGOA beneficiaries are also GSP 
beneficiaries. A number of AGOA beneficiaries are also GSP LDC beneficiaries, thus through AGOA, 
most tariff lines eligible for GSP LDCs also apply to AGOA beneficiaries. 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on U.S. International Trade Commissi on (USITC), Trade Data 
Web. 
2.3.2.2.1  African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 
2.27.  AGOA is the United States' main trade and investment policy instrument for sub-Saharan 
African countries. It entered into force in 2000 and is set to expire on 30 September 2015.18 In 
2013, the Administration launched a comprehensive review of the AGOA programme to assess its 
performance and its goals. The results include recommendations to: (a) expand AGOA's product 
coverage; (b) improve rules of origin; (c) renew AGOA and the third-country fabric provisions for a long term; and (d) update AGOA's eligibility criteria and review processes. The review will help 
inform the Administration's consultations with Congress on the future of the AGOA programme 
after 2015.
19 
2.28.  The main AGOA provision is the duty-fr ee treatment granted to beneficiaries. The AGOA 
Forum is a high-level annual meeting to discuss trade and economic issues, and guide 
U.S. development assistance. AGOA also contains specific provisions for textile and apparel products. In particular, certain lesser developed beneficiary countries are allowed to use fabric inputs from third countries. This provision, known as the third-country fabric provision was set to 
expire in 2012, but was renewed and is currently in place until 30 September 2015.
20 
2.29.  Countries eligible for AGOA benefits must meet both the GSP economic and political criteria, 
and the AGOA specific eligibility criteria, including but not limited to establishing or making 
continual progress towards a market-based economy, rule of law, elimination of trade and 
investment barriers, poverty reduction, and worker and human rights. During the review period, AGOA eligibility was revoked for Mali, Swaziland
21, and Guinea-Bissau, but subsequently reinstated 
for Mali.22 AGOA benefits were granted for South Sudan at the end of 2012, and for Madagascar in 
2014.23 Cote d'Ivoire was granted special textile and apparel benefits in 2013.24 Currently, 41 of 
the 49 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have been designated as AGOA beneficiaries. 
2.30.  In May 2014, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection adopted a new rule, amending the 
customs regulations relating to the implementation of the AGOA textile provisions. The regulatory 
amendments clarify the preferential tariff tr eatment provisions by amending documentary, 
procedural, and other related requirements, and ge nerally make it easier for certain textiles to 
qualify for AGOA preferences.25 
2.31.  In 2013, the major products benefiting from AGOA preferences were crude petroleum, 
certain motor vehicles, light petroleum oils, and apparel. Crude petroleum was by far the largest, 
accounting for over 82% of AGOA imports. The ma jor suppliers under AGOA were Nigeria, Angola, 
and South Africa. 
2.3.2.2.2  Generalized Syst em of Preferences (GSP) 
2.32.  The United States' GSP, its main global programme for preferences for developing and least 
developed countries, expired on 31 July 2013. Therefore, imports that benefited from 
                                               
18 Public Law 106-200. 
19 USTR online information. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-
office/speeches/transcripts/2014/July/Remarks-USTR-Froman-Brookings-US-Trade-Policy-Global-Development and http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/04/fact-sheet-investing-african-trade-our-common-future. 
20 Public Law 112-163 of August 10, 2012. 
21 Effective 1 January 2015. 
22 Presidential Proclamation, 8921, 20 December 2012, Presidential Proclamation, 9072, 
23 December 2013, and Presidential Proclamation, 9145, 26 June 2014. 
23 Presidential Proclamation, 8921, 20 December 2012 and Presidential Proclamation, 9145, 
26 June 2014. 
24 78 FR 16908, 19 March 2013. 
25 79 FR 30355, 27 May 2014. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 35 - 
 
  GSP provisions are subject to MFN tariffs as of 1 August 2013. However, GSP-eligible imports from 
AGOA beneficiary countries continue to receive eligible GSP duty-free treatment.26 
2.33.  A number of changes in country eligibility took place during the review period. The 
President, in May 2014, notified Congress of his intent to remove the Russian Federation as a 
GSP beneficiary, citing Russia's advance beyond  a certain level of economic development and 
competitiveness.27 In June 2013, the President suspended the eligibility of Bangladesh due to 
worker rights issues.28 When the free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama entered into 
force in 2012, these two countries ceased to be GSP beneficiaries. In 2012, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 
Gibraltar, and the Turks and Caicos Islands were designated as high-income countries and the President announced their removal from GSP eligibility effective 1 January 2014.
29 A review 
process to consider Myanmar and Lao PDR as possible beneficiary countries was still under way as 
of mid-2014.30 
2.34.  Since the suspension of the GSP programme in July 2013, a number of countries31 continue 
to be reviewed for worker rights, child labour, IPR, or arbitral awards issues that could alter their 
beneficiary status. Product addition or removal petitions are also being reviewed. In 2013, the 
major products benefiting from GSP preferences were crude petroleum, automobile tyres, and jewellery of precious metal; and major beneficiaries of GSP were India, Thailand, and Brazil. 
2.3.2.2.3  Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery  Act (CBERA) and the U.S.-Caribbean Basin 
Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), including the HOPE and HELP amendments 
2.35.  CBERA and CBTPA were created to facili tate economic development and promote export 
diversification through duty-free access to the U.S. market for a number of eligible goods from 
certain countries in the Caribbean or Central America. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, additional 
provisions were added to aid Haiti, in particular with respect to textile ex ports, i.e. the HOPE and 
HELP amendments. 
2.36.  During the review period, Panama ceased to be a CBERA/CBTPA beneficiary upon the entry 
into force of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, on 31 October 2012; and Curacao, as a successor to the Netherlands Antill es, was designated a CBERA/ CBTPA beneficiary 
in late 2013.
32 There are currently 17 CBERA beneficiaries and 8 CBTPA beneficiaries (Table A2.3). 
2.37.  The major products imported into the United States under CBERA/CBTPA33 preferences are 
methanol, petroleum oils, and T-shirts. The countries utilizing CBERA/CBTPA preference are highly concentrated; Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti, and th e Bahamas together accounted for over 95% of 
CBERA/CBTPA imports in 2013. 
2.3.2.2.4  Andean Trade Preference Act as amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and 
Drug Eradication Act (ATPA/ATPDEA) 
2.38.  Similar to GSP, ATPA/ATPDEA lapsed on 31 July 2013, and to date Congress has not 
renewed it.
34 
2.39.  The ATPA/ATPDEA was designed to promote broad-based economic development, diversify 
exports, and reduce drug-trafficking by providing alternative economic opportunities to beneficiary 
countries. Compared with other unilateral preference programmes, ATPA/ATPDEA adds more 
                                               
26 Duty-free treatment of imports qualifying for coverage under AGOA and the Caribbean Basin Trade 
Partnership Act are not affected by the lapse in GSP legislation. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/03112014-FAQs-on-GSP-Expiration.pdf . 
27 White House online information. Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2014/05/07/message-congress-respect-russia-s-status-under-generalized-system-prefer . 
28 Presidential Proclamation 8997, 27 June 2013. 
29 Presidential Proclamation, 8921, 20 December 2012. 
30 Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 73, 16 April 2013. 
31 Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Indonesia, Iraq, Niger, Philippines, the Russian Federation, and Uzbekistan. 
32 Presidential Proclamation 9072 of 23 December 2013. 
33 Including HOPE and HELP. 
34 "Expiration of GSP, ATPA, and ATPDEA". Viewed at: 
http://apps.cbp.gov/csms/viewmssg.asp?Recid=19484 . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 36 - 
 
  eligible products for preferential access (Chart  2.5). During 2012-13, crude petroleum was by far 
the main import under the programme. Other significant imports were fresh cut flowers and tuna. 
2.40.  Following the entry into force of the free-trade agreements with Peru in 2010, and Colombia 
in 2012, these two countries ceased to be beneficiaries. In 2009, Bolivia's eligibility was removed 
due to failure to meet eligibility provisions.35  
2.41.  In April 2013, USTR requested a review (still on-going) of whether the remaining 
beneficiary, Ecuador, met the eligibility criteria.36 Its eligibility was questioned especially regarding 
criteria for protecting intellectual property rights and upholding arbitral awards.37 
2.3.2.2.5  Other unilateral preferences 2.42.  The United States continues to maintain special unilateral preference programmes for 
U.S. insular possessions
38, freely associated States39, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including 
Qualified Industrial Zones). There were no change s to these programmes during the review period. 
Imports entering through these provisions, where data are available40, account for only 2% of 
unilateral preferential imports, and for a very small percentage of U.S. imports. 
2.3.3  Other agreements and arrangements 
2.3.3.1  Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2.43.  The United States is a signatory to th e Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a 
plurilateral agreement negotiated among 11 trading partners.
41 The ACTA aims to combat 
infringement of intellectual property rights, in pa rticular piracy and counterfeiting. It provides for 
enhanced international cooperation, promotion of enforcement practices, and a legal framework for IPR enforcement. Although the agreement was finalized in 2011, it has not yet entered into 
force. The agreement reportedly does not require any statutory changes to U.S. law. 
2.4  Investment Flows and Regime  2.44.  During the review period, the United States remained the world's largest single recipient of 
foreign direct investment, however, inflows have declined since 2012 reflecting the general trend 
of historically low FDI inflows to developed countries.
42 Investment inflows fluctuated broadly year 
to year, often in relation to economic growth. After recovering from the economic downturn in 
2009, investment inflows climbed in 2010 and 2011, but fell in 2012 and 2013. Sources of FDI are 
generally highly concentrated among highly industrialised countries, the United Kingdom and Switzerland are the largest contributors. Investment inflows from emerging economies remain relatively small. In terms of sectors, manufactu ring has the largest share with 45%, followed by 
wholesale trade (11%), mining (11%), and non-bank holding companies (11%).
43 
2.45.  While the U.S. investment regime is generally open, restrictions remain in place in certain 
sectors or industries (section 2.4.3.3). The United States was active during the review period in 
promoting foreign investment to create jobs and bolster the economy. In particular, it hopes to 
capitalize on its skilled labour force, predictable regulatory regime, and large diverse economy to spur further investments from abroad. 
                                               
35 USTR (2013b). 
36 78 FR 21002, 8 April 2013. 
37 USTR (2013b). 
38 U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Wake  Island, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, and the 
Commonwealth of the Nort hern Mariana Islands. 
39 Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. 
40 Trade data are not available for im ports from U.S. insular possessions. 
41 Signatories are Australia, Canada, the Republic of  Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Morocco, Singapore, 
and the United States. Other parties to the negotiations  include the European Union,  Mexico, and Switzerland. 
42 UNCTAD (2014). 
43 The White House (2013c). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.4.1  Investment agreements 
2.46.  The United States has used internationa l investment agreements as tool to encourage 
foreign direct investment. The agreements are in the form of trade and investment framework 
agreements (TIFAs), bilateral investment treati es (BITs), and FTAs that contain investment 
provisions (Table 2.2). TIFAs are generally the first step in establishing stronger trade and 
investment links with a country; there are currently 50 in place with individual or country groups. 
In 2013, new TIFAs were concluded with CARICOM countries, Myanmar, and Libya.44 
2.47.  BITs have typically been at the core of U.S. reciprocal binding agreements on investment. 
The U.S. has negotiated BITs on a model framework, and in 2012, the Administration released a 
new model BIT, which contains key provisions on national and MFN treatment, the minimum 
standard of treatment, expropriation, transfer s, and performance requirements, as well as 
provisions protecting the right of investors to engage senior managers of their choosing, and 
two sections on dispute settlement.45 
2.48.  No new BITs were negotiated or entered into force during the review period. The 
United States does not have BITs with many of the emerging economies, which continue to be 
growing in importance as concerns investment flows.46 Nevertheless, the United States has 
concluded an increasing number of FTAs during the last ten years with investment chapters that generally have the same provisions as BITs. 
Table 2.2 The Investment Agreements Framework 
Trade and investment framework agreements (TIFAs) 
 Framework to improve cooperation and enhanc e opportunities for tr ade and investment 
 Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, ASE AN (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, 
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam), Bahrai n, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, CARICOM (Antigua and 
Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada,  Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, 
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines , Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago), Central Asia 
(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkme nistan, Uzbekistan), CO MESA (Burundi, Comoros, 
D.R. Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Keny a, Libya, Seychelles, Mada gascar, Malawi, Mauritius, 
Rwanda, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbab we), East African Community (Burundi, Kenya, 
Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda), ECOWAS (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, 
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo), Egypt, GCC (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emir ates), Georgia, Ghana, Ic eland, Indonesia, Iraq, 
Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Oman, Qatar, Rwanda, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Sout h Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, 
Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Em irates, WAEMU (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, 
Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo), Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen. 
Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) 
 
Based on model BIT 
 
Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Congo, Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecua dor, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Grenada, Honduras, 
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz stan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,  Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 
Panama, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, 
Turkey, Ukraine, and Uruguay. 
Free-trade agreement provisions 
 Investment chapter with BIT-like investment provisions 
 
Australia, CAFTA-DR (El Salvador, Hond uras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic), Chile, 
Colombia, Israel
a, Republic of Korea, Morocco, NAFTA (Can ada and Mexico), Oman, Panama, Peru, and 
Singapore. 
 a Limited provisions.  Source: WTO Secretariat, based on information viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov . 
                                               
44 USTR (2014d). 
45 USTR online information. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/bilateral-investment-
treaties . 
46 FDI flows to developing economies reached a new high in 2013, accounting for 52% of global FDI 
inflows in 2013. UNCTAD (2014). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.4.2  Investment promotion 
2.49.  The United States continues to develop and promote its SelectUSA programme, created in 
2011 as the first centralized government investment promotion programme, provides services directly to companies considering investing in the United States, and works with cities and states 
to augment their own business attraction efforts. Building upon its initial programme, 
President Obama expanded and enhanced SelectUSA in 2013.
47 The specific points in the new and 
expanded programme include: 
• "Supporting states and cities to attract and compete for job-creating investment into 
the U.S.; 
• Encouraging job-creating foreign direct investment as a core priority in a coordinated, all 
hands on deck manner;  
• Developing the first-ever coordinated, global teams to actively work to bring jobs to the 
U.S. led directly by U.S. Ambassadors;  
• Creating a seamless process to enlist top Administration officials all the way up to the 
President to actively advocate for high-impact investments into the U.S.; and 
• Creating for the first time single points of contact for investors looking to locate in the 
U.S."48 
2.50.  SelectUSA is the federal government's centralized hub to attract and retain investment. In 
addition to the newly expanded services, it provides information and advocacy to potential investors, in particular counsel and advisory serv ices for investors, ombudsman, problem-solving, 
investment advocacy promotion, outreach, and investment missions. It does not offer direct 
incentives but provides a link to federal government programmes offering incentives to 
businesses. In 2013, it held its first investment summit to bring international investors, government officials, U.S. companies, and ec onomic development organizations together to 
facilitate foreign investme nt. SelectUSA is housed in the Depart ment of Commerce with a proposed 
budget of US$20 million for FY2014.
49 
2.51.  In September 2012, the Department of Commerce announced a related "Make it in America" 
programme to accelerate insourcing, i.e. by encouraging firms to bring back jobs and investments 
to the United States.50 It offered a one-time US$40 million competition to projects supporting 
regional economic development, advanced skills training, greater supply chain access, and other enhancements. As of October 2013, US$20.5 million had been awarded to 10 applicants.
51 On 
3 December 2013, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) awarded a total of 
US$3.75 million in Make it in America grants to 10 MEP centers in nine states. The 3-year grant awards are in addition to the recently announced  US$20.5 million in Make it in America funding 
from the Department of Commerce's Economic De velopment Administration, the Department of 
Labor's Employment and Training Administration, and the Delta Regional Authority. The overall 
objective of the Make it in America Challenge is to make it more attractive for businesses to build, continue, or expand their operations in the United States.
 
                                               
47 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 31 October 2013. 
48 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 31 October 2013. 
49 "Testimony on the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for the Department of Commerce by 
Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank Ho use Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and 
related agencies. Viewed at: http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-113-ap19-wstate-blankr-
20130411.pdf , and "The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2014". Viewed at: 
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/ budget/FY14BIB/ENTIREBIB.pdf . 
50 "Obama Administration Announces US$40 million Init iative to Challenge Businesses to Make it in 
America. Viewed at: http://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/09/25/obama-administration-
announces-40-million-initiative-challenge-business . 
51 "Obama Administration Awards US$20.5 million in Make It in America  Challenge Grants to Spur 
Business Investment and Job Creation in the U.S.". Viewed at: http://www.eda.gov/news/press-
releases/2013/10/22/make_it_in_america_awards.htm . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.4.3  Investment regulations and restrictions 
2.4.3.1  The Committee on Foreign Invest ment in the United States (CFIUS) 
2.52.  CFIUS continues to review "covered" foreig n investment transactions to determine whether 
the transaction threatens national security. A covered foreign investment transaction is one where 
a merger, acquisition, or takeover results in foreign control of a person engaged in interstate 
commerce in the United States. CFIUS considers whether the foreign entity is controlled by a foreign government or if the investment would give control of critical infrastructure. If CFIUS 
perceives a potential national security risk, the President can prohibit the transaction. There have 
been no changes to the law or regulations since the last amendments in 2008. 
2.53.  During 2010-12, there was a gradual increase in the number of notices
52 of covered 
transactions submitted, from 93 to 114 in 2012.53 In particular, investment reviews from China 
grew from 6 notices in 2010 to 23 in 2012 (Table 2.3). In terms of business sectors, 
manufacturing continues to dominate with 39% of the cases in 2012; followed by finance, information, and services (33%); mining, utilities, and construction (20%); and wholesale, retail, 
and transportation (7%).
54 
2.54.  In addition to receiving a gradual increase in notices, CFIUS investigations increased from 
35 in 2010, to 40 in 2011, and 45 in 2012. A record number, of notices (20) were withdrawn after 
an investigation was launched in 2012; some were subsequently re-filed while others were 
abandoned. In 2012, the President decided for the first time in many years to prohibit a 
transaction. The President's Order required Ralls Corporation to divest its interest in a wind farm project.
55 
Table 2.3 Overview of CFIUS covered tr ansactions by country, top 10, 2010-12 
Country 2010 2011 2012 Total 
United Kingdom 26 25 17 68 
China 6 10 23 39 
Canada 9 9 13 31 
France 6 14 8 28 
Japan 7 7 9 23 
Israel 7 6 4 17 
Netherlands 2 7 6 15 
Sweden 5 6 2 13 
Australia 3 4 3 10 
Germany 2 3 4 9 
All others 20 20 25 65 
Total 93 111 114 318 
 
Source: Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, " Annual Report to Congress " (2013) 
CY2012, December. 
2.4.3.2  National Industrial  Security Program (NISP) 
2.55.  The NISP, established by Executive Order to safeguard classified information that is released 
to contractors, is administered primarily by the Department of Defense as the Executive Agent. The NISP is implemented through a regulation known as the NISP Operating Manual (NISPOM), 
which requires contractors to protect classified information from being compromised. The NISPOM 
contains provisions regarding certain foreign investment transactions under its broader mandate to require contractors to protect and safeguard classified information. The NISPOM section on Foreign 
Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) contains the procedures to be followed for certain 
investment transactions that involve classified information. U.S. companies are subject to NISPOM reporting requirements when a foreign interest acquires control that may result in unauthorized access to classified information or adversely affect the performance of classified contracts. The 
NISPOM has various types of security agreements  to mitigate or negate the risk of foreign 
ownership or control. The NISPOM was updated, with major changes, in March 2013, and a 
                                               
52 Notices to CFIUS are technically volunt ary but CFIUS can also initiate cases. 
53 2012 are the latest figures available. Committee on  Foreign Investment in the United States (2013). 
54 Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (2013). 
55 Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 40 - 
 
  separate volume was published in April 2014 with Procedures for Government Activities Relating to 
FOCI, however these changes did not affect the provisions on foreign investment transactions.56 
2.4.3.3  Other investment laws or restrictions 2.56.  While the United States remains an attractive investment location with few formal barriers 
to FDI, there remain a number of laws or regulations that restrict, have information gathering 
requirements, or otherwise impede investment flows in certain sectors (Table 2.4). 
Table 2.4 Foreign investment restrictions 
Industry/subject Provision References Restriction or 
information 
gathering/disclosure 
requirementa 
Investment and 
foreign trade in services Collection of information on 
investments International 
Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act of 1976 Information 
gathering/disclosure 
Investment Exchange of information on 
investment and financial 
data Foreign Direct 
Investment and 
International Financial 
Data Improvements 
Act of 1990 Information 
gathering/disclosure 
Agriculture Foreign ownership of 
agricultural land must be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture Agriculture Foreign 
Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 Information 
gathering/disclosure 
Equity investments Equity in securities requires 
registration with the SEC 
and requirements to 
disclose certain information Domestic and Foreign 
Investment Improved 
Disclosure Act of 1977 Information 
gathering/disclosure 
Maritime  Restriction on the foreign 
ownership of U.S.-registered ships Title 46 of the U.S.C. Restriction 
Aircraft Restriction on foreign 
investment for U.S.-
registered aircraft  49 U.S.C. 44101 
49 U.S.C. 44102 Restriction 
Mining U.S. citizenship or U.S. 
corporation requirements for the exploration and purchase of land with mineral deposits as well as similar restrictions on certain leasing of mineral lands
b 30 U.S.C. 22 
30 U.S.C. 24 30 U.S.C. 181 43 U.S.C. 1331 Restriction 
Energy Licenses for the 
construction, operation, or 
maintenance of facilities for 
the transmission and 
utilization of power on land 
and water of which the 
Federal Government has 
control, is limited to U.S. 
citizens and domestic 
corporationsb 16 U.S.C. 797(e) 
42 U.S.C. 2133(d) Restriction 
Lands  Citizenship requirements to 
make a claim under the Desert Land Act and for a permit to allow grazing on public lands  43 U.S.C. 321 
43 U.S.C. 315b  Restriction 
Communications Prohibition of foreign 
ownership and operation of 
mass communications 
media 47 U.S.C. 310(a) Restriction 
Banking Regulations or restrictions 12 U.S.C. 1841-1849 Restriction 
                                               
56 NISP manuals. Viewed at: http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/m5220_22_v3.pdf ; and 
http://fas.org/sgp/libra ry/nispom/nispom2006.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 41 - 
 
  Industry/subject Provision References Restriction or 
information 
gathering/disclosure 
requirementa 
on bank holding companies 
Investment Company 
Regulations Restriction on securities in 
interstate commerce 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 
15 U.S.C. 
15 U.S.C. 77jjj(a)(1) Restriction 
 
a For items noted as "Information gathering/disc losure", provisions may not present a formal 
restriction yet they may have the potential to impact or otherwise deter foreign investment. 
b According to the U.S. authorities, this does no t preclude foreign investors from obtaining mining 
licences through locally incorporated firms, thus it  does not present a de fa cto barrier in practice. 
 
Source: CRS (2013) Foreign Investment in the United States: Major Fede ral Statutory Restrictions , CRS 
publication RL33103, 17 June.WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 42 - 
 
 3  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1  Measures Directly Affecting Imports  3.1.1  Customs procedures and requirements 3.1.  The United States recognizes the importance  of trade to its economy, and that an efficient 
and timely import process has a financial and important economic impact. The United States 
recognizes that a balance needs to be achieved  between the primary policy of promoting trade 
flows, and enforcement and security. It initiate d policies and practices, as from 1993, to shift 
control of the import process away from the govern ment to that of shared responsibilities with 
traders, a process that has gradually continued to today. Under its "informed compliance" concept, the importer now has the duty of care to classify goods correctly in the HTS nomenclature, determine the origin of the goods, and provide th e declared value for customs valuation purposes. 
3.2.  The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as part of the Department of Homeland 
Security has a primary role in facilitating trade and enforcement, both security and trade related, at U.S. ports of entry. However, some 30 of fe deral agencies have a role in trade enforcement 
activities. Recent developments include more coordination and cooperation among federal 
agencies, including through the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS). 
3.3.  The import process has three main stages, pre-entry, entry, and post-entry, each with 
specific requirements (Chart 3.1). CBP regu lations from 2003 require advance electronic 
transmission of cargo information to CBP for bo th arriving and departing cargo and provide for 
various effective dates depending upon the mode of transportation. Section 2013 of the SAFE Port 
Act mandates development of a regulation to require additional data for improved high-risk 
targeting, including appropriate security elements to be provided prior to the cargo being loaded 
on a vessel destined for the United States. The Importer Security Filing (ISF) rule was established 
in 2008 and entered into effect in 2009; there have been no major changes since that time. For 
maritime shipments, the importer is responsible for providing an ISF, which consists of ten data elements ("importer of record" number, consig nee number, seller (owner) name and address, 
buyer (owner) name and address, ship to party name and address, manufacturer (supplier) name 
and address, country of origin, HTS classification (to the 6-digit level), container stuffing location, and consolidator (stuffer) name and address) and two from the carrier (vessel stow plan and container status messages). The ISF information is generally due 24 hours prior to the cargo being 
loaded. Where a vessel voyage is less than 24 hours, the ISF may be submitted any time prior to 
arrival.  
Chart 3.1 The U.S. import process 
 
PRE-ENTRY ENTRY POST-ENTRY 
Filing of 
paperwork (ATS) 
and risk-based 
screening Additional 
documentation is 
filed, possible 
scanning and 
inspection, and 
entry release Continued trade 
enforcement 
 
 
Source: Compiled by WTO Secretariat. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 43 - 
 
 3.1.1.1  Trade facilitation measures 
3.1.1.1.1  Single window 3.4.  The United States has been working toward establishing a single-window application for a 
number of years. In 1984, CBP established the Automated Commercial System (ACS) to track, 
control, and process goods entering the United States; and it has collected data for customs 
purposes and on behalf of certain other go vernment agencies, providing single-window 
functionality with respect to those agencies. In  2001, CBP began development of the Automated 
Commercial Environment (ACE) to facilitate trade while enhancing border security. Customs plans 
to gradually replace the ACS with ACE to meet all its import, security, and enforcement needs, and to develop ACE as its single-window application. 
3.5.  It is expected that by the end of 2016, ACE will provide single-window functionality for all 
agencies requiring documentation to clear imports or exports, allowing traders to submit electronic 
data and documentation for importation and exportation. Electronic filing options will be available in lieu of current paper filing requirements and manual processes will be streamlined. ACE is being 
implemented or deployed in seven phases, each allowing new modules and functions to be added. 
As of April 2014, ACE had deployed the third of the seven modules covering simplified entry, exports, and entry summary. All import and export cargo manifest data will have to be submitted 
through ACE as of 1 May 2015.  
3.6.  The President's recent executive order on "Streamlining the Export/Import Process for 
America's Businesses" requires completion of the single-window project, the International Trade Data System (ITDS) by 2016. When implemented through ACE, ITDS will allow traders to 
transmit, through an electronic single window, th e data currently being submitted on paper. The 
executive order also requires improved coordination among the 47 federal agencies with respect to trade data and between the U.S. Government and ot her stakeholders. ITDS work is expected to be 
completed by December 2016.
1  
3.1.1.1.2  Border Interage ncy Executive Council (BIEC) 
3.7.  By the same executive order, the President formally established the BIEC in 2014 to develop 
policies and processes to enhance coordination of customs, transportation security, health and 
safety, sanitary and phytosanitary, trade, and conservation agencies to improve supply chain processes and identification of illicit shipments.
2 The Council is composed of a Chairman from 
Homeland Security and members from the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, 
Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Serv ices, Transportation, Homeland Security, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and other agen cies with border management interests or 
authorities. 
3.8.  The tasks of the BIEC are to: 
• develop common risk management principles and methods; 
• develop policies and processes to improve and a ccelerate agency review of electronic trade 
 data transmitted through systems and provide coordinated and streamlined responses back 
 to users to facilitate trade and support and advance compliance; 
• identify opportunities to streamline federal government systems as a means of improving 
 supply chain management processes; 
• assess the business need and benefit of private- sector web-based interfaces for electronic 
 data systems; 
• engage with stakeholders on ways to improve supply chain management processes; 
                                               
1 Executive Order 13659 of 19 February 2014. 
2 Executive Order 13659 of 19 February 2014. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 44 - 
 
 • encourage other countries to develop similar single-window systems to facilitate the sharing 
 of data; and 
• assess opportunities to facilitate electronic payments of duties, fees, and taxes.3 
3.1.1.1.3  Advance rulings 
3.9.  One of the CBP's trade facilitating measures in place for many years, concerns advance 
rulings. Pursuant to CBP regulations4, an importer may request an advance binding ruling or 
similar legal decision to have assurance of ho w the product will be treated by customs upon 
importation. Rulings may be requested by importers, exporters, or anyone having a demonstrable 
interest. Binding rulings may be issued on a variety of subject matters, but often involve classification, rules of origin, valuation, and carriers. At present, rulings related to valuation or carriers must be submitted by letter, while those on  classification, marking, origin, NAFTA, and the 
applicability of a trade programme may be submitted electronically through CBP's eRulings 
template. 
3.10.  Advance binding rulings are published through the Customs Rulings On-line Search System 
(CROSS) or the Customs Bulletin and Decisions  within 90 days of issuing the decision and are 
binding on CBP. However, there appear to be no  set deadlines with respect to issuing a ruling. 
Rulings will not be issued on questions that are hypothetical or with respect to matters that are the 
subject of pending litigation. Binding rulings may be modified or revoked under certain conditions. 
A ruling that has been in effect for less than 60 calendar days may be revoked by simple notice to 
the applicant, whereas those in effect for longer periods require publication and a more formal procedure. CBP issues approximately 4,700 advanced rulings a year, on average. 
3.1.1.1.4  Simplified Entry Pilot/ACE Cargo Release  
3.11.  In late 2011, CBP announced the Simplified Entry Pilot project for expedited treatment of 
imports arriving by air transport.
5 The purpose of Simplified Entry is to reduce transactions costs, 
expedite cargo release, and enhance security. It reduces the data elements required for 
importation and allows for streamlined electronic transmissions. It initially included three pilot ports (airports). In August 2012, the pilot programme was expanded to include additional 
participants and ten additional airports.
6 
3.12.  In 2014, CBP renamed the programme the ACE Cargo Release as it had been incorporated 
to the ACE electronic system for processing and is  being expanded to include cargo transported by 
rail, ship, and truck. Its provisions were also expanded to include in-bond movements.7 As of 
June 2014, over 450,000 simplified entries had been filed by over 1,600 importers.8 
3.1.1.1.5  Trusted Trader Programs 3.1.1.1.5.1  Customs-Trade Partne rship Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) 
3.13.  C-TPAT is a voluntary public-private partnership programme which recognizes that CBP can 
provide the highest level of cargo security only through close cooperation with the principal stakeholders of the supply chain. Established in 2001,  it was codified into law by the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006.
9 Through this programme, CBP asks businesses to 
ensure the integrity of their security practices, and communicate and verify the security guidelines 
of their business partners within the supply chain. Businesses10 that apply to C-TPAT are reviewed, 
                                               
3 Executive Order 13659 of 19 February 2014. 
4 19 C.F.R. Part 177. 
5 76 FR 69755. 
6 77 FR 48527 and CBP online information. 
7 79 FR 6210 and CBP online information. 
8 Information provided by  the U.S. authorities. 
9 CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/c-
tpat-customs-trade-partnership-against-terrorism . 
10 A general term that allows the participation of U.S. importers, licensed U.S. customs brokers, 
consolidators, carriers, highway carriers (U.S., Canada, or  Mexico), U.S. freight consolidators, ocean transport WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 45 - 
 
 and if the review is favourable, receive Tier I certification status. Thereafter, Tier II may be 
achieved after physical examination of a compan y's supply chain and minimum security measures. 
A third level, Tier III, exists for those importer partners that show a sustained commitment beyond minimum security and have exceed ed the programme's requirements and applied best practices. 
The advantages of participating in the C-TPAT programme include a reduction of risk score that 
results in fewer CBP inspections, and eligibility  for expedited treatment and processing. As of 
June 2014, there were more than 10,732 C-TPAT certified companies, resulting in over 
25,160 total validations, and accounting for around 54.1% of total merchandise imports into the 
United States by value.
11 
3.14.  CBP has also signed mutual recognit ion arrangements (MRAs) with seven Customs 
administrations.12 Through these MRAs, a linkage is established among the various international 
industry partnership programmes to recognize and validate the findings among the participants. 
These arrangements are security based; they do not address compliance issues. As of June 2014, 
seven C-TPAT MRAs were in place, with Canada, the EU, Japan, Jordan, the Republic of Korea, 
New Zealand, and Chinese Taipei. All are operational, with the exception of Jordan. 
3.1.1.1.5.2  Importer Self-Assessment Program (ISA) 3.15.  If a company is C-TPAT certified and has a two-year import history, it is eligible to become a 
participant of the ISA programme.
13 Additional eligibility requirements have included being a 
resident importer in the United States, but the ISA was expanded in October 2012 to include Canadian importers and allowed a new fast-track membership option for importers that had completed a CBP Focused Assessment (FA) audit.
14 ISA, like C-TPAT, is  a voluntary programme 
allowing importers to assume a higher level of responsibility for monitoring their own compliance. 
Importers enter into a partnership with CBP, through a memorandum of understanding, to help expedite the flow of legitimate imports and achi eve high compliance with trade laws. The benefits 
to the importer are exemption from comprehensive audits, less CBP intervention, and enhanced 
prior disclosure. As of June 2014, there were 298 participants in the ISA. 
3.16.  In 2008 and 2013, CBP established two pilot programmes under the ISA, the Importer 
Self-Assessment-Product Safety Pilot (ISA-PS), which focuses on product safety compliance in 
conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Customs Broker Importer Self-Assessment Pre-Certification (Broker ISA PC) test.
15 The ISA-PS pilot is currently 
being evaluated and recommendations are expected in 2014 that may change or terminate the 
programme. The Broker ISA-PC test sets out to capitalize on the role of customs brokers to 
facilitate and promote importer participation in the ISA programme; it will be reviewed after one year for possible permanent status. 
3.1.1.1.5.3  Free and Secure Trade System (FAST) 
3.17.  The FAST system is the trusted trader programme for commercial truck drivers who have 
completed certain background checks and are C-TPAT certified. The programme allows for the use 
of dedicated FAST lanes at 34 land border crossings from Canada or Mexico that have shorter 
waiting times, fewer inspections, and faster processing. More than 78,000 commercial drivers participate in the programme.
16 It was put in place in the aftermath of the events of 9/11. 
                                                                                                                                               
intermediaries, non-vessel operating common carriers, foreign manufacturers (limited to Canada and Mexico 
only), third-party logistics providers, and U.S. marine port/terminal operators. 
11 CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/6-2-14%20C-
TPAT%20Achievements.pdf  and http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ctpat101_3.pdf. 
12 CPB online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/c-
tpat-customs-trade-partnership-against-terrorism/mutual-recognition . 
13 67 FR 41298. 
14 77 FR 61012. 
15 73 FR 64356 and 78 FR 22895. 
16 CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofo_fast_final_ 
file_3.pdf. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 46 - 
 
 3.1.1.1.5.4  Trusted Trader Program Test 
3.18.  In June 2014, CBP in conjunction with  the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration  (FDA) announced testing of the Trusted Trader 
programme which aims to strengthen security, identify low-risk trade, and improve trade 
efficiencies. The programme will widen the government's approach to supply-chain security and 
trade compliance. The new programme will go beyond the C-TPAT and ISA programs to offer further incentives for business participation. It is also expected to unify and eventually replace the 
C-TPAT and ISA programmes. The test phase is expe cted to last 18 months and will be limited to 
fewer than ten participants (Box 3.1).
17 
Box 3.1 Trusted Trade Program Test  
Main participant incentives 
 
• Incentives provided to C-TPAT importers 
• Incentives provided under the ISA programme 
• A reduced FDA targeting(examination risk score) 
• As part of a CBP penalty mitigati on decision, test participants ma y receive a penalty offset upon 
request 
• CBP will reduce the number of Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) on-site inspections 
• Drawback claimants will be exempt from on-site visits from drawback specialists 
• Full desk reviews will be limited to no more than one per year for drawback claimants 
• CBP will exempt test participants from random non-intrusive inspections  
• CPSC will provide access to the participants with special training  
• CPSC will reduce product safety tests on goods imported by the participants  
• CPSC laboratories will grant priority "front  of the line testing" to participants 
 
Main participant responsibilities 
 
• Agree to comply with applicable CBP laws and regulations  
• Agree to comply with applicable CPSC and FDA laws and regulations 
• Submit a copy of the company's customs policies and procedures 
• Perform annual risk assessme nts to identify risks that could impact compliance  
• Develop and execute an annual se lf-testing plan based on risk and implement corrective action 
• Comply with C-TPAT programme requirements 
• Cooperate with CBP, domestic and foreign port authoritie s, foreign customs admi nistrations and others 
in the trade community 
 
Main eligibility requirements 
 
• U.S. or non-resident Canadian importer  
• Have written policies and proc edures for its import process 
• Have business office staffed in the United States or Canada 
• Have at least two years of import history
 
Source: 79 FR 34334. 
3.1.1.2  Import security initiatives 
3.1.1.2.1  Container Security Initiative (CSI) 
3.19.  The provisions of the CSI originated in the 2006 SAFE Port Act18 in order to improve security 
following the 9/11 terrorist acts by developing a pre-screening process in foreign ports. 
CBP examines pre-shipment data to identify cargo with high risk that require radiation detection 
and scanning in foreign ports. CBP then works with foreign law enforcement agents to inspect or scan the cargo prior to its shipment to the United States. There have been no significant changes in the programme since the last Review of the United States; the CSI still operates in 58 ports 
                                               
17 79 FR 34334. 
18 P.L. 109-347. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 47 - 
 
 world-wide and pre-screens approximately 80% of all maritime container cargo destined to the 
United States.19  
3.1.1.2.2  Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) 3.20.  The SFI, like the CSI, has its beginnings in the 2006 SAFE Port Act in order to improve 
container security. Section 232 provides for the SFI to implement at least three pilot ports to test 
the feasibility of 100% scanning of cargo containers destined to the United States. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007  mandated that 100% of 
all maritime cargo be scanned by both x-ray imaging and radiation prior to lading on a vessel to 
the United States. The SFI relies on partners in foreign ports to perform radiation detection and scanning abroad, prior to shipment to the United States. The SFI has been continually delayed. The deadline of May 2012 was not met, and it was further extended by two years, to 1 July 2014. 
In May 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security extended the deadline until 
July 2016, as the conditions cited for delay in 2012 still prevailed. Those conditions are: the use of systems that are available to scan containers would have a negative impact on trade capacity and 
the flow of cargo; and systems to scan containers cannot be purchased, deployed, or operated at 
ports overseas because ports do not have the physical characteristics to install such a system. Furthermore, the programme has been scaled back in recent years, from pilot operations in 
six foreign ports to only one foreign port currently, in Pakistan. Reportedly only about 1% of 
incoming cargo is scanned. 
3.21.  The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 on air traffic 
cargo are under the purview of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and require 
100% screening of inbound passenger air cargo. The mandate of 100% screening of all cargo 
flown on passenger aircraft into, out of, and within the United States was met in December 2012. 
3.1.1.3  Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) 
3.22.  The United States has long-standing experience of using foreign trade zones (FTZs) to 
increase U.S. competitiveness through a variety of  means, especially by reducing customs duties. 
U.S. FTZs also play a significant role in trad e, as 13% of U.S. imports enter through FTZs. 
Manufacturing accounts for over 75% of zone activity, with inputs of both foreign and domestic 
origin, and with most of the output of zones being consumed in the United States; thus, they function more as import processing zones. Crude oil accounts for the largest share of imports into zones, and fuels and petrochemicals are ofte n the output of the zones. FTZs are not only 
located in ports or border regions, but specified facilities may also be designated as part of a FTZ. 
Every U.S. State has at least one zone, and 174 in total had been established by 2012.
20  
3.23.  In 2012, the Foreign Trade Zone Board, which supervises and oversees the U.S. FTZ 
system, established new regulations for FTZs.21 While the regulations address a number of issues, 
they focus on streamlining the application process and reducing the time necessary to establish a 
zone or set up manufacturing within a zone. In addition, less information is required for the 
paperwork. 
3.1.2  Customs valuation 3.24.  United States' legislation on customs va luation remains unchanged since its enactment in 
1980.
22 It provides the hierarchical methods fo r determining the customs value as per the 
WTO Customs Valuation Agreement. The main method of determining customs valuation continues 
to be transaction value. In 1996 the United States notified its legislation by reference to its previous GATT notification.
23 
3.25.  No changes were made to customs valuat ion regulations during the review period. The 
United States assesses customs value on an f.o.b. basis and does not use pre-shipment inspection companies for determining value. 
                                               
19 CDHS online information. Viewed at: http://www.dhs.gov/container-security-initiative-ports . 
20 Foreign-Trade Zones Board (2013). 
21 15 CFR Part 400. 
22 Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 43 FR 45135. 
23 WTO document G/VAL/N/1/USA/1, 1 April 1996. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 48 - 
 
 3.1.3  Rules of origin 
3.1.3.1  Non-preferential 3.26.  U.S. non-preferential rules of origin, used to determine origin for MFN trade, recognize first 
the concept of wholly obtained, if a product was grown or manufactured in one country. When 
origin cannot be determined by this method, the criterion of substantial transformation is used to 
identify where a new product was obtained as a result of processes or operations as reflected by a change of name, character, or use. CBP may also  use the value added or changes in nature or 
essential character resulting from the manufacturing process to determine substantial 
transformation. This methodology leaves issues op en to interpretation by CBP when determining 
origin. CBP proposed alternatives to this methodology, but to date there have been no changes (Chart 3.2). 
Chart 3.2 Rules-of-origin procedure 
 
Non-preferential U.S. ROO 
Preferential
Wholly 
obtained Substantial 
transformation 
Tariff 
shift 
method Individual CBP 
determination based on: 
 
- character, name, use 
- manufacturing process 
- value added 
- essential character  Substantial 
transformation  
Local or 
regional 
value 
content 
method  Technical 
criteria 
methodWholly 
obtained
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on information viewed at: http:// www.cbp.gov . 
3.1.3.2  Preferential 
3.27.  Building upon the experience of non-prefer ential rules of origin, the United States and its 
NAFTA trading partners sought a different approach when negotiating one of the early FTAs. Thus, 
NAFTA and many other U.S. FTAs have incorporated a change in tariff classification "tariff shift" 
method to determine the eligibility of goods for FTA benefits, which may involve substantial transformation. However, the U.S. still employs other methods, such as local or regional value 
content, or technical or process criteria methods to determine origin (Chart 3.2). The variety of 
methods reflects the individually negotiated prefer ential agreements and the preference of certain 
industries for a particular method, such as for textiles. Each FTA or preference programme has a specific, unique set of origin criteria.
24  
3.28.  There were some minor changes to preferen tial rules of origin during the review period 
(Table 3.1). The United States notified its prefer ential origin rules to the WTO Committee on Rules 
of Origin in 2012.25 
                                               
24 For an overview of the preferential rules of or igin by agreement or preference programme, see 
WT/TPR/S/275/Rev. 2, Ta ble III.1, 8 March 2013. 
25 WTO document G/RO/N/88, 18 January 2013. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 49 - 
 
 Table 3.1 Changes to Preferential Rules of Origin, June 2012-July 2014 
Agreement Effective date Citation Change 
CAFTA-DR 13 October 2012 77 FR 59241 Modification of certain textile and apparel 
ROO 
NAFTA, 
Bahrain, 
Morocco 25 September 2012 77 FR 58931 Technical corrections as a result of the 2012 
HTS changes 
Australia 1 June 2012 77 FR 31683 Implementation of certain modifications to a 
product specific rule of origin 
Chile 1 January 2013 77 FR 249 Technical corrections as a result of the 2012 
HTS changes 
Republic of Korea 1 January 2014 78 FR 251 Technical corrections as a result of the 2007 
and 2012 HTS changes 
 Source: WTO Secretariat, based on the citations in the table. 
3.1.3.3  Country-of-origin marking 
3.29.  Pursuant to long-standing laws and regulati ons, most foreign products must have a mark or 
label indicating to the final consumer where the product was manufactured. While the Tariff Act of 
1930 contains the main provisions for marking, there are other product specific labelling laws at both the federal and state levels, and marking rules specific to NAFTA partners. U.S. country of 
origin marking rules are distinct and separate from eligibility determinations for customs purposes. 
It is possible that an article may be declared as a product of one country upon importation, yet possess a label indicating a different country of manufacture for marking purposes. 
3.1.3.4  Certification of origin 
3.30.  An importer must certify the origin of a g ood to claim tariff preferences under an FTA or a 
preferential agreement. Most agreements do not requ ire the certificate of origin to be in a specific 
format, with the notable exception of NAFTA. The importer must maintain documentation to 
support a claim for preferential treatment, which must be presented to CBP upon request. If a 
certificate of origin is required, it must be presented upon request.  
3.1.4  Tariffs 
3.31.  The United States publishes its tariff schedule as the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), which is maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) pursuant to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The USITC regularly updates the HTSUS to reflect changes in tariff rates or other provisions. The latest version of the HTSUS was 
issued in January 2014. While the HTSUS is mainly concerned with tariff provisions, it also 
contains other legal provisions such as preferential rules of origin. 
3.1.4.1  Nomenclature 
3.32.  There have been no nomenclature changes in the legal text of the HTSUS since the United 
States implemented the HS2012 changes in early 2012.
26 At that time, the United States did not 
implement a set of HS2012 changes relating to photographic films of Chapter 37, and these 
remain outstanding.27 However, the USITC launched an investigation in late 2012 to propose 
certain modifications, including on Chapter 37.28 The USITC has implemented relevant changes, 
backdated to 2012, to provide duty-free treatment for cordless video game console controllers that use infrared transmissions. Other proposed changes include modification of certain chemical 
products that were incorrectly named or described. 
3.33.  The HTSUS follows the WCO's Harmonised System nomenclature for Chapters 1 to 97. 
Two additional chapters, 98 and 99, contain special provisions on classification, temporary 
legislation, temporary modifications, or additional import restrictions. 
                                               
26 Proclamation 8771, 29 December 2011, 77 FR 413. 
27 HS 3702.96, 3702.97, and 3702.98. 
28 77 FR 76300. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 50 - 
 
 3.34.  The United States has submitted documentation on proposed HS2007 and HS2012 changes 
to its WTO schedule, however these have not ye t been approved or certified at this time. 
The United States is covered by the HS2007 and HS2012 waivers in order to implement the nomenclature changes.
29 
3.35.  The United States implemented other nomenclature changes to the HTSUS in 2011 relating 
to footwear30; these have still not been notified to th e WTO for modification of the WTO schedule. 
3.1.4.2  Applied rates 
3.36.  The United States has three different types of tariff pertaining to: MFN rates of duty; special 
rates of duty for FTAs, non-reciprocal preferen ces, and special programmes like pharmaceuticals 
or civil aircraft; and a column for non-MFN duties.31 While the majority of tariffs are ad valorem  
(89%), the United States also uses specific and compound duty rates (11%). These are 
concentrated in agriculture, fish, fuels, textiles, and footwear sectors. The United States assesses 
duties on an f.o.b. basis. 
3.37.  In its current version, the HTSUS contains  over 10,000, 8-digit tariff lines of which only a 
small per cent (1.9%) pertain to tariff-rate quotas. The applied rates have remained virtually 
unchanged for the past 10 years and have provided a high degree of predictability as they are 
generally identical to the WTO bindings. The simple average rate remains almost unchanged, at 
4.8% in 2014 (Tables 3.2 and A3.1). 
3.38.  The United States' applied MFN rates are quite diverse, as a large number (37%) of tariff 
lines are free of duty, while there are a significant number (7%) of tariff peaks in sensitive sectors 
(tobacco, textiles, agriculture). Tariffs range from free to 510% ( ad valorem  equivalent) (Chart 3.3 
and Table A3.1). Many of the duty-free lines are a result of the United States' participation in the 
Uruguay Round zero-for-zero sectoral initiatives and sectoral agreements, ITA and Civil Aircraft. A significant number of tariffs are very low (Table 3.2). Tariffs above 25% ad valorem  are in the 
agriculture sector, in particular dairy, tobacco, and vegetable products; footwear; and textiles. 
There is little or minimal tariff esca lation in the U.S. tariff structure. 
Table 3.2 Structure of the tari ff schedules, selected years
a 
(%) 
  2004 2007 2009 2012 2014 
1 Total number of tariff lines 10,304 10,253 10,253 10,511 10,514 
2 Non-ad valorem  tariffs (% of all tariff 
lines) 10.6 10.7 10.7 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 rate quotas (% of all 
tariff lines) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 
5 Duty-free tariff lines (% of all tariff lines) 37.7 36.5 36.3 37.0 36.8 
6 Dutiable lines tariff average rate (%) 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 
7 Simple average tariff (%) 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 
8  WTO agriculture 9.7 8.9 8.9 8.5 9.0b 
9  WTO non-agriculture (incl. petroleum) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 
10  Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing 
(ISIC 1) 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.6 6.7 
11  Mining and quarrying (ISIC 2) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 
12  Manufacturing (ISIC 3) 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 
13  First stage of processing 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.3 
14  Semi-processed products 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 
15  Fully processed products 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3 
16 Domestic tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff 
lines)c 7.1 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 
                                               
29 WTO documents WT/L/833 and WT/L/834, 5 December 2011. 
30 Proclamation 8742 of 31 October 2011. 
31 Only Cuba and North Korea are subject to these duties. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 51 - 
 
   2004 2007 2009 2012 2014 
17 International tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff 
lines)d 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.1 
18 Overall standard deviation 12.6 11.9 11.8 11.9 13.7 
19 Nuisance applied rates (% of tariff lines)e 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.7 7.8 
20 Bound tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)f 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
 
a The tariff is provided at the 8-digit level. Averag es exclude in-quota rates and lines. Calculations 
include ad valorem  equivalents (AVEs) for non- ad valorem  duties, calculated by the U.S. authorities 
using import price data. 
b In 2014, the average tariff on imports of agricultural products (WTO Definition) into the 
United States was slightly higher than in 2012 due to lower commodity prices that led to higher 
ad valorem  equivalents for tariff lines with specific or compound duties. The increase was not caused 
by a change in tariff policy. 
c Domestic tariff peaks are defined as those exc eeding three times the overall average applied rate. 
d International tariff peaks are defined as those exceeding 15%. 
e Nuisance rates are greater than 0% but inferior or equal to 2%. f Two lines applying to cr ude petroleum are not bound. 
 Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data pr ovided by the U.S. authorities and notifications. 
Chart 3.3 Frequency distribution of MFN tariff rates, 2014 
(36.8%)
(31.3%)
(21.2%)
(5.7%)
(2.2%)
(1.1%)(1.8%)
0102030405060708090100
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500
Duty free >0 - 5 >5 - 10 >10 - 15 >15 - 20 >20 - 25 >25Number of tariff linesaPer cent
Cumulative %
Number of lines (% of total)
 
 
a The total number of lines is 10,514, of which 9,368 are ad valorem  lines and 1,146 non- ad valorem . 
 Source: WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the U.S. authorities.  
3.39.  In 2010 the United States passed legisl ation providing temporary duty suspensions on 
several hundred products that would lower the manufacturing costs for many U.S. companies.32 
While there were initiatives to extend these provisions in Congress, they expired on 31 December 2012, and no new legislation has been passed to date. 
                                               
32 Pub.L. 111-227. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 52 - 
 
 3.1.4.3  Bindings 
3.40.  U.S. WTO tariff commitments, as contained in Schedule XX, were last updated in 2011 after 
approval of the HS2002 nomenclature changes.33 However, a number of changes to the HTSUS 
have not yet been notified to the WTO as a change to Schedule XX. These include the third and 
fourth revisions to the pharmaceutical coverage, Chapter notes, and Article XXVIII tobacco 
renegotiations. 
3.41.  The WTO tariff commitments result in 100% binding coverage statistically; however 
two tariff lines pertaining to crude petroleum, remain unbound. Other duties and charges are 
bound at zero with the exception of seven lines, which are bound at higher levels.34 
3.1.4.4  Tariff rate quotas 3.42.  The United States maintains tariff-rate quotas on 200 tariff lines of agricultural products, 
(beef, dairy products, peanuts, sugar, chocolate & cocoa, olives, satsumas, animal feeds, tobacco, 
and cotton products). Approximately half are in the dairy sector, including milk, cream, butter, ice cream, and cheeses. 
3.1.5  Other charges affecting imports 
3.1.5.1  Customs user fees 3.1.5.1.1  Merchandise Processing Fee 
3.43.  The Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) is applied on all formal and informal imports to offset 
the CBP commercial operations budget. For formal entries, an ad valorem  fee of 0.3464% is 
applied to the customs value; subject to a minimum and maximum cap of US$25 and US$485. Informal entries, i.e. mail imports, are subject to a flat fee ranging between US$2.00 and 
US$9.00 per shipment. 
3.44.  CBP increased the limit qualifying as an  informal entry from US$2,000 to US$2,500 in 2012. 
The rule also removes the requirement for formal entry of textiles formerly subject to absolute 
quotas under the ATC.
35 
3.45.  There are numerous exemptions to the merchandise processing fee, mostly for FTA or 
preferential imports. In addition to th e exemptions noted in the previous report36, exemptions 
were extended to new FTA partne rs, Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and Panama during the 
review period.37 
3.1.5.1.2  COBRA fees 3.46.  Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) fees are assessed on all imports 
in order to offset inspection costs related to compliance with customs laws. The fee varies by the 
mode of arrival (Table 3.3). 
Table 3.3 COBRA fees 
Fee Reference Fee rate/annual 
decal/cap/user fee Note 
Commercial vessel  19 CFR 24.22(b)(1) US$437/ US$5,955 (cap)  
Commercial vehicle 19 CFR 24.22(c) US$5.50/US$100 (annual 
cap)  
Rail cars 19 CFR 24.22(d) US$8.25/ US$100 
(prepay)  
                                               
33 WTO document WT/Let/754, 10 March 2011. 
34 Schedule XX. 
35 77 FR 72715. 
36 WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. 
37 78 FR 63052, 77 FR 59064, 77 FR 15943. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 53 - 
 
 Fee Reference Fee rate/annual 
decal/cap/user fee Note 
Private aircraft/vessel 19 CFR 24.22(e) US$27.50 (annual decal)  
Air/sea passenger 19 CFR 24.22(g) US$5.50 (per arrival) Exemption for Canada, 
Mexico, and U.S. territories, possessions or adjacent islands 
Cruise vessel and ferry 
passenger travel from 
Canada, Mexico, and 
U.S. territories, 
possessions or adjacent 
islands 19 CFR 24.22(g)(ii) US$1.93 (per arrival)  
Dutiable mail  19 CFR 24.22(f) US$5.50 (per dutiable 
package)  
Customs broker  19 CFR 24.22(c)  US$138 (annual fee)  
Barge/bulk carriers from 
Canada and Mexico  19 CFR 24.22(b)(2)(i) US$110/US$1,500 (cap)   
 
Source: CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/uftd-info , and 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/userfee0407_3.pdf . 
3.1.5.1.3  Harbor Maintenance Tax 
3.47.  The Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) is assessed on imported goods arriving by vessel.38 The 
fees are placed in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which is used by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation channels, mostly dredging ports and channels.39 In 
recent times, the HMTF has accrued significant surpluses as typically only about half of collections 
have been appropriated for works. The fee rate remains unchanged at 0.125% on the declared 
value of commercial cargo. 
3.1.5.1.4  Agriculture fees 
3.48.  Pursuant to a number of laws or regulation s, CBP collects a number of agricultural fees on 
behalf of the Department of Agriculture (Table 3.4). The main agriculture fees, the Agriculture 
Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) fees vary accordin g to the type of carrier, and are instituted to 
protect U.S. agriculture and the environment agains t the risks of invasive diseases and pests. The 
other fees concern services and lab fees for vete rinary imports, and assessments on a number of 
products for research and promotion activities. These fees remain unchanged since the last review. 
3.49.  In 2013, the GAO issued a report highligh ting the gaps between the fee revenues and the 
programme costs resulting in a US$325 million shortfall in 2011, as well as concerns over the 
collection process for AQI fees.40 As a result, in April 2014, APHIS proposed rules on new fee 
categories, adjusting fee rates, and a fee increase for overtime services.41 
Table 3.4 Agricultural fees 
Fee Legal reference Reason Amount of fee 
Beef Imports 
Assessment 7 CFR Part 1260  
 Beef research, 
promotion, consumer information Varies according to the 
HTS number 
Dairy Imports 
Assessment 7 CFR Part 1150 Dairy research, 
promotion, consumer 
information US$0.01327 per kg of 
milk solids 
Pork Imports Assessment 7 CFR Part 1230  
 Pork research, 
promotion, consumer information Varies according to the 
HTS number 
                                               
38 It is also assessed on cruise ship passengers, wh ich accounts for a very sm all amount of revenues. 
39 The use of the funds by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires an a ppropriation by Congress. 
40 GAO online information. Viewed at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652555.pdf . 
41 79 FR 22895 and 79 FR 22887. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 54 - 
 
 Fee Legal reference Reason Amount of fee 
Honey Imports 
Assessment Honey Research, 
Promotion and 
Information Act of 1984; 
Public Law 98-590 7 CFR 
1240  Honey research, 
promotion, consumer 
information Varies according to the 
HTS number 
Cotton Imports 
Assessment Cotton Research and 
Promotion Act of 1989 7 
CFR 1205  
 Cotton research, 
promotion, consumer 
information 
 Varies according to the 
HTS number 
Potato Imports 
Assessment 
 Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990 
7 CFR 1207  
 Potato research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  
 Varies according to the 
HTS number 
Mushroom Imports Assessment 
 Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990 7 CFR 1209  
 Mushroom research, 
promotion, consumer information  
 Varies according to the 
HTS number 
Watermelon Import 
Assessments Watermelon Research 
and Promotion Act 7 CFR 
1210  
 Watermelon research, 
promotion, consumer 
information  
 Varies according to the 
HTS number 
AQI Commercial Vessel Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; also MOU  
 Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services US$496.00 per arrival 
AQI Commercial Truck Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 
1990; also MOU  
 Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services 
 US$5.25 per arrival 
AQI Commercial Truck 
Decal Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 
1990; also MOU  
 Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services 
 US$105.00 
AQI International Air 
Passenger Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 
1990; also MOU  
 Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services 
 US$5.00 per arrival 
AQI Aircraft Clearance Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 1990; also MOU  
 Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services 
 US$70.75 per arrival 
AQI Loaded Rail Car Food, Agriculture and 
Conservation Act of 
1990; also MOU  
 Agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services 
 US$7.75 per arrival 
Veterinary Diagnostic 
User Fees 9CFR 130.14 through 
130.19 Costs for tests from the 
national Veterinary Services Laboratories Varies depending on the 
type of test 
Veterinary Services 
User Fees 9CFR 130.2 through 
130.30 Costs for veterinary 
services Varies by type of service 
 Source: CPB online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/userfee0407_3.pdf . 
3.1.5.2  Excise taxes 
3.50.  U.S. excise taxes are assessed at the federal level on a variety of goods and services. Some 
excise taxes are allocated to trust funds for specific purposes, while others are generally available for expenditure (general fund) (Table 3.5). 
3.51.  Excise tax rates on air transportation were  revised during the review period, and internal 
rules and regulations were amended for medical devices, tanning services, and foreign financial 
institutions.  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 55 - 
 
 Table 3.5 Federal Excise Taxes 
Fund/Subject Products 
Trust funds 
Highway Trust Fund Gasoline, diesel, and alcohol fuels; ethanol, liquid fuel, ethanol, 
methanol, bio-diesel, CNG, LPG, LNG, other special fuels, highway 
tractors, heavy trucks, trailers, tires for heavy vehicles, highway 
use by heavy vehicles 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund  Domestic ai r passengers transportation, international air 
passengers transportation, air cargo, aviation fuelsa 
Inland Waterways Trust Fund  Diesel fuel and other 
Harbour Maintenance Trust Fund  Commercial cargo 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund Excise Tax Certain fuels 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Crude oil 
Sport Fish Restoration and Boating 
Trust Fund Fishing rods, reels, and other fi shing equipment, motorboat fuel, 
small-engine fuel 
Land and Water Conservation Fund Bows and arro ws, regular firearms an d ammunition, motorboat 
fuel 
Black Lung Disability Trust Fund Coal 
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust 
Fund Certain taxable vaccines 
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 
Trust Fund Specified health insurance policy 
Annual Fee on Branded Prescription 
Pharmaceutical Ma nufacturers and 
Importers Annual fee for all covered manufacturers and importers 
General funds 
Distilled spirits, wine, and beer Distilled spirits,  wine (including champagne and hard apple cider), 
and beer 
Tobacco Tobacco products, cigare tte papers and tubes 
Communications Telephone service, teletypewriter service, and telephone cards 
Gas Guzzler Automobiles (tax is related to vehicle fuel economy rating) 
Water Transportation Passenge r Per passenger per covered vo yage on commercial vessels 
Ozone-depleting chemicals Certain CFC and related chemicals 
Foreign procurement Specified federal procurement payments 
Certain medical devices Instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, 
in·vitro  reagent, or other simi lar or related articles 
Non-regular firearms Machine guns, destructive devices, sawed off shotguns, etc. 
Foreign private foundation net 
investment income Foreign private foundation net investment income 
Insurance policies issued by foreign 
insurers Insurance 
 
a 26 USC 4221 provides for an exemption, based on reciprocity, from U.S. excise taxes on fuel for civil aircraft engaged in foreign trade with the United  States and any of its possessions, where the 
Department of Commerce has made a finding th at a foreign country al lows, or will allow, 
substantially reciprocal privilege s in respect of aircraft regi stered in the United States. 
 Note: Other excise taxes related to health care, real estate, or miscell aneous regulatory excise taxes are 
not included as they are not trade related. 
 Source: Joint Committee on Taxation (2011), Present Law and Background In formation on Federal Excise 
Taxes , January. Viewed at: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3721. 
3.52.  In addition to federal excise taxes, st ate excise taxes are imposed on cigarettes, other 
tobacco products, motor fuels, distilled spirits, wine, and beer. The rates vary widely from State to 
State.42 Some excise taxes are also at the local or municipal level. 
                                               
42 The White House online information. Viewed at: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 56 - 
 
 3.1.6  Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
3.1.6.1  Prohibitions and restrictions 3.53.  The United States imposed several measures during the review period to restrict or prohibit 
certain imports. As a result of the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking 
(section 2.1.3), the United States announced a ban on the commercial import, export, or re-sale of 
elephant ivory.
43 In 2013, the President issued an execut ive order prohibiting imports from Burma 
of jadeite, rubies or jewellery containing jadeite or rubies.44 
3.54.  In addition, since 2012, the United States has implemented or extended restrictions on the 
import of certain archaeological and ethnological materials from several countries, pursuant to UNESCO's 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibit ing and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export 
and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Proper ty, as implemented through the Convention on 
Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA). Th ese provisions entered into effect for certain 
cultural material imports from Belize and Bulg aria, and were extended for Cambodia, China, 
Cyprus, Guatemala, Honduras, Mali, and Peru. Each country has a specific list of archaeological 
and/or ethnological materials that are subject to the restrictions.
45 Pursuant to the CCPIA46 import 
restrictions remain in place for Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Italy, and Greece. Restrictions also remain in place for Iraq pursuant to the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural 
Antiquities Act of 2004.
47 
3.55.  The U.S. CBP is responsible for enforcing hundreds of laws, on behalf of around 40 federal 
agencies, that may restrict or prohibit importation.48 The laws may prohibit the importation of a 
product or allow a product to be imported und er certain conditions (e.g. licensing). Other 
restrictions, such as limitations on the entry via certain ports or restrictions on routing are also 
possible (Table 3.6). 
Table 3.6 Prohibitions, restrictions , or other special requirements 
Product Prohibition, restriction, or requirement 
Cheese, milk and dairy pr oducts Subject to requirements of th e Food and Drug Administration and 
the Department of Agriculture 
Fruits, vegetables, and nuts Import requirements relating to gr ade, size, quality, and maturity 
Insects in a live state that are 
injurious to cultivated crops and the eggs, pupae, or larvae of such insects Prohibited from importation, except  for scientific purposes, under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture 
Livestock and animals Inspection and quarantine requir ements of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)  
Meat, poultry and egg products Subject to USDA regulations and must be inspected by the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
Seeds Provisions of the Federal Seed Act of 1939 and regulations of the 
Agricultural Marketing Service, govern the importation into the 
United States 
Wood packing materials Import regulations requ ire wood packing material to be treated and 
marked 
Household appliances Energy standards to be met, and la beled to indicate expected energy 
consumption or efficiency 
Commercial and industrial equipment Energy performan ce standards to be met 
                                               
43 The White House online information. Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2014/02/11/fact-sheet-national-strategy-combating-wildlife-trafficking-commercial-b . 
44 Executive Order 13651 of 6 August 2013. 
45 79 FR 2781, 79 FR 13873, 79 FR 2088, 78 FR 56832, 78 FR 14183, 77 FR 59541, 77 FR 58020, 77 FR 
41266, and 77 FR 33624. 
46 66 FR 63490, 71 FR 13757, 65 FR 64140, 60 FR 13351, 76 FR 3012, and 76 FR 74691. 
47 73 FR 23334. 
48 CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/kbyg/prohibited-
restricted . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 57 - 
 
 Product Prohibition, restriction, or requirement 
Toys and childr en's articles Compliance with applicable regulations issued under the 
Federal Hazardous Substances Act 
Lead in paint Banned if they contain more  than 0.06% lead by weight of the dried 
plant film 
Bicycles and bicycle helmets Bicycles to meet regulations issued under the Federal Hazardous 
Substances Act and helmets must CPSC's  Safety Standard 
Fireworks Labeling requirements and technical specifications to be met 
Flammable fabrics Conform to applicable flammabili ty standard under the Flammable 
Fabrics Act 
Art materials Conform to the provisions of  the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials 
Act 
Cigarette lighters and multi-purpose 
lighters Compliance with the child-resistant safety standard 
Radiation- and sonic radiation-producing products Compliance with a radiation performance standard 
Radio frequency devices Subject to radiation performance standards 
Foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical 
devices Subject to the requirements of the Public Health Security and 
Bio-Terrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 
Foods, cosmetics, etc. Prohibits the importation of arti cles that are adulterated or 
misbranded and products that ar e defective, unsafe, filthy, or 
produced under unsanitary conditions 
Biological drugs Domestic as well as fore ign manufacturers of such products must 
obtain a U.S. license for both the manufacturing establishment and for the product intended to be produced or imported 
Biological materi als and vectors Prohibited unless they have been propagated or prepared at an 
establishment with a U.S. license for such manufacturing issued by 
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 
Gold and silver Articles made of gold or alloys thereof are prohibited importation 
into the United States if the gold content is one half carat divergence 
below the indicated fineness 
Counterfeit articles Articles bearing facsimiles or replicas of coins or securities of the 
United States or of any foreig n country cannot be imported 
Monetary instruments If a person receives more than US$10,000 at one time from or 
through a place outside the United States, a report of the transportation (form FINCEN 105) must be filed with CBP 
Pesticides The regulations require importers to submit to CBP an EPA Notice of 
Arrival that the EPA has review ed and approved before the 
importation arrives in the United States 
Toxic substances Imports wi ll not be released from CBP custody unless proper 
certification is presented to pres ented to CBP indicating that the 
import "complies with" or "is not subject to" TSCA requirements 
Hazardous substances Substances be shipped to  the United States in packages suitable for 
household use 
Refrigerants The EPA regulates the import ation of ozone-depl eting substances 
Textile products Must be stamped, tagged, labeled,  or otherwise marked with the 
specific information 
Wool Must tagged, labeled, or othe rwise clearly marked with specific 
information 
Fur Must tagged, labeled, or otherwise clearly marked with specific 
information 
Dog or cat fur The importation,  exportation, transportation, distribution or sale of 
any product that consists of any dog fur, cat fur, or both, is 
prohibited 
Matches, fireworks, knives Certain matches, fireworks, and knives are prohibited 
Obscene, immoral, or seditious 
matter and lottery tickets Certain books, writings, advertisements, circulars, or pictures 
containing these are prohibited 
Products of convict or forced labour Merchandise produced, mined, or manu factured, wholly or in part by 
means of the use of convict labour , forced labor, or indentured 
labour under penal sanctions is  prohibited from importation 
 
Source: CBP online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Importing%20into%20 the%20U.S.pdf. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 58 - 
 
 3.56.  In October 2012, the United States notified 12 specific quantitative restrictions to the WTO, 
under the new notification procedures.49 
3.1.6.2  Import licensing 3.57.  The United States requires an import licence (automatic and non-automatic
50) for imports of 
certain product categories. The licensing requirements are imposed by six U.S. executive 
Departments under various statutes, and for various purposes (Table 3.7). 
3.58.  The United States has extended the provisions of the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis 
System (due to expire in March 2013) to 21 March 2017.51 This licensing programme provides 
statistical data to the public on steel imports in to the United States seven weeks in advance of 
when it would normally be available. In Februa ry 2013, the Department of Agriculture issued a 
proposed rule to amend certain aspects of the Dairy Import Licensing Program, including the 
methodology for issuing licences.52 To date, a final rule has not been issued.  
Table 3.7 Products subject to import licensing  
Category Products Agency Purpose Legal reference Other info 
Plant and 
plant products Certain plant 
and plant 
products Department of 
Agriculture To protect 
against the 
entry of plant 
pests and diseases, and to protect endangered plant species Section 412 of 
the Plant 
Protection Act, 
7 U.S.C. 7712 and the Endangered Species Act, Persons, firms, and 
institutions 
resident in the 
United States may apply for a licence 
Animals and 
animal 
products Certain animal 
and animal 
products Department of 
Agriculture To protect 
domestic 
agriculture from 
the introduction 
or entry of 
animal diseases 
or disease 
vectors Title 9 C.F.R., 
Parts 92, 94.7, 
94.16, 95.4, 
95.18, 95.19, 
95.20 through 
98, 104 and 122; 
and: 21 U.S.C-
102 to 105, 111, 
134, 135, 151-
159 and 
19 U.S.C-1306 All persons, firms 
and institutions in 
the United States 
may apply for 
permits 
Sugar Raw and 
refined sugar Department of 
Agriculture To administer 
the sugar TRQ and the sugar re-export programme 15 CFR 2011, 
Sub-part A,  15 CFR 2011, Sub-part B.7 CFR 1530 All importers are 
eligible to apply for certificates for specialty sugars. Only U.S refiners may apply for licences to import 
quota-exempt 
sugar 
Dairy products Certain dairy 
products Department of 
Agriculture An 
administrative 
tool that 
governs 
importats of 
certain dairy 
products 
subject to TRQs 
resulting from 
the Uruguay 
Round 
Agreement CFR 6.20-6.37 Importers or 
manufacturers of 
dairy products may 
apply for import 
licences if they 
meet the Import 
Regulation 
performance 
criteria on the 
quantity of imports 
entered in a 
previous 12-month 
period, and for 
manufacturers the 
specified level of 
dairy production in 
a previous 
                                               
49 G/L/59/Rev.1, 3 July 2012. 
50 In its notification to the WTO, the United States did not distinguish between automatic and 
non-automatic licences. However it is clear that several are non-automatic. 
51 78 FR 11090. 
52 78 FR 8434. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 59 - 
 
 Category Products Agency Purpose Legal reference Other info 
12-month period. 
Manufacturers 
must be listed in 
USDA's Dairy 
Plants Surveyed  
Steel All basic steel 
mill product Department of 
Commerce, International Trade Administration To provide fast 
and reliable statistical information on steel imports to the government and the public 74 FR 11474, 78 
FR 11090 Only registered 
users may file steel licences; registration is available to all and is free 
Natural gas Natural gas, 
including LNG 
and CNG Department of 
Energy To fulfil the 
requirements of 
the Natural Gas 
Act requiring 
authorization to 
import 15 U.S.C. 717b All persons, firms, 
and institutions 
may import natural 
gas 
Fish and wildlife Fish and wildlife 
including endangered species Department of 
the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service  To: identify 
commercial importers and exporters of wildlife; require records that fully and correctly disclose each 
importation or 
exportation of wildlife and the subsequent disposition of the wildlife by the importer or exporter 50 CFR Part 14 All persons, firms, 
and institutions may apply for a licence 
Firearms and 
ammunition Firearms and 
ammunition Department of 
Justice, Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and 
Explosives To administer 
licensing 
provisions 
under three 
statutes 18 U.S.C., 
Chapter 44 and 
27 CFR Part 478 All persons, firms, 
and institutions 
may apply for a 
licence 
Firearms, ammunition, and implements of war Defense articles 
on the U.S. munitions list Department of 
Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives To regulate 
international trafficking in arms, consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests 18 U.S.C. 
Chapter 44, 22 U.S.C. 2778, 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53 All persons, firms, 
and institutions may apply for a licence 
Explosives Explosives, 
blasting agents 
and detonators Department of 
Justice, Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and 
Explosives To protect 
against the 
misuse and 
unsafe storage 
of explosive 
materials 18 USC 
Chapter 40; 27 
CFR Part 555 All persons, firms, 
and institutions 
may apply for a 
licence 
Controlled substances and listed chemicals Controlled 
substances and listed chemicals Department of 
Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration To restrict the 
quantity of imports of controlled substances and listed chemicals (not monetary value) and to 
maintain a 
monitoring system Title 21, CFR, 
Part 1310, 1312, 1313, 21 USC sections 822, 823, 826, 953, 957 and 958 Importation only 
by approved, registered importers 
Distilled spirits 
(beverages), 
wine, and 
malt 
beverages Distilled spirits 
(beverages), 
wine, and malt 
beverages  Department of 
the Treasury, 
Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau  To provide an 
enforcement 
mechanism to 
ensure that 
importers 
comply with all 
requirements of 
federal law Federal Alcohol 
Administration 
Act Any person, firm or 
institution may 
apply for a licence WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 60 - 
 
 Category Products Agency Purpose Legal reference Other info 
relating to 
alcohol 
Distilled spirits 
or alcohol for 
industrial use Distilled spirits 
or alcohol for 
industrial use, 
including denatured spirits Department of 
the Treasury, 
Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau To prevent tax 
fraud 26 U.S.C. 5001, 
26 U.S.C. 
5002(a), 26 
U.S.C. 5171, 26 U.S.C. 5181, 27 CFR Part 19 Any person, firm or 
institution may 
apply for a licence 
Tobacco 
products Tobacco 
products, 
processed 
tobacco, and 
proprietors of 
export 
warehouses Department of 
the Treasury, 
Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau Primary 
purpose is to 
ensure proper 
collection of 
federal excise 
tax revenue on 
tobacco 
products Title 26 U.S.C. 
Chapter 52 Any person, firm or 
institution may 
apply for a licence 
Nuclear 
facilities and materials Production and 
utilization facilities, special nuclear materials, source materials, and by-product materials, including when such materials 
are contained in 
radioactive waste. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission To protect 
public health and safety and the environment, and maintain the common defence and security of the United States, by exercising 
prudent 
controls over the possession, use, distribution, and transport of such items Atomic Energy 
Act, 10 CFR Part 110 All persons, firms 
and institutions must have a permanent (physical) address within the United States 
 
Source: WTO document G/LIC/N/3/USA/10, 24 September 2013. 
3.1.6.3  Sanctions, contro ls, or special procedures 
3.59.  The United States maintains a number of  sanctions against certain countries, for various 
reasons, some of which impose trade restrictions . While the majority of sanctions do not have 
trade provisions, some have direct provisions on goods or services. A variety of trade sanctions 
remain in place for Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.53 
3.60.  Trade in rough diamonds is subject to spec ial provisions in order to combat the trade of 
conflict diamonds. The regulations pertaining to  Kimberly Process Certification Scheme for the 
importation or exportation of rough diamonds, as implemented by the United States as the Clean 
Diamond Trade Act of 2003, were amended in 2013.54 These changes require importers and 
exporters to retain a copy of the original Kimberly Process Certificate for five years, and restate certain provisions of the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations for regulatory clarity. 
3.61.  Certain provisions with respect to Cuba pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act were 
set to expire in September 2012 and 2013. Howeve r the President prolonged those provisions for 
one-year periods, thus they are currently in place until September 2014.
55  
3.62.  In December 2012, the President extended Permanent Normal Trade Relations treatment to 
the Russian Federation and Moldova.56 
                                               
53 U.S. Department of the Treasury  online information. Viewed at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx . 
54 78 FR 40627. 
55 77 FR 56753, 78 FR 57790, and 78 FR 57223. WTO documents G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15 and 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15, 10 October 2013. 
56 Proclamation 8920 of 20 December 2012. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 61 - 
 
 3.1.7  Anti-dumping, counterva iling, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1  Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 3.63.  During the review period, the United States continued to use trade remedies, with a rise in 
activity in 2013, and made some changes or updates to internal regulations relating to 
anti-dumping or countervailing duty investigations. The main changes were with respect to the 
extension of time limits for submission, the definition of "factual information" and the time limits for submission of factual information, certification of factual information during proceedings, and a 
provision that strengthens the accountability of attorneys and non-attorney representatives who 
appear in proceedings.
57 All the changes cover both anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
investigations and relate to the investigation procedures. 
3.64.  Furthermore, the Department of Commerce instituted some changes in practice.58 In 
late 2013, changes for anti-dumping investigations were announced regarding the selection of 
respondents in administrative review proceedings. This requires applying a statistically valid sampling method to select respondents, who are used to determine the applicable anti-dumping 
rate. Further, with respect to its practice regarding non-market economy anti-dumping 
proceedings, the Department of Commerce will no longer consider the non-market economy as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews.
59 
3.65.  In 2014, following the outcome of a cour t case, the Department of Commerce confirmed 
that it would not apply the previously withdr awn regulatory provisions governing targeted 
dumping.60 The Department of Commerce also issued a final rule on the use of market economy 
input prices in non-market economy proceedings.61 Under the new rules, additional parameters 
must be met, such as a threshold, before the Department of Commerce will use market economy 
input prices in non-market economy investigations. 
3.66.  The United States had 294 anti-dumping and countervailing measures in place at the end of 
2013, an increase of 18% since 2010. There was a general increase in the use of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties on emerging markets during 2010-14, while remedies with respect to developed countries decreased. China was the country mainly affected, accounting for over 40% of 
all orders in 2013. The Republic of Korea and Chinese Taipei were also slightly more impacted 
during the period, whereas EU countries, Japan, and Brazil all had slightly lower levels of remedies applied (Table 3.8). 
Table 3.8 Anti-dumping and countervailing duty  measures, by trading partner, 2010-13  
 2010 2011 2012 2013 
Trading partner/region     
China 108 114 118 123 
EU countries (27) 34 25 23 23 
India 24 23 23 23 
Chinese Taipei 16 16 18 18 
Korea, Republic of  16 14 15 15 
Japan 16 14 13 14 
Brazil 14 12 10 10 
Mexico 8 6 6 7 
Other America 7 7 5 5 
Other Asia (including Australia) 29 29 27 30 
Other Europe  20 20 17 17 
Africa 4 4 4 4 
Middle East 4 4 5 5 
                                               
57 78 FR 22773, 78 FR 21246, and 78 FR 42678. WTO documents G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.14 and 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.14, 29 July 2013; and WTO documents G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.12 and G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.12, 22 April 2013. 
58 78 FR 65963. 
59 78 FR 65963. 
60 79 FR 22371. 
61 78 FR 46799. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 62 - 
 
  2010 2011 2012 2013 
Total  300 288 284 294 
 
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on USITC (2011), "Antid umping and Countervailing Duty Orders in place as 
of 29 May 2014". Viewed at: www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy /documents/orders.xls , 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/historical_case_stats.pdf ; and Department of 
Commerce, Import Administration online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html . 
3.67.  U.S. anti-dumping investigations have generally been below historic levels in recent years, 
with the exception of 2013, when there was a significant increase in investigations. Some 39 investigations were initiated in 2013, compared to an average in the other 4 years of 2010-14 of 9 per year.  
Chart 3.4 Anti-dumping investigations initiated by region, 2010-14
 
(N° of investigations) 
310925
10110
1213
131
1
0510152025303540
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Asia Europe Americas Middle East
 
 
Note: Data until 30 June 2014. 
 Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. Department  of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html; http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/inv-initiations-
2000-current.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/ 
731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/active/index.htm. 
3.68.   In terms of product groups, anti-dumpi ng investigations generally targeted a mix of 
products, except in 2013 when 35 investigations were launched in the metals sector, 33 of them 
relating to steel products (Chart 3.5).  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 63 - 
 
 Chart 3.5 Anti-dumping investigations initiated by product, 2010-14 
(N°of investigations) 
29
335
82
24
1
1
114
22 211
0510152025303540
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Metals Chemicals & plastics Textiles
Stones, ceramic, etc. Wood & paper Machinery & electrical equipt.
Misc. manufactured Agriculture Transport & vehicles
Steel 
 
Note: Data until 30 June 2014.  Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. Department  of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html ; http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/inv-initiations-
2000-current.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/active/index.htm . 
Chart 3.6 Countervailing measures initiated by region, 2010-14 
(N° of investigations) 
37
516
92
11
1
21
05101520
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Asia Europe Americas Middle East
 
 
Note: Data until 30 June 2014.  Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. Departme nt of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html; http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/inv-initiations-
2000-current.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/active/index.htm . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 64 - 
 
 3.69.  The trend for countervailing duty investigations during 2010-14 was similar to that of 
anti-dumping investigations. They remained relatively low with the exception of 2013 when 19 investigations were initiated. Asian countries, in particular China, were the most affected with countervailing duty investigations (Chart 3.6). 
3.70.  In terms of products covered, the impact is diverse. In 2011 and 2013, the metals sector 
was particularly affected, while in other years agriculture, wood, machinery, chemicals, and 
transport and vehicles were the subject of investigations (Chart 3.7). 
Chart 3.7 Countervailing measures initiated by product, 2010-14 
(N° of investigations) 
27
28 84
1
1 12
117
11
1
05101520
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Metals Chemicals & plastics
Wood & paper Machinery & electrical equipt.
Steel Agriculture
Transport & vehicles Misc. manufactured 
 
Note: Data until 30 June 2014. 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. Department  of Commerce online information. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html  ; http://enforcement.trade.g ov/stats/inv-initiations-
2000-current.html ; and USITC online information. Viewed at: http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/ 
731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/active/index.htm. 
3.1.7.2  Sunset reviews 
3.71.  Section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the review of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty orders no later than five year s after their publication. An average of 40 reviews 
per year have been conducted in the United States over the last several years, to determine 
whether revocation of the order would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidy, and material injury. Through the domestic processes for review, the Department of Commerce and 
the USITC determine whether the duties should be kept in place (continued) or lifted (revoked). 
3.72.  While the number of reviews has varied over the last eight years, there has been a 
significant trend with fewer orders being revoked. In 2007-8, approximately half of all orders were 
revoked, whereas in 2013-14, about 90% of reviews resulted in the continuation of the remedy 
(Chart 3.8). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 65 - 
 
 Chart 3.8 Overview of sunset reviews, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, 
2007-14 
0102030405060708090100
01020304050607080
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Revocations (left hand axis) Continuations (left hand axis) Per cent continued (right hand axis)N° of Sunset reviewsPer cent
 
 
Note: Until 30 June 2014. 
 Source: Online information. Viewed at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html . 
3.1.7.3  Safeguards 
3.73.  U.S. safeguard legislation remains in place under the global safeguard provisions, 
Sections 201-204 of the Trade Act of 1974 as amended; and for communist countries, Section 406 of the Trade Act of 1974. Action under sections 421-423 of the Trade Act of 1974, pertaining to 
relief from market disruption by imports from the People's Republic of China, was terminated on 
10 December 2013.
62 There have been no changes to the legislation nor to regulations 
implementing U.S. safeguard procedures during the review period. The United States also has 
safeguard provisions in most of its FTAs.63 
3.74.  No safeguard investigation has been instituted under the global provisions since 2001 or 
under the China safeguard provision since 2009. 
3.1.8  Technical regulations and standards 3.75.  In the period under review, no major ch anges were made to U.S. regulatory policy.
64 
However, regulatory practices are currently under  review with respect to the participation of 
federal regulators in the development and use of standards, and in conformity assessment 
activities.  
3.76.  The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Circular A-119 (Federal 
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities) of the U.S.  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direct federal agencies 
to use "voluntary consensus standards" as a basis for technical regulations and government 
procurement bids, except where inconsistent with  law or otherwise impractical. Thus, where a 
federal regulatory agency determines that mandat ory compliance with a standard is needed to 
address a particular policy objective, it is required to rely on voluntary consensus standards and 
avoid developing its own "government unique stan dard". A standard becomes mandatory when the 
                                               
62 See Section 423(c) of the Trade Act of 1974. 
63 WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. 
64 For an overview of the U.S. rule-making proc edures, see USTR (2014b). See also WTO documents 
G/TBT/W/315, 10 June 2009; and WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, Table III.15, 8 March 2013. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 66 - 
 
 standard (or relevant parts thereof) is incorporated into a technical regulation and a regulatory 
agency requires compliance with the standard. The Standards Incorporated by Reference Database (SIBR), maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce, includes voluntary consensus standards, government unique standards, private 
industry standards, and international standards referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations 
(C.F.R.).
65 The Institute has identified 10,590 citations of standards incorporated by reference in 
regulatory documents (as of June 2014). 
3.77.  Proposed revisions to Circular A-11966 would maintain a "strong preference" for the use of 
voluntary consensus standards in federal regulation and procurement, but would acknowledge that standards not developed using a consensus-driven process are also in use in the market (particularly in information technology), which may be relevant or necessary for regulation. The 
proposed revisions would also encourage federal agencies to consider international and private 
instead of government conformity assessment proced ures or schemes. The proposed revisions also 
refer to the retrospective review mechanism set out in Executive Orders 13563 (Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 13610 (Ide ntifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), and 
highlight the mechanism as a tool to ensure that standards incorporated by reference are updated on a timely basis and to review and update its conformity assessment requirements. The 
retrospective evaluation focuses on the ex-post  effects of regulations to determine, inter alia , 
whether these should be modified or repealed.  
3.78.  Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs federal agencies to follow 
certain principles in planning, developing, and reviewing federal regulations, and describes the role 
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the OMB in the rule-making 
process. All "significant" regulatory actions by federal agencies
67 must be reviewed by OIRA before 
publication and, to this end, agencies must submit  the text of the draft regulatory action to OIRA 
along with, inter alia, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action. In 
addition, agencies  must prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for each regulation that OIRA 
or the agency designates as "economically significant" with an impact on the economy of over 
US$100 million in at least one year.68 The regulatory impact analysis provides a more in-depth 
cost-benefit analysis of feasible regulatory alternatives.  
3.79.  Under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, federal agencies must provide an 
opportunity for public comment on a proposed rule published in the Federal Register, before it may 
issue a final regulation. While the Act does not establish a minimum comment period, Executive 
Order 13563 establishes no less than 60-days as th e norm. The final rule must be published in the 
Federal Register no less than 30 days before it is effective. 
3.80.  The United States submitted 269 TBT notifications in 2013 (248 in 2012)69, including 
sub-federal measures notified under Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement (Table A2.2). The United States was the only WTO Member to notify at the local government level during the review 
period, with 11 sub-federal notifications submitted in 2013, mainly relating to environmental 
protection. The federal regulatory agencies with greatest number of TBT notifications related to 
international trade include: the Department of Energy (DOE), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Departme nt of Transportation (DOT), Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), Consumer Product Safety  Commission (CPSC), and the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC). The National Institute of St andards and Technology is the United States' 
enquiry point and notification authority under the TBT Agreement and responds to 
                                               
65 National Institute of Standards and Tech nology online information. Viewed at: 
https://standards.gov/ sibr/query/index.cfm . 
66 WTO document G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1, 26 March 2014.  See also White House online information. 
Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/inforeg_infopoltech . The comment period on the proposed 
revisions closed on 12 May 2014 and the U.S. government is now considering the comments before issuing the 
revised circular. 
67 With the exception of the "independent" regulato ry agencies (e.g. Consumer Safety Protection 
Commission). 
68 "Economically significant" regulation means any regulato ry action that is likely to result in a rule that 
may: "Have an annual effect on the economy of US$100 mil lion or more or adversely affect in a material way 
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, co mpetition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal go vernments or communities." Federal Regi ster online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf . 
69 Including revised notificati ons, addenda and corrigenda. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 67 - 
 
 Members' requests for documents and information within two days, and usually within one day, 
according to the authorities. Comments received or inquiries for clarification of technical details in a notified measure are transmitted by the enquiry po int to the relevant U.S. regulatory agency for 
reply as soon as possible.  
3.81.  Since the last Review of the United States, five specific trade concerns have been raised in 
the TBT Committee against measures taken by the United States.
70 Furthermore, 
three WTO dispute settlement proceedings taken against the United States under the 
TBT Agreement are pending (Table A2.1).71  
3.82.  There were no major new policy developments on standardization during the review 
period.72 The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non-governmental body and the 
national standardization body, coordinates pr ivate-sector standardization and conformity 
assessment activities, and accredits organizations whose standards development process meets 
ANSI requirements of due process and consensus.73 U.S. agencies participate in national and 
international standards development activities and ANSI committees. In 2012, the 
U.S. Government announced a new funding facility in  collaboration with ANSI that is intended to 
assist developing countries in implementing their commitments under the TBT Agreement.74 
3.83.  The United States relies on a broad ra nge of approaches to conformity assessment, 
depending on the sector (supplier's declaration of conformity, third-party testing or certification, 
etc.). Accreditation programmes are operated by all levels of government and the private sector, and frequently rely on private-sector conformity assessment bodies. Bodies fulfilling the criteria specified by the regulator, domestic or foreign-based, are accredited or otherwise recognized to 
perform conformity assessment activities. 
3.84.  Executive Order 13609 of 1 May 2012 seeks to promote international cooperation to address 
unnecessary differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and their foreign 
counterparts.
75 Regulatory cooperation activities pursuant to USTR's statutory authorities for 
trade policy are excluded from the scope of the Executive Order, and continue to be pursued, 
inter alia, through U.S. work in APEC, the WTO TBT Committee, and bilateral free-trade 
agreements. The United States uses a number of mechanisms for regulatory cooperation, including 
cooperation in standards development organizations; regulator-to-regulator dialogues, such as the International Medical Device Regulatory Forum (IMDRF); regulatory cooperation efforts through regional fora, such as APEC; bilateral initiatives, such as the Regulatory Cooperation Councils 
between the United States, and Canada and Mexico (section 3); as well as mutual recognition 
agreements (MRAs).  
3.85.  For testing and certification of telecommunication equipment, the United States has signed 
non-binding MRA frameworks with APEC (1999)  and the Inter-American Telecommunications 
Commission (CITEL) of the Organization of the American States (1999). The United States 
                                               
70 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products (WTO documents G/TBT/N/USA/842, 16 July 
2013; G/TBT/N/USA/842/Corr.1, 19 July 2013; and G/TBT/N/USA/848, 30 July 2013; see also G/TBT/M/60, 23 September 2013 and G/TBT/M/62, 20 May 2014); Proposed Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (G/TBT/N/USA/840, 3 July 2013; see also  G/TBT/M/60, 23 September 2013); United States–EPA 
Palm Oil Biofuels Regulatory Program (IMS ID 408, see also G/TBT/M/61, 5 February 2014 and G/TBT/M/62, 
20 May 2014); Energy Conservation Program: Test Pr ocedure for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 
(G/TBT/N/USA/865, 8 November 2013; see also G/ TBT/M/62, 20 May 2014); and US—Formaldehyde: 
Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formal dehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products 
(G/TBT/N/USA/828, 12 June 2013, see also G/TBT/M/63, 19 September 2014). 
71 United States – Measures Concerning the Importatio n, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products 
(Tuna II) (DS381); United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (DS386 and DS384); and United States–Measures Affecting the Pr oduction and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (DS406). 
72 For the U.S. Standards Strategy (updated December 2010), see ANSI online information. Viewed at: 
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl /Documents/Standards% 20Activities/NSSC/USSS_Th ird_edition/USSS%202
010-sm.pdf . 
73 ANSI online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/domestic_programs/accreditation_as_developer/accredit.aspx?menui
d=3. 
74 ANSI online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=3655 . 
75 Federal Register online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo_13609/eo13609_05012012.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 68 - 
 
 implemented the APEC MRA with several countries, including Korea and Australia. In addition, the 
United States has signed MRAs with the EU (1998)  covering six sectors, EEA-EFTA (2006) covering 
three sectors, and with Japan (2007), Mexico (2011), and Israel (2012) covering telecom equipment. The United States has also signed se parate MRAs with the EU (2004) and EFTA (2006) 
covering marine safety equipment. 
3.1.9  Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 3.1.9.1   Food and Drug Administration  
3.86.  The responsibilities of the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) include the regulation of 
food, except meat, poultry, and processed eggs, which are regulated by the USDA
76; food 
additives; human and veterinary drugs; cosmetics; and dietary supplements.  
3.87.  The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) , a major reform of legislation on food safety 
and the safety of animal feed under the respon sibility of the FDA, entered into force on 
4 January 2011 (P.L. 111-353).77 The import-related reforms include: foreign supplier verification 
(i.e. importers are responsible for ensuring that their foreign suppliers have adequate preventive 
controls in place); a voluntary qualified importer programme for expedited review and importation 
of food; an accredited third-party auditor programme; authority to require certification of imported food items where there is a known food-safety risk; and possible refusal of entry into the 
United States if FDA access to inspect a foreign facility is denied.  
3.88.  Between January 2013 and January 2014, the FDA published for public comment 
seven proposed regulations to implement some of the key elements of the FSMA.
78 The proposed 
regulations address produce safety79, preventive food controls80, foreign supplier verification 
programme81, accreditation of third-party auditors82, preventive controls in the animal feed 
supply83, protection against intentional adulteration of food84, and sanitary transportation of 
food.85 The regulatory drafting process is ongoing. Prior to the issuance of the final rules, the 
FDA has announced that it will issue revisions for several of the previously published proposed 
regulations and interested stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comments. 
3.89.  U.S. law requires that an importer provide advance notice of shipments of certain imported 
food.86 Section 304 of the FSMA amended the prior-noti ce statute, adding a requirement that the 
notice include information on "any country to which the article has been refused entry". The enacting regulation (Prior Notice of Import ed Food) entered into force on 30 May 2013.  
3.90.  The FSMA authorizes the FDA to levy fees on certain domestic and foreign facilities and 
importer re-inspections. The costs of these activiti es were previously borne by the FDA. Fees may 
also be assessed for food recall activities when a domestic food facility or importer does not comply with a recall order, and for administrative costs associated with the voluntary qualified 
importer programme, food export certifications, and the third-party auditor programme.
87  
3.1.9.2  Food Safety and Inspection Service 3.91.  The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA is responsible, inter alia , for 
ensuring the safety and accurate labelling of me at, poultry, and processed egg products, including 
imports. The FSIS is also responsible for recogn izing foreign regulatory systems as providing a 
                                               
76 For information concerning jurisdiction overlap for products regulated by FDA and USDA, see FDA 
online information. Viewed at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/iceci/inspections/iom/ucm127390.pdf . 
77 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2156, 14 February 2011. See also U.S. TPR (2012). 
78 FDA online information. Viewed at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ . 
79 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2503, 10 January 2013. 
80 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2502, 10 January 2013. 
81 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2569, 30 July 2013. 
82 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2570, 30 July 2013. 
83 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2593, 30 October 2013. 
84 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2610, 13 January 2014. 
85 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2631, 10 February 2014. 
86 28 U.S.C. para. 381; 21 C.F.R. para. 1.276 et seq. 
87 The fee rates for importer re-inspection for FY2014 are US$237 per hour (US$302 per hour, if foreign 
travel is required). See addenda notifications to WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2656, 11 April 2014. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 69 - 
 
 level of protection for these commodities equivalent to that provided in the United States. The 
United States has recognized 35 countries with meat, poultry, and/or egg inspection systems equivalent to its own.
88 According to the authorities, these are not equivalence agreements but 
rather recognitions by the FSIS. In December 2012, the FDA reached its first such arrangement 
with the Ministry for Primary Industries of New Zealand, whereby the participants recognize their 
food safety systems as comparable to each other. This Food Safety Systems Recognition Arrangement does not grant New Zealand and the United States any additional access to each 
other's markets. There are no major new developm ents regarding FSIS import requirements since 
the last Review of the United States. 
3.1.9.3  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 3.92.  The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture is 
responsible for regulations to protect against the introduction of plant and animal diseases and 
pests. To this end, APHIS regulates imports of  live plants; grain, oilseed and horticultural 
products; live animals (including embryos, seme n, ova), animal products, and research and 
exhibition animals. A number of APHIS-regulated products are also regulated by FSIS; in those 
instances imports must comply with both APHI S and FSIS requirements. For example, certain 
animal products may be subject to import restri ctions by APHIS due to disease risks, and once 
those risks are mitigated, the products may be subject to FSIS requirements. 
3.93.  On 29 May 2013, the OIE upgraded the U.S. risk classification for bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) to negligible. On 4 March 2014, a new APHIS regulation (BSE Comprehensive Rule) entered into force bringing U.S. import requirements generally into line 
with the OIE's criteria for classifying regions for BSE risk status (negligible, controlled, and 
undetermined risk).
89 The regulation also allows APHIS to conduct its own risk assessment. As a 
result, products that were previously restricted but pose no risk to human health (e.g. boneless 
beef from countries that have had a case of BSE) may be imported into the United States, 
provided other import requirements are met. 
3.1.9.4  Environmental Protection Agency 
3.94.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible, inter alia , for registering 
pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides) for use in the United States, and establishing maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides on food, known as "tolerances" in the United States. The EPA is required to conduct a risk assessment to study the potential health and ecological 
effects of a pesticide before it can enter the U.S. market. Since 2012, the EPA has established 
897 tolerances for pesticides on food, 827 of whic h are new trade facilitatin g tolerances, according 
to the authorities; the remainder are revised tolerances. 
3.95.  Since the last Review of the United States, three specific trade concerns have been raised in 
the SPS Committee against measures taken by the United States.
90 The United States submitted 
169 SPS notifications in 2013 (204 in 2012).91 
3.2  Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
3.2.1  Export procedures and requirements 3.96.  As with imports, Customs and Border Protection is responsible for enforcing U.S. export 
laws, rules, and regulations at the border for customs and on behalf of other U.S. Government 
                                               
88 For the list of certified facilities, se e FSIS online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-
products-foreign-establishments/eligible-foreign-establishments . 
89 Federal Register online information. Viewed at: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/ 12/04/2013-28228/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-
importation-of-bovines-and-bovine-products . 
90 U.S. proposed rule on good manufacturing proces s and hazard analysis and risk-based controls for 
human food- Concerns of China (W TO document G/SPS/R/71, paragr aphs. 4.1-4.2, 28 August 2013); 
Accreditation of third-party bodies to conduct food safety audits and to issu e certifications – Concerns of China 
(WTO document G/SPS/R/73, paragraphs. 3.1-3.3, 15 January 2014); U.S. imports of meat from Brazil – 
Concerns of Nicaragua (WTO document G/SPS/R/74, paragraphs. 3.5-3.8, 6 June 2014). 
91 Including revised notification s, addenda, and corrigenda. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 70 - 
 
 agencies. CBP requires export data to be filed electronically via the Automated Export System 
(AES) prior to departure of the cargo. The timefram es for electronic submission vary according to 
mode of transportation; e.g. for air cargo, no later than 2 hours prior to scheduled departure; for vessels, 24 hours prior to loading; and for truck/train, no later than one/two hours prior to arrival 
at the border. For participants in the post-departure filing programme, exporters may file their 
electronic submissions of the Electronic Export Information in AES up to five calendar days after the departure of the conveyance. 
3.97.  The Automated Export System (AES), CB P's automated electronic system for exports, 
replaced the Shipper's Export Declaration. All expo rt data have been processed electronically since 
2008. The AES provides an interface for export ship ment data and export manifests to be sent to 
CBP for processing; it also validates exports that require export licences. All export shipments 
valued over US$2,500 must be filed through the AES. 
3.98.  With the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) (section 3.1.1.1.1) 
as the single window application for CBP, it will be the electronic platform for filing export data. 
The AES was transferred and updated onto the AC E platform during the second quarter of 2014.
92  
3.99.  Exports are generally required to be classified using the nomenclature of Schedule B, 
produced by the U.S. Census, for export classifi cation. Schedule B follows the HS nomenclature, 
but it differs from the HTSUS, and is not updated as frequently. In certain cases, exporters may 
also use HTSUS classification when filing through the AES. 
3.100.  New export reporting requirements published in March 2013 went into effect in April 2014 
with respect to amending certain export regulations.93 The changes were: 
• post departure filing was reduced from 10 to 5 calendar days; 
• temporary shipments must be filed through the AES; 
• the data elements of licence value and ultimate consignee have been added;  
• specific exclusions or exemptions have been added, in particular with regard to certain 
licensed goods; 
• all used self-propelled vehicles must be filed through the AES, irrespective of value, and 
these must be filed at least 72 hours in advance; and 
• the definitions of household goods and international waters have been modified.94 
3.101.  In January 2014, the Census Bureau, in cooperation with CBP, announced the Advance 
Export Information (AEI) pilot project, to help improve filing requirements and facilitate exports. 
The pilot programme requires the participants to submit less information in its electronic filing 
through the AES. There are ten mandatory elements  (USPPI identification, ultimate consignee, 
commodity classification number, commodity descript ion, port of export, date of export, carrier 
identification, conveyance name, licence code, shipment reference number), and two optional 
elements (authorized agent's identification number, export control classification number) to submit 
pre-departure. To participate in the pilot, the exporter must be a USPPI95, have 12 months of 
exporting history, have a minimum of 10 shipments per month, demonstrate an acceptable level of 
compliance, and be in compliance with other federal trade regulations.96 
                                               
92 CBP online information. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/systems . 
93 Originally scheduled to go into effect in January, but delayed until April 2014. Source: 78 FR 67927. 
94 CBP online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/changes_foreign_trer_3_0.pdf; and 78 FR 16366. 
95 U.S. Principal Party in Interest, i. e. the person in the United States that receives the primary benefit 
of the export. 
96 79 FR 5330. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 71 - 
 
 3.2.2  Export taxes, charges, and levies 
3.102.  The United States does not impose expo rt taxes or duties on exports as they are 
prohibited by the Constitution.97 
3.103.  General export levies or fees are not a pplied, and have been revoked when examined by 
the courts and found unconstitutional. However, fees may be charged for specific services that aid 
exporters, such as inspection or certification fees for agricultural products. 
3.2.3  Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
3.104.  The United States imposes restrictions, licensing requirements, additional controls and 
prohibitions on a variety of exports for national security and foreign policy reasons. The exporter 
may have to identify additional factors such as the country of destination, end-use, and foreign person or firm, depending upon the relevant re quirements. The categories of items subject to 
controls were not changed during the review period (Table 3.9). 
Table 3.9 Items subject to export re strictions, controls, or licensing 
Product category Responsible agency Legal reference 
Natural gas and electric 
power Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 
Office of Imports and Exports, and Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 15 U.S.C. 717b 
Fish and wildlife, including 
endangered species Department of the Interior 50 CFR Part 14 
Dual-use items and certain 
munitions and military items and items controlled for short supply Department of Commerce , Bureau of Industry 
and Security Export Administration Act 
(EAA)and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) 
Munitions Department of State, Directorate of Defense 
Trade Controls Arms Exports Control Acts 
(AECA) 
Nuclear materials and equipment Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Energy Act 
Nuclear technology, 
technical data, and special 
nuclear materials Department of Energy, Office of Export Control 
Policy and Cooperation Atomic Energy Act 
Controlled substances and 
precursor chemicals Drug Enforcement Administration 21 U.S.C. 1312 
Food, drugs, cosmetics Food and Drug Administration Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) 
Meat, poultry, and egg 
products Department of Agricult ure, Food Safety and 
Inspection Service Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (FMIA) 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); Egg 
Products Inspection Act 
(EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.) 
Agriculture risk products Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 37 
High value and value added agriculture products Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 36 
Economic sanctions Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign 
Asset Control Various laws and 
provisions 
 
Source: Online information. Viewed at: http://www.export.gov . 
3.105.  The main items subject to export licences are munitions, controlled by the Department of 
State, and dual use items, i.e. military and civilian, and certain military items; under the 
Department of Commerce, both of the schemes are currently undergoing reform (section 3.2.3.1). 
                                               
97 U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 72 - 
 
 Services, data, and technology are also covered. The Department of State maintains the U.S. 
Munitions List (USML) to identify items controlled and regulated by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and the Department of  Commerce maintains the Commerce Control List 
(CCL), which is regulated by the Export Administ ration Regulations (EAR). There are some items 
that are similar to both list, while others are unique to one or the other list (Table 3.10). 
Table 3.10 Commerce Control List (CCL ) and U.S. Munitions List (USML) 
Commerce Control List U.S. Munitions List 
Category Products Category Products 
0 Nuclear & Miscellaneous I Firearms, close assault weapons, and 
combat shotguns 
1 Materials, Chemicals, 
Microorganisms and Toxins II Guns and armament 
2 Materials Processing III Ammunition/Ordnance 
3 Electronics  IV Launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic 
missiles, rockets, to rpedoes, bombs and 
mines 
4 Computers V Explosives and energetic materials, 
propellants, incendia ry agents and their 
constituents 
5 Part 1 Telecommunications VI Vessels of war and special naval 
equipment 
5 Part 2 Information Security VII Tanks and military vehicles 
6 Sensors and Lasers VIII Aircraft and associated equipment 
7 Navigation and Avionics IX Milita ry training equipment and training 
8 Marine X Protective personal equipment and 
shelters 
9 Aerospace and Propulsion XI Military electronics 
 XII Fire control, range finder, optical and 
guidance and control equipment 
XIII Auxiliary military equipment 
XIV Toxicological agents, including chemical 
agents, biological agents, and associated 
equipment 
XV Spacecraft systems and associated 
equipment 
XVI Nuclear weapons, design and testing 
related items 
XVII Classified articles, technical data and 
defense services not otherwise enumerated 
XVIII Directed energy weapons 
XIX Gas turbine engines (GTE) 
XX Submersible vessels, oceanographic and 
associated equipment 
XXI Miscellaneous articles 
 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of Industry and Security  online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/commerce-control-list-ccl and 22 CFR Part 121. 
3.106.  Enforcement of U.S. export controls is shared among the Department of Homeland 
Security, Department of Justice, and the Depart ment of Commerce. Furthermore, penalties or 
criminal acts vary depending on the type of product and the relevant agency or law. 
3.107.  The United States has negotiated two defense trade cooperation treaties, with Australia 
and the United Kingdom98; the treaties entered into force in 2013 and respectively 2012.99 Both 
                                               
98 U.S. Department of State, Dire ctorate of Defense Trade Controls online information. Viewed at: 
http://pmddtc.state.gov/treaties/index.html . 
99 FR Vol. 78, No. 104. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 73 - 
 
 create exemptions for certain persons or entities from having to obtain an export license or 
authorization for exportation of certain defense products or services upon meeting certain criteria. 
3.2.3.1  Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative 3.108.  In 2009, President Obama launched the ECR Initiative to review and reform the 
U.S. export control system (e.g. licences, proh ibitions, monitoring, controls). This review 
determined the current system was overly compli cated, and fragmented and needed updating to 
address the changing economic and technological landscape. The review also determined that 
fundamental reform of the U.S. export system was required and recommended the creation of 
a new export control system based on comprehensive reform in four key areas: 
(1)  a single export control agency; 
(2)  a unified control list;  
(3)  a single primary enforcement coordination agency; and 
(4)  a single integrated information technology system. 
3.109.  The goal of the ECR is not to eliminate or re duce export controls but to reprioritize controls 
to better use government resources and enhance controls where they are needed on more 
sensitive items. The ECR plans to ease export re quirements on a select group of less sensitive 
items, such as parts and components to a specified group of 36 countries
100, while enhancing 
national security and foreign policy interests with respect to certain items and markets.101 For 
example, it plans to tighten controls by adding it ems that were not previously subject to U.S. or 
UN arms embargoes.102 
3.110.  The process has been ongoing since 200 9 and is being implemented in phases. Three 
phases are envisioned, and the final phase would re quire legislative action. Work on establishing 
coordinated enforcement began in 2012 with th e establishment of the Export Enforcement 
Coordination Center, with the Department of Homela nd Security taking the lead to coordinate and 
enhance efforts on export control enforcement among nine federal agencies.103 Work has also 
proceeded on integrating IT systems. In July 2013,  the State Department transferred its licensing 
database and IT platform to that of the Department of Defense, and a similar effort is being made 
by the Department of Commerce to link the three main Departments' IT infrastructures.104 
3.111.  Much of the work to date has been concentrated on rationalizing and merging the 
two export control lists, CCL and USML (Table 3.10). In October 2013, the first major regulatory changes were introduced migrating a number of USML items related to aircraft, gas turbine 
engines, classified defense, and miscellaneous articles to the CCL. In January 2014, another set of 
regulations were published, migrating items in another five categories of the USML to the CCL. There have been many regulatory changes implemen ting the ECR; most have migrated items from 
the USML (generally a negative list) to the CCL (a positive list) (Table 3.11). 
                                               
100 The 36 countries are NATO members or members of the four multilateral export control agreements 
(Australia Group, Missile Technology Control Re gime, Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Wassenaar 
Arrangement). 
101 U.S. Department of Commerce on line information. Viewed at: http://www.export.gov/ecr/ index.asp. 
102 U.S Department of Commerce on line information. Viewed at: 
http://export.gov/static/ECR%20Factsheet%208% 20%20Foreign%20Policy%20E CR%20Myths%20and%20Fac
ts_Latest_eg_main_ 067666.pdf. 
103 Executive Order 13558. 
104 The White House online information. Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/10/15/fact-sheet-announcing-revised-us-export-control-system . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 74 - 
 
 Table 3.11 Main Changes to Export Administ ration Regulations, July 2012-June 2014 
Date Subject Reference 
11/28/12 
 Revisions to the Export Administra tion Regulations (EAR): Control of 
Military Electronic Equipment and Related Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Co ntrol Under the United States 
Munitions List (USML) 77 FR 70945 
11/29/12 
 Revisions to the Export Administrati on Regulations (EAR) To Make the 
Commerce Control List (CCL) Clearer 77 FR 71214 
10/3/13  
 Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Initial 
Implementation of Export Contro l Reform; Correction; Final Rule  78 FR 61744  
07/25/13  
 Second proposed rule – Revision s to the Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR): Control of Military Electronic Equipment and 
Related Items the President Determ ines No Longer Warrant Control 
Under the United States Munitions List (USML).  78 FR 45026  
07/08/13  
 Revisions to the Export Administrati on Regulations: Military Vehicles; 
Vessels of War; Submersible Vessels, Oceanographic Equipment; Related Items; and Auxiliary and Miscellaneous Items that the 
President Determines No Longer Warrant Control under the United 
States Munitions List  78 FR 40892  
05/24/13  
 Export Administration Regulation s (EAR): Control of Spacecraft 
Systems and Related Items the President Determines No Longer 
Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML); 
Proposed Rule  78 FR 31431  
4/16/13  
 Revisions to the Export Admini stration Regulations: Initial 
Implementation of Export Control Reform  78 FR 22660  
1/31/13 Proposed Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): 
Articles the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control under 
the U.S. Munitions List that are Related to Launch Vehicles, Missiles, 
Rockets, and Military Explosive Devices.  78 FR 6750 
5/13/14  Revisions to the Export Administra tion Regulations(EAR): Control of 
Spacecraft Systems and Related Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List 
(USML); Interim Final Rule with request for comments  79 FR 27418  
1/2/14  Revisions to the Export Administrati on Regulations: Military Vehicles; 
Vessels of War; Submersible Vessels, Oceanographic Equipment; 
Related Items; and Auxiliary and Miscellaneous Items That the 
President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the 
United States Munitions List; Final Rule; Correction  79 FR 22  
1/2/14  Control of Military Training Equipment, Energetic Materials, Personal 
Protective Equipment, Shelters, Articles Related to Launch Vehicles, Missiles, Rockets, Military Explosives, and Related Items  79 FR 264  
 
Source: Federal Register. 
3.2.4  Export support and promotion  
3.2.4.1  Structures 
3.2.4.1.1  Trade Promotion Coordinating Commi ttee (TPCC) and National Export Strategy 
3.112.  The TPCC remains the government's main interagency body for coordinating export 
promotion policies. It comprises 20 federal agencies that have export related programmes.105 
It provides a framework to coordinate export pr omotion and financing activities in particular. 
3.113.  The TPCC's annual National Export Strategy, establishes priorities and reports on activities 
of the member agencies. However, no report has been issued since the 2012 report106, which 
focused on the National Export Initiative (NEI) an d on reducing trade barriers for U.S. exports.  
                                               
105 Executive Order 12870 of 30 September 1993. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 75 - 
 
 3.2.4.1.2  President's Export Council (PEC) 
3.114.  The PEC, the main national advisory committee on exports, has 28 members from the 
private sector and a number of government representatives. It reports to the President on proposals and recommendations for expanding U.S. exports. In its most recent meeting of 
June 2014, the Council adopted nine letters with  recommendations on: trade promotion authority, 
cross-border data flows, innovation policy, ag reement on trade facilitation implementation, 
national travel and tourism strategy, access to capital for small businesses and start-ups, 
technology-enabled SME exports, reauthorizatio n of the Export-Import Bank, and the NEI/NEXT 
initiative.
107  
3.2.4.1.3  Export Promotion Cabinet 3.115.  The Export Promotion Cabinet was created as  part of the President's 2010 National Export 
Initiative (NEI).
108 It is tasked to develop and coordinate  the implementation of the NEI and to 
coordinate with the TPCC on export promotion matters. The Cabinet comprises 11 government agencies involved in exports and 3 senior advisors or assistants to the President. 
3.2.4.2  National Export Initiative (NEI) and NEI/NEXT 
3.116.  As part of the initiatives to spur  the economy after the 2009 economic downturn, 
President Obama announced the NEI as a government-wide programme to promote exports, with 
the goal of doubling the amount of exports over five years.
109 The NEI's focus was on improving 
trade promotion and advocacy, improving access to finance, reducing trade barriers, and enforcing 
trade rules, with a particular emphasis on developing export programmes for SMEs. Certain agencies also developed their own targets as part of the NEI, such as the Department of 
Agriculture's goal to expand agricultural exports to US$150 billion by FY2013, and the Department 
of Commerce's target to increase the number of new markets entered by client firms by 7%.
110 
3.117.  While exports have grown significantly, up 44% in 2013 compared with 2009, it has been 
acknowledged that the programme will not meet its goal of doubling exports in five years. 
However, since the NEI was launched, more businesses export, and export growth has reached record levels. Nevertheless, only a small percentage of U.S. companies export and, among those 
that do, the majority only export to one market.
111 
3.118.  In May 2014, the Administration launched NE I/NEXT as the successor of the NEI. It builds 
on the principles of the NEI and lessons learne d from NEI customer surveys, and provides a 
strategic framework to continue export growth. There are five main points: connect more 
U.S. businesses to global customers, streamlin e U.S. export services and processes, expand 
access to finance, promote exports and FDI, and help developing economies improve their business environment to open new markets. NEI/NEXT is a long-term project to help 
U.S. companies reach their export potential and create and support American jobs. 
3.2.4.3  Export Trade Promotion Activi ties of U.S. Government Departments 
3.119.  Several government agencies or departments have specific programmes to support or 
otherwise encourage exports (Table 3.12). 
                                                                                                                                               
106 TPPC (2012). A new export strategy report is under preparation but not available at the time of 
writing this report. 
107 U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trad e Administration online information. Viewed at: 
http://trade.gov/pec/ . 
108 Executive Order 13534. 
109 Executive Order 13534. 
110 U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trad e Administration online information. Viewed at: 
http://my-goals.performance.gov/sites/default/files/images/Exports%20CAP%20Goal% 20-
%20FY2013%20Quarter%201%20Update.pdf. 
111 U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trad e Administration online information. Viewed at: 
http://trade.gov/neinext/neinext-strategic-framework.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 76 - 
 
 Table 3.12 Specific government prog rammes supporting export activities 
Department  Programme Activity 
Department of Agriculture Commodity Credit Corperation Export promotion, financing, and 
subsidies 
Department of Agriculture Foreign Market Development 
Program Export promotion of commodities 
Department of Agriculture Market Access Program Finances promotional activities 
Department of Agriculture Emerging Markets Program Funds technical assistance to 
promote commodity exports 
Department of Agriculture Quality Samples Program Provides small samples of 
U.S. agricultural products to foreign 
manufacturers 
Department of Agriculture Technical Assistance for Specialty 
Crops Funding for projects that address 
SPS or technical barriers 
Department of Agriculture Export Credit Guarantee Program Export financing 
Department of Agriculture Facilities Guarantee Program Export financing 
Department of Agriculture Dairy Export Initiative program Export subsidy program 
Department of Commerce U.S. Foreign and Commercial Service Trade promotion activities including 
counselling and advocacy 
Department of Commerce Manufacturing and Services Industry and trade analysis 
Department of State Jobs Diplomacy initiative Disseminate trade information and 
advocacy activities 
 
Source: Congressional Research Service (2013), U.S. Government Agencies Invo lved in Export Promotion: 
Overview and Issues for Congress , CRS publication R41495. Viewed at: 
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41495.pdf . 
3.2.4.4  U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) 
3.120.  The U.S. Trade and Development Agency is a foreign assistance agency that promotes the 
export of U.S. goods and services for infrastructu re development projects in emerging economies. 
USTDA provides grant funding for early project planni ng activities such as feasibility studies, pilot 
projects, and technical assistance to introduce foreign grantees to U.S. technologies. USTDA also introduces procurement officials and senior decision-makers from emerging markets to 
U.S. companies through its reverse trade missions,  which are designed to introduce delegates to 
the design, manufacture, and operation of U.S. goods and services that can help them achieve their development goals. Over the past ten years, USTDA has identified US$2.95 billion of 
U.S. exports from USTDA-funded activities.
112 USTDA prioritizes its activities in markets and 
sectors where U.S. goods and services are most likely to be utilized, including the energy, telecommunications, and transportation sectors. 
3.2.5  Export finance, insurance, guarantees 
3.2.5.1  Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) 
3.121.  The Ex-Im Bank is an independent governme nt agency, and serves as the official export 
credit agency of the United States. It is self-f inanced in the sense that its fees and services 
charged, cover its operating costs. However Congress sets a limit on the Bank's activities per the 
appropriations process.
113 In its last reauthorization in 2012, Congress set its lending authority 
limit to US$100 billion, rising to US$140 billion in FY2014. 
3.122.  The main focus of the Ex-Im Bank is to pr ovide direct loans, guarantees, and insurance to 
help finance U.S. exports of goods and services. It fills a gap in the export financing sector where financing support is needed because of a perception of risk or political uncertainty, and helps create a level playing field for U.S. exporters who compete with others that have similar backing or 
financing from foreign governments. There were no significant changes in policy during the review 
period. 
                                               
112 U.S. Trade and Development Agency (2013). 
113 It has the status of a government corporation. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 77 - 
 
 3.123.  The Ex-Im Bank has grown in recent year s, especially 2012, in part fuelled by the NEI 
initiative. In FY2013, it authorized total financ ing of US$27.3 billion to support US$37.4 billion in 
exports, a slight decrease compared to the record levels in FY2012114 (Table 3.13). 
3.124.   In terms of destinations, the Ex-Im Bank authorizations and activities are very diverse, 
with activities in over 150 countries. In term s of exposure, Mexico, India, the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Ireland, and Turkey are the dominant destinations. 
Table 3.13 Ex-Im Bank authorizations, 2011-13 
 2011 2012 2013 
N° US$ million N° US$ million N° US$ million 
Loans 18 6,322.9 24 11,765.7 71 6,893.8 
Long term 17 6,315.0 18 11,751.7 29 6,878.4 
Medium term 1 7.9 2 12.8 0 0 
Working 
capital 0 0 4 1.2 42 15.4 
Guarantees 784 19,400.4 744 18,319.3 674 14,911.8 
Long term 97 15,479.4 92 14,879.6 73 12,179.7 
Medium term 81 693.0 62 186.8 68 132.5 
 Working capital 606 3,228.0 590 3,252.9 533 2,599.6 
Credit Insurance 2.949 7,003.8 3,028 5,699.3 3,097 5,542.0 
Short term 2,836 6,765.0 2,934 5,534.3 3,027 5,440.3 
Medium term 113 238.8 94 165.0 70 101.7 
 
Source: Export-Import Bank of  the United States (2013), Annual Report 2013 , Revised April 2014. Viewed 
at: http://www.exim.gov/about/library/reports/annualreports/2013 . 
3.125.  As of June 2014, the Ex-Im bank faced an uncertain future as Congress debated its 
reauthorization; its current mandate and authorization are scheduled to expire at the end of 
September 2014.  
3.2.5.2  Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) 3.126.  OPIC is the government's development financ e institution. It facilitates U.S. investment in 
developing countries by providing investors with financing, guarantees, political-risk insurance, 
and support for private equity investment funds. Like the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC is a self-financed, 
independent government corporation. It promotes  U.S. investments in developing countries by 
mitigating risk factors. 
3.127.  The main elements that OPIC offers to companies are: financing—medium to long-term 
funding through direct loans or loan guarantees for investment projects in developing and emerging markets; insurance—provision of political-risk insurance to mitigate or cover losses to 
tangible assets, investment value, and earnings; and investment funds—support for privately 
owned and managed investment funds that make investments in emerging market businesses. 
3.128.  OPIC has special provisions on where it can operate and who it is may work with. Partners 
must be U.S. citizens or U.S. companies, and projects should not result in the closing of 
U.S. operations or reduce the U.S. workforce. The countries in which OPIC works must uphold 
worker rights' rules or be taking steps to do so. Also, certain sectors are prohibited as they have 
                                               
114 Export-Import Bank of the United States (2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 78 - 
 
 adverse environmental or social effects.115 As of 2013, it had operations in 102 countries. Its total 
portfolio grew over 2011-13 (Table 3.14). 
Table 3.14 Overview of OPIC activities, 2011-13 
(US$) 
 2011 2012 2013 
New Commitments  
Financing  2.39 billion 2.95 billion 3.75 billion 
 Investment funds  455 million 288 million 178 million 
Insurance  354 million 683 million 171 million 
Total  2.7 billion 3.6 billion 3.9 billion 
U.S. exports projected 1 billion  435 million  833 million 
Portfolio  
Total portfolio 14.5 billion 16.4 billion 18.0 billion 
Active countries  107  103  102  
 
Source: OPIC Annual Reports , 2011-13; and information provided by the U.S. authorities. 
3.3  Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.1  Incentives 
3.129.  The U.S. business climate continues to encourage private enterprise and competition, 
based on free-market economic principles. According to the World Bank, the United States ranks fourth among 189 economies on the ease of doing business index, thus highlighting a regulatory 
framework conducive to operating a business.
116 The United States ranks third and sixth on the 
"getting credit" and "protecting investors" sub-indice s, respectively. On averag e, it takes five days 
to start a business and entrepreneurs may expect to go through six procedures to register their 
firm. It takes five days to comply with all procedures required to import goods, against an average 
of ten days for OECD countries. The U.S. perfor mance seems to have remained stable throughout 
the years, as the 2004 Doing Business Report already ranked it among the top five economies for 
doing business.117 
3.130.  During the review period, the U.S. business incentives framework continued to evolve, 
with a view to boosting competitiveness and improving its attractiveness. Several federal incentive programmes were extended or modified.  
3.131.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 signed into law in January 2013 further 
extended the 50% first-year bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired and placed in service from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013.  It also provided one-year extensions for 
several tax credits,
 including: credit for alternative-fuel vehicle refuelling property; alternative 
fuels excise tax credits; extension and modification of cellulosic biofuel producer credit; incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel; and special allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property. 
3.132.  The Act did not prolong the 2% reduction in payroll and self-employment taxes, which had 
been in place for two years under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (TRUIRJCA). However, it extended a number of favourable business tax provisions through 2013, for instance, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) programme, 
under which eligible businesses may claim a tax credit for hiring individuals meeting specific 
                                               
115 OPIC online information. Viewed at: http://www.opic.gov/what-we-offer/ financial-products/financing-
details/investor-screener . 
116 World Bank (2013). 
117 World Bank (2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 79 - 
 
 criteria.118 It also renewed the federal New Markets Tax Credit Programme (NMTC), which provides 
tax incentives for companies that invest in economically challenged communities.119 
3.133.  The United States is also committed to  enhancing the national business framework by 
promoting innovation in the private sector. To this end, the Innovative Technologies Investment 
Incentive Act of 2013 provides credit for equity investments to high technology or biotechnology 
businesses that employ less than 500 employees.120 
3.134.  State-level legislatures have also focused on providing investment incentives to businesses 
through grants, tax credits, loans, and corporate income tax abatement with the aim of promoting, 
inter alia , job creation (New Jersey, Oregon), clea n technology (New Mexico, Wyoming), and 
development activities (Colorado).121 
3.135.  Discussions on a tax reform to simplify the corporate tax code and lower its top rate are 
ongoing.122 
3.136.  Suggested measures include eliminating tax loopholes, providing small businesses with 
incentives to invest, setting the tax rate on manufacturing at a maximum of 25%, and removing 
incentives to locate overseas by establishing a minimum tax on foreign earnings. Moreover, 
support to middle class job creation could be achieved through investments aimed at modernizing the infrastructure, creating manufacturing innovation institutes, and training a skilled workforce. 
The package also provides for the reintegration of the long-term unemployed, as well as the 
expansion of the SelectUSA initiative.
123 
3.137.  Given their role in supporting job creation  and fostering economic growth, small businesses 
continue to be a priority on the government's agenda.124 The U.S. Small Business Administration 
(SBA) provides counselling and financial assistance to small businesses through, inter alia , loan 
guarantees and federal procurement opportunities. Within this framework, the SBA has 32 permanent programmes, and approved 101,066 loans over the fiscal year 2013.
125 
3.3.2  Subsidies and other government assistance 
3.138.  According to the authorities, there is no  overarching, legal framework governing subsidies 
in the United States. Rather, various subsidy programmes are in place at the federal level, 
pursuant to legislation or government programmes under many executive branch agencies. 
3.139.  The latest subsidies notification to the WTO on federal and sub-federal programmes, 
submitted in May 2014, contained statistical information up to 2012. The magnitude of government assistance has decreased since the previous review (Table 3.15).  
3.140.  In most cases, subsidies take the form of grants, tax concession, loan guarantees, and 
direct payments. The agriculture and energy sectors remain the largest recipients.  
                                               
118 For example qualified veterans from certain target groups. Viewed at: 
http://www.doleta.gov/business/inc entives/opptax/whatsnew.cfm#wotc . 
119 U.S. Department of Treasury online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/D ocuments/Updated%20ARRA%20Program%20Plan%20NMTC%
20Program%205%2012%202010.pdf . 
120 Online information. Viewed at: http://legiscan.com/US/text/HB1415/2013 . 
121 Area Development Site and Facility Pl anning online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.areadevelopment.com/EconomicsGovernmentPolicy/Q1-2013/state-federal-legislation-boost-
business-climate-2727261.shtml . 
122 The White House online information. Viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/07/30/fact-sheet-better-bargain-middle-class-jobs . 
123 Online information. Viewed at: http://selectusa.commerce.gov/about-selectusa . 
124 The Washington Post  "Today, there are more than 28 million small businesses in the United States, 
and those firms create two out of every three net new jo bs and employ half of America's workforce." Viewed 
at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/new-blog-series-with-sbas-karen-mills-who-
are-americas-job-creators/2013/04/16/8bdcde40-a634-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html . 
125 U.S. Small Business Administration  online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/SBA%20Program%20 Inventory.pdf. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 80 - 
 
 3.141.  While the United States has been progre ssively phasing out its fiscal stimulus measures, 
some programmes have been maintained. These were set up in the aftermath of the global crisis 
of 2008-12, when the government took unprecedented action to restore demand, stabilize financial markets, and put people back to work. 
Table 3.15 Federal subsidy programmes, 2012
 
(US$ million) 
Federal programmes  Amount reported 
Agriculture 6,734 
Energy and fuels 9,363.8 
Fisheries 65.9 
Lumber and timber 420 
Medical 859.08 
Metals, minerals, and extraction (non-fuel) 610 
Shipyards 9.98 
Textiles 1.7 
Timepieces and jewellery 1.96 
Other 2,160 
 
Note: Sub-federal entities are not included (see WTO document G/SCM/N/253/USA, 9 May 2014 for 
details). 
 Source: WTO document G/SCM/N/253/USA, 9 May 2014. 
3.142.  As of September 2013, outlays under the American Recovery and Re-investment Act 
(ARRA) of 2009 have included tax cuts (US$212 billion), mandatory spending on programmes such 
as Medicaid and unemployment benefits (US$296 billion), and discretionary spending (US$279 billion) for individuals and investments in infrastructure, energy, education, and health 
care. The most recent CBO estimates show that the fiscal support from the Recovery Act will total 
US$832 billion through 2019.
126  
3.143.  Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) continues to be an important aspect of 
U.S. trade policy, helping firms and workers adjust  to trade liberalization. In 2011, the President 
signed an extension of the worker, firm, and farmer programmes until 31 December 2014.  
3.144.  The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in conjunction with the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act (EESA), 2008, was not set to undertake new commitments after October 2010, 
but the Treasury could continue to make additional payments with respect to previous 
agreements. TARP is currently projected to cost  approximately US$37.5 billion, significantly less 
than the US$700 billion originally authorized by Congress.127 
3.3.3  Competition policy  
3.145.  The competition policy framework has not undergone substantial changes for many years. 
The Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act are the core federal 
competition (antitrust) laws. In general, the main changes in competition policy framework are 
made through agency guidance, court, and administ rative proceedings providing for interpretation 
of the statutes, and these reflect new developments, such as increased application of econometric tools and economic theory to assess market conditions. In addition to the main federal laws, most 
states have antitrust laws, often modelled after the federal laws. Private civil suits may be brought 
for violations of state or federal antitrust law.  
3.146.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) are responsible for enforcing the federal antitrust laws. In general, the FTC enforces 
the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, while the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice enforces the Sherman and Clayton Acts. 
                                               
126 The White House (2014b). 
127 U. S. Department of the Treasury  online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financia l-stability/about-tarp /Pages/default.aspx . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 81 - 
 
 3.147.  Both the Antitrust Division of the Depart ment of Justice and the FTC are involved in the 
formulation and implementation of U.S. international trade and investment policy as they concern competition policy. In addition, they participate in negotiations and working groups related to 
regional and bilateral trade agreements as concerns competition policy. 
3.148.  Pursuant to United States law and practice, hard-core agreements among competitors that 
unreasonably restrain interstate domestic and foreign trade, i.e. those that encompass price fixing, bid rigging, customer or territory allocation, or output restriction, are subject to criminal 
investigations as well as civil lawsuits. Such agreements, referred to as per se  violations in the 
U.S. antitrust policy and practices, are considered  to be illegal without inquiry into the harm or 
business rationales for their use.  
3.149.  By contrast, determining whether other restrictions to competition are illegal depends on 
applying U.S. courts' "rule of reason", which is a court's assessment of actual or likely 
anticompetitive effect in a particular case. The authorities indicated that, over time, a number of decisions by courts and guidelines by antitrust agencies have increased commercial actors' 
understanding of the factors courts will take into account in conducting the rule of reason analysis. 
3.150.  Certain industries are currently exempt from the scope of the federal legislation. 
Competition in these industries may be covered by other federal legislation, on which the agencies 
may provide comments through advocacies, and over  which the DOJ may have an advisory role.
128 
Table 3.16 Exemptions from federal competition legislation 
Legislation Nature of exemption 
Capper-Volstead Act Partial antitrust immunity fo r farmers and fishers to form co-operatives to 
process or market their produce 
Sports Broadcasting Act Exempts certain television agreements by sports leagues such as the 
National Football League and the Major League Baseball 
Shipping Act Allows ocean carriers to establish ocean shipping conferences 
Department of Transportation Under certain competitive conditions, the Department may approve 
antitrust immunity for marketing alli ances between domestic and foreign 
airlines 
Charitable Donation Antitrust 
Immunity Act Exempts charitable gift annuities 
Small Business Act Authorizes the federal government to confer antitrust immunity on 
businesses under specific circumstances 
McCarran-Ferguson Act Allows  certain antitrust exemptio ns for insurance companies 
Defence Production Act Provides protection against antitrust claims for conduct supporting certain 
approved programs that the President has determined as necessary or 
appropriate to promot e national defence 
Export Trading Company Act Allows the Department of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of 
review, which offer limited antitrust immunity to companies named in the certificate for certain specified activi ties, as long as the applicant can 
establish that its export trade will not harm competition in the United States 
Newspaper Preservation Act Gives the Attorney General the auth ority to approve joint operating 
arrangements between newspapers when one is a firm in economic 
difficulties. The newspapers  are required to maintain regular editorial and 
reporting staffs and to determine their editorial policies independently 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Hong Kong Le gislative Council Secretariat (2010). Viewed at: 
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/sec/library/0910rp02-e.pdf. 
3.151.  U.S. government institutions, even those involved in commercial operations, are entirely 
exempted unless the federal statute explicitly provides otherwise. However, federal government 
departments and agencies seldom engage in the same sorts of commercial activities as private 
parties. In addition, the "state-action doctrine" exempts anticompetitive conduct (1) by state instrumentalities or municipalities that is authorized by a clearly articulated state policy or law, and 
(2) by private parties when, in addition to receiving such legislative authorization, the conduct is 
actively supervised by the state.  
                                               
128 Hong Kong Legislative Council Secretariat (2010). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 82 - 
 
 3.152.  The recent Supreme Court, case FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System Inc., 
133 S. Ct. 1003, 1016 (2013), clarified and narrowed the contours of the state-action doctrine. The Court indicated that, in order to be clearly articulated, the power to act in an anticompetitive manner must either be expressly given or be the "inherent, logical, or ordinary result of the 
authority delegated by the state legislature." 
3.153.  During the review period, the U.S. antitrust agencies increased engagement and bilateral 
cooperation with several competition authorities, as well as within international frameworks, such 
as the International Competition Network (I CN), the Competition Committee of the OECD, 
UNCTAD, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).  
3.154.  Tighter international collaboration conti nued to be sought through different types of 
agreement, including memoranda of understanding (MoU) and the issuance of joint documents on 
best practices. In 2012, for example, an anti trust MoU was signed with India's Ministry of 
Corporate Affairs and the Competition Commission of India. The MoU covers cooperation on policy and enforcement matters, as well as technical cooperation.  
3.155.  In addition, an MoU was signed with Chinese agencies in charge of competition in order to 
promote communication and cooperation with U. S. agencies. The FTC and DOJ cooperate with 
foreign competition agencies through various agreements and arrangements. They have bilateral 
cooperation agreements with nine jurisdictions and have entered into MoUs with competition 
agencies from three countries (Tables 3.17 and 3.18). 
Table 3.17 U.S. Cooperation agreements on competition matters  
 Cooperation agreements  Entry into force 
 Australia  29 June 1982 
 Brazil  26 October 1999 
 Canada  August 1995 
 Chile  31 March 2011 
 Germany  23 June 1976 
 European Commission  23 September 1991 
 Israel  15 March 1999 
 Japan  7 October 1999 
 Mexico  11 July 2000 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on data  provided by the U.S. authorities. 
Table 3.18 U.S. Memoranda of under standing on competition matters  
 Memorandum of understanding  Entry into force 
 China  27 July 2011 
 India  27 September 2012 
 Russian Federation  10 November 2009 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on data  provided by the U.S. authorities. 
3.156.  Under the existing cooperation frameworks, the U.S. antitrust agencies frequently 
cooperate on merger and non-merger cases. The nature of cooperation includes discussion of 
timing, relevant market definition, and theories of harm and coordination of possible remedies. 
The FTC had 51 substantive contacts on 26 enforcement matters with 15 foreign competition agencies in fiscal year 2012, and 24 substantive contacts on 17 enforcement matters in fiscal year 2013. 
3.157.  In addition, the United States has competition clauses in many regional or FTAs 
(Table 3.19). 
Table 3.19 U.S. regional agreements  containing competition chapters
 
Agreements partner Entry into force 
Australia 1 January 2005 
Chile 1 January 2004 
Colombia 15 May 2012 
Korea, Republic of 15 March 2012 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 83 - 
 
 Agreements partner Entry into force 
NAFTA (Canada and Mexico) 1 January 1994 
Peru 1 February 2009 
Singapore 1 January 2004 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on data  provided by the U.S. authorities. 
3.3.4  State trading, state-owned enterprises 
3.158.  In 2014, the United States notified th e Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), the Isotope 
Production and Distribution Program Fund (IP & D), some power administrations, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) as state trading enterp rises (STEs), pursuant to the provisions of 
Article XVII: 4(a) of the GATT 1994 and Paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII.
129 
3.159.  The products of the STEs, the purposes for running the STEs, as well as the nature of the 
exclusive or special rights or privileges of the ST Es have not changed since the last review of the 
United States.130 None of the listed STEs hold exclusive rights to import, export, or market the 
products they trade, as domestic and international trade activities may be freely entered into by private sector traders. In general, the U.S. legislation allows numerous private dealers to operate 
on the same terms as STEs.  
3.160.  The share of products affected by STEs' activities in U.S. trade varies from one STE to 
another, and is generally small. The CCC has the most trade impact, with over 13% of import 
value and less than 4% of export value in 2012. These proportions are marginal for the remaining 
STEs (less than 0.5% of import and export value). 
3.161.  As concerns, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the various levels of government (federal, 
State, and local) continue to be involved in commercial activities, though on a relatively limited 
scale. The OECD has recently documented the significance of state ownership within OECD countries; it appears that the United States has a relatively low share of (SOEs).
131 
3.162.  The United States has two main formal structures in which the federal government is 
involved, for public policy reasons, in generally private sector activities; these are government 
corporations and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). 
3.163.  Government corporations are defined in Title 5 of the US Code as "a corporation owned or 
controlled by the Government of the United States"132; while the Government Corporation Control 
Act definition is "a mixed-ownership Government corporation and a wholly-owned Government corporation".
133 
3.164.  The Federal Government owns a number of co rporations with a separate legal personality, 
established by Congress to perform a public purpose. They may receive federal budgetary allocations, but many have independent sources of revenue. The list of government corporations described in the previous TPR of the United States, remains valid.
134 
3.165.  In addition, the Federal Government has established a number of financial institutions for 
public policy purposes. These "quasi-governmental entities" referred to as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are private corporations with nationwide lending power; they are structured 
and regulated by the government in order to enhance their ability to borrow money. Their 
securities are not backed by the full faith or credit of the U.S. Government, but they receive 
certain special privileges or, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, receive federal 
assistance as a result of the financial crisis (Table 3.20).
135 
                                               
129 WTO document G/STR/N/15/USA, 7 July 2014. 
130 WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. 
131 OECD (2013b). 
132 5 U.S.C.103. 
133 31 U.S.C. 9101-10. 
134 WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. 
135 GPO (2014). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 84 - 
 
 Table 3.20 Government-sponsored enterprises  
GSE Area of operation Total assets 2012 
(US$ million ) 
Federal National Mortgage 
Association (Fannie Mae)a Residential and multi-family mortgages 3,226,250 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation (Freddie Mac)a Residential and multi-family mortgages 2,016,503 
Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation (Farmer Mac) Creates a secondary market for agricultural, rural 
housing, and rural utility loans 12,502 
Federal Home Loan Bank 
System  Provides funding to member banks so the banks 
can provide community development credit 748,982 
Farm Credit Systemb Guarantees payments as to principal and interest 
on securities issues by member banks 122,453 (Farm Credit 
Bank) 
90,256 (Agricultural 
Credit Bank) 
 a Currently in conservatorship; th e U.S. Department of the Treasury  entered into a Senior Preferred 
Stock Purchase Agreement (PSPA) to make investments in senior preferred stock to maintain 
positive equity. 
b The Farm Credit System now encompasses the ro les of the Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, 
Federal Land Banks, and the Regional Banks for Cooperatives. 
 Source: GPO (2014) Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014 , Appendix. Viewed at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2014-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2014-APP-4.pdf . 
3.3.5  Government procurement 
3.3.5.1  Overview 
3.166.  In fiscal year 2012, U.S. spending on federal procurement contracts amounted to 
US$517.9 billion, approximately 14% of 2012 total federal government expenditure. The 
Department of Defense (DoD) accounted for almost 70%.136 
3.167.  The United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a federal excise tax on 
foreign entities receiving payments for purchases of goods and services.137 When the law goes into 
effect, a 2% tax is to be applied to foreign entities not party to an international procurement 
agreement. The regulatory changes to implement th e law have not yet been finalized. According to 
the authorities, the definition of "international procurement agreement" for this legislation remains 
under review. 
3.168.  The legal framework has not changed substantially since 2012.138 The main legislation 
remains the Buy American Act, which requires the federal government to purchase domestic goods; and the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, which allows the President to waive the 
discriminatory purchasing requirements with resp ect to purchases covered by the GPA and FTAs. 
3.169.  In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regula tion (FAR), issued pursuant to the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, remains th e primary regulatory tool for acquisition and 
contracting procedures in the federal government . The main purpose of the FAR is to provide 
"uniform policies and procedures for acquisitions ". Additionally, many departments and agencies 
issue and maintain specific regulations also known as Agency FAR Supplements to address unique agency requirements and implement laws specific to their agencies.  
3.170.  Heads of major purchasing entities, i.e. the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of 
General Services, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
have the authority to issue regulations in the cont ext of the FAR, following approval by the Office 
o f  M a n a g e m e n t  a n d  B u d g e t  ( O M B ) ,  s p e c i f i c a l l y  t h e  A d m i n i s t r a t o r  o f  t h e  O f f i c e  o f  F e d e r a l  
Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs.  
                                               
136 U.S. Government online information. Viewed at: http://www.usaspending.gov/ . 
137 Public Law 111-347. 
138 WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 85 - 
 
 3.171.  The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for supporting other federal 
agencies with basic functions, including procurement services. It holds the "GSA Multiple Award Schedules", under which long-term contracts are established to provide access for agencies to products and services, including via an online acquisition tool called GSA Advantage 
(www.gsaadvantage.gov).  
3.172.  The Department of Defense uses various methods of procurement, including GSA 
Schedules; it has its own on-line acquisition site referred to as DOD e-Mall 
(https://dod.emall.dla.mil/acct/). 
3.173.  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration manages a government-wide 
acquisition contract vehicle for IT products and product-based services known as Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP). SEWP is an OMB-authorized government wide acquisition 
contracts (GWAC), which is a multi-award contract vehicle that all federal agencies may use. 
Contract holders offer a wide range of advanced  technology including tablets, desktops and 
servers; IT peripherals; network equipment; stor age systems; security tools; software products; 
cloud based services; video conferencing systems and other IT and audio-visual products. 
Installation, training, maintenance, and warranty are also available through SEWP. 
3.3.5.2  Procedures  
3.174.  Bidding procedures are regulated under FAR parts 8, 13, 14 and 15 and are of two basic 
types - sealed bidding and contracting by negotiation. Sealed bidding is the most used method; it requires that the final decision by agencies be based on "only price and the price-related factors included in the invitation". The contract is aw arded to the lowest bidder who meets the contract 
requirements. A two-step sealed bidding process is used where the Government needs to gather 
more information from suppliers before the sealed bidding process is initiated. 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 
evaluation factors other than price and price-related factors.  
3.175.  In general, 15 days before solicitations begin, contracts exceeding US$25,000 are 
published on a centralized website (www.fedbizopps.gov) and government agencies are generally 
required to allow for a 30-day response time, ho wever, a 40-day response time is required for 
procurements covered under an international trade agreement. Contracts may also be publicized through paid advertisements, if necessary.  
3.176.  Pursuant to Part 8 of the FAR, agencies are required to give consideration first to "required 
sources" for their supplies and services needs. The li st of "required sources" is made up of various 
sources, including excess (left over) from other agencies and supplies from the Federal Prison 
Industries. Required sources take priority over all other sources, including the programmes 
authorized by the Small Business Act. 
3.177.  Under part 13 of the FAR, a "simplified acquisition procedure" is used for purchases below 
US$150,000, and they are normally reserved (set-asides) for small business categories when there 
is a reasonable expectation that a minimum of two small businesses are able to provide the product/service competitively in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery.
139 The Small 
Business Act of 1953 states that small businesses shall receive a "fair proportion" of federal 
contracts. Congress has established a 23% government-wide goal for awards of contracts to small 
businesses.140  
                                               
139 There are five set-aside categories: (i) small business; (ii) woman-owned small 
business/economically disadvantaged women-owned small business; (iii) service-disabled veteran-owned small business; (iv) historically under-utilized business zone small business (HUBZones); and (v) a small disadvantaged businesses (SDB). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has its own Veteran Small Business and Service-Disabled Veteran-Ow ned Small Business Set-Aside Pr ogram for contracts it awards. 
140 Subsets of the small business goal are: a 5% government-wide goal for awards to small 
disadvantaged businesses (S DBs), a 5% government-wide goal for aw ards to women-owned small businesses 
(WOSB), a 3% government-wide goal for awards to hist orically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small 
businesses, and a 3% govern ment-wide goal for awards to service-di sabled veteran-owned small businesses 
(SDVOSB). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 86 - 
 
 3.178.  All contracts over US$650,000 (US$1.5 million for construction) must include a small 
business subcontracting plan so that small businesses can obtain work under these large contracts.
141 Pursuant to the Small Business Act, the Small Business Administration is responsible 
for defining the specific size standards for each industry to determine which businesses qualify as 
small. The size standards are for the most part ex pressed in either millions of dollars in average 
annual receipts or number of employees, and are updated regularly.  
3.179.  Agencies are required to use the System for Award Management (SAM) to obtain 
information on vendors. In general, most awardees, including small businesses, must be 
registered in SAM as the official database for in formation on vendors. Agencies may also research 
small businesses on SBA's Dynamic Sm all Business Search (DSBS) engine. 
3.180.  Subpart 13.3 of the FAR provides guidance for the use of methods to simplify the 
acquisition process. Agencies may use government-wide commercial purchase cards for quick 
payments of certain goods and services. The pu rchase orders method allows agencies, after 
deciding upon a vendor, to issue a legal document, i.e. the purchase order, which details the type, 
quantity, and delivery date of the goods or servic es. Where there is a repetitive need for supplies 
or services, the FAR allows for blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), which establish regular "charge accounts" with suppliers found after a competitive bidding process.  
3.181.  Bid protests, i.e. on actions that occur befo re the contract is awarded, are dealt with under 
federal statutes including the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982. Bid protests may be taken to the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). If a party is dissatisfied with a decision by the 
GAO, 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 2013 2,429 bid protest cases were filed with GAO and 102 bid protests were filed with the COFC.  
3.182.  Contract disputes in government procuremen t, i.e. on actions and events that occur after 
the contract is awarded, are dealt with under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The parties may file contract dispute claims to either an agency board of contract appeals or the COFC, whose 
decisions may be appealed to the U.S. Co urt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
3.3.5.3  Foreign participation  3.183.  In principle, pursuant to the Buy American Act, the U.S. federal acquisition process is 
based on preferential treatment of U.S.-made products. Manufactures are considered as 
U.S. products if manufactured in the United States  and the cost of U.S. components is more than 
50% of the overall cost of all components. Non-manufactures are considered U.S. products if mined or produced in the United States. Special rules apply for construction contracts: origin is not 
based on the nationality of the contractor or similar, but on the origin of the articles, materials, 
and supplies used by the contractor in cons tructing or repairing the building or work.
142 Under 
certain conditions however, the Buy American Act may be waived.143 
3.184.  The Trade Agreements Act gives the President authority to waive Buy American Act 
requirements for certain procurements. The waiver authority is delegated to USTR. USTR has waived the Buy American Act for eligible products in acquisitions covered by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, some relevant free trade agreements (FTA), as well as for 
least-developed countries. 
3.185.  In the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and each relevant FTA involving the 
United States, there is a schedule that lists the services excluded by the United States 
(Table 3.21).  
                                               
141 Definition of small business. Viewed at: 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf . 
142 See WTO document WT/TPR/S/275 Rev.2, 8 March 2013. 
143 For example, if: (i) it is deemed inconsistent with  the public interest; (ii) the cost is considered 
unreasonable; (iii) the products are for use outside of th e United States; (iv) the products are not produced or 
manufactured in the United States in sufficient quantities  or of satisfactory quality;  and (v) the procurement is 
for less than US$2,500. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 87 - 
 
 3.186.  According to the authorities, the United St ates is overhauling its database of procurements 
covered under international agreements. The United States expects the database to be completed by end-2014, at which time it will submit data to the WTO GPA committee. 
Table 3.21 Services excluded by the United States from trade agreements  
 Service WTO 
GPA, 
KORUSBahrain FTA, 
CAFTA-DR, 
Chile FTA, 
Colombia 
FTA, NAFTA, 
Oman FTA, 
Panama FTA 
and Peru FTA Singapore 
FTA Australia 
and 
Morocco 
FTA 
1. All services purchased in support of military 
services overseas X X X X 
2. (i) Automatic data processing (ADP) 
telecommunications and transmission services 
(D304), except enhanced (i.e. value-added) 
telecommunications services X X   
 (ii) ADP teleprocessing and timesharing services 
(D305), telecommunications network management services (D316), automated news services, data services  or other information 
services (D317), and other ADP and telecommunications services (D399) X X   
 (iii) Basic telecommunications network services 
(i.e. voice telephone services, packet-switched 
data transmission services, circuit-switched data 
transmission services, telex services, telegraph 
services, facsimile services, and private leased 
circuit services, but not information services, as 
defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(20)) a aX X 
3. Dredging X X X X 
4. (i) Operation and management contracts of 
certain Government or pr ivately owned facilities 
used for Government purposes, including 
Federally Funded Research and Development 
Centers X  X  
 (ii) Operation of all Department of Defense, 
Department of Energy, or the National 
Aeronautics and Space Admi nistration facilities; 
and all Government-owned research and development facilities or Government-owned environmental laboratories bX b X 
5. Research and development X X X X 
6. Transportation services (including launching 
services, but not including travel agent services - V503) X X X X 
7. Utility services X X X X 
8. Maintenance, repair, mo dification, rebuilding and 
installation of equipment related to ships (J019)  X  X 
9. Nonnuclear ship repair (J998)  X  X 
 
a Acquisitions of the services listed at (2)(iii) of this table are a subset of the excluded services at 
(2)(i) and (ii), and are therefore not covered under the WTO GPA. 
b Acquisitions of the services listed  at (4)(ii) of this table are a subset of the excluded services at 
(4)(i), and are therefore not covered under the WTO GPA. 
 Source: Acquisition Central online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2025_4.html ; and information provided by the 
authorities.  
3.187.  The value of the acquisition is a determining factor in the applicability of trade agreements. 
These thresholds are fixed by the U.S. Trade Representative and are subject to revision approximately every two years (Table 3.22). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 88 - 
 
 Table 3.22 Thresholds for the application of trade agreements, 2014 
(US$) 
Trade agreement  Supply 
contract equal 
or exceeding Service 
contract Construction 
contract 
WTO GPA 204,000 204,000 7,864,000 
Australia FTA 79,507 79,507 7,864,000 
Bahrain FTA 204,000 204,000 10,335,931 
CAFTA-DR (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) 79,507 79,507 7,864,000 
Chile FTA 79,507 79,507 7,864,000 
Colombia FTA 79,507 79,507 7,864,000 
KORUS 100,000 100,000 7,864,000 
Morocco FTA 204,000 204,000 7,864,000 
NAFTA    
Canada 25,000 79,507 10,335,931 
Mexico 79,507 79,507 10,335,931 
Oman FTA 204,000 204,000 10,335,931 
Panama FTA 204,000 204,000 7,864,000 
Peru FTA 204,000 204,000 7,864,000 
Singapore FTA 79,507 79,507 7,864,000 
Israel FTA 50,000 - - 
 
Source: Acquisition Central online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2025_4.html ; and information provided by the 
authorities. 
3.188.  Access conditions to state procurement are defined in state legislation. Some 37 States 
participate in the GPA, and their procurement is in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement for contracts above 355,000 SDRs for supplies and services, and 5 million SDRs for 
construction. 
3.3.6  Intellectual property rights 3.189.  Intellectual property (IP) – how it is protected, administered and enforced, both 
domestically and in exports markets – is a central consideration of United States trade policy. In 
articulating its objectives in the context of current trade negotiations, the Administration has 
stressed the importance of IP for the U.S. economy, both in creating well-paid jobs and in supporting high value exports. It attributes near ly 40 million jobs and 60% of merchandise exports 
to "IP-intensive" industries, on the basis of a 2012 report by the Economics and Statistics 
Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
144 While the U.S. IP system is among 
the world's most mature and well established, th e dynamic character of IP in the contemporary 
United States economy led to various developments during the review period; policy initiatives on 
the part of the Administration and the legislature (see below for some key examples) underscored the continuing significance of legal and policy settings in this field for the overall U.S. trade profile.  
3.3.6.1  Trade context 
3.190.  IP takes diverse forms in international trade, including IP embedded in manufactured 
goods, IP royalties recorded as services tr ade, and consumer downloads of IP content. 
Accordingly, it is difficult to establish a comprehensive tally of the full IP component of 
international trade involving the United States. However, several indicators confirm the growing 
importance of IP for the economy and internat ional trade profile of the United States.  
3.191.  The preeminent position of the United St ates in IP-related trade was evident from its 
reported receipts of royalties and licence fees (reported in service trade statistics
145). The 
U.S. share of such royalties and fees comprised 43% of the global total in 2012; its outgoing 
payments amounted to approximately 14% of global  transactions. U.S. receipts of such royalties 
and fees continued to grow rapidly in recent years, rising from US$98 billion in 2009 to 
                                               
144 See WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013; and Economics and Statistics 
Administration and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2012). 
145 The Bureau of Economic Analysis classified film  and television tape distribution services under 
royalties and licence fees, in place of its previous classification under audiovisual and related services. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 89 - 
 
 US$130 billion in 2013, including an annual increase of 5% in 2013. Payments to foreign 
rightholders grew sharply in 2012, increasing 15 % over the previous year. This increase is 
attributable in part to a surge in payments for sports licensing connected with the 2012 Summer Olympics. Growth in such payments slowed somewhat in 2013 to reach a total of US$42 billion. 
Overall, the United States increased its traditionally robust surplus in royalty and licence fee 
payments, which rose from US$84 billion in 2012 to US$88 billion in 2013 (Chart 3.9).  
Chart 3.9 Trade flows in royalties and licence fees, 2009-13 
020406080100120140
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Exports Imports Balance
 
 
Source: Online information. Viewed at: http://stat.wto.org/ . 
3.192.  Industrial processes (at 34%) and computer software (at 32%) comprised the greatest 
part of the reported receipts of royalties and licence fees in 2012.146 However, the most rapid 
growth (at 11%) in fees received was in the film and television sectors. This growth is attributable 
to greater demand for U.S. entertainment products, especially from the United Kingdom and the 
Asia-Pacific region.147 The geographic composition of this trade continued to diversify. Payments 
from the historically most significant partners fell overall in 2012, despite vigorous growth from the United Kingdom, while receipts from other economies rose by US$3.5 billion. An 11% rise in 
reported payments by U.S.-based firms for new industrial processes, particularly in the automobile 
and pharmaceutical sectors, corresponded with growing domestic manufacturing in these sectors. U.S. payments for rights to foreign movies and television programmes grew 28%, mostly 
reflecting increased demand for content from the United Kingdom and South and 
Central America.
148  
3.193.  The largest share of U.S. trade in IP lice nces constituted transactions between affiliates 
servicing foreign markets and their multinational corporate parent entities in the United States. 
However, the share of unaffiliated trade (IP licence receipts from unaffiliated  firms) grew steadily, 
from 34% in 2006 to 38% in 2012. In 2008-09, there was a decrease in growth in these receipts that was not similarly reflected in licence receipts from affiliated firms. This appears to indicate 
that affiliated transactions are based on longer term contracts, rather than one-off licences, and 
are therefore less responsive to fluctuations in the business cycle.
149 However, by the same token, 
                                               
146 Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: 
www.bea.gov/international/international_services.htm . 
147 BEA (2013b). 
148 BEA (2013b). 
149 BEA (2011). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 90 - 
 
 unaffiliated trade grew more steeply in more recent years in response to growing demand for 
U.S. licence content, including from an increasingly diverse geographical base (Chart 3.10). 
Chart 3.10 IP licence and royalty receipts, by affiliation, 2006-12 
(US$ billion) 
 
020406080100120140
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Unaffiliated Foreign affiliates to U.S. parents U.S. affiliates to foreign parents
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Bureau Econom ic Analysis online in formation. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov . 
3.194.  The significance of domestic and internatio nal trade in IP licences at the consumer level 
was evident in the consolidation of markets for content in the form of digital downloads, notably 
software applications for mobile platforms, e-books, and audio and audiovisual works, coupled with 
a progressive transformation of business models in the music, publishing, audiovisual, gaming, and consumer software sectors. The U.S. Intern ational Trade Commission (ITC) reported on the 
difficulty of measuring international digital trade ("commerce in products and services delivered via 
the Internet"), noting anecdotal evidence of rapid growth in international trade in digital products (e.g. when "digital music owned by parties in one country is downloaded by consumers in other 
countries"), but concluding that "data on such transactions are scarce, and the need for better 
information is a common refrain among industry and researchers".
150 Reviewing IP-related trade 
concerns, the ITC reported that content industries (including software, music, movies, books, and video games) identified internet piracy as "the single most important barrier to digital trade for 
their industries"; and that internet intermedia ries expressed concerns about "unclear legal 
frameworks and being held liable for the infringing  or illegal conduct of users of their systems". 
3.195.  Available industry figures for trade in consumer IP licences connected with digital content 
suggested strong growth, varying capacity to derive revenues from download trade, and increasing 
breadth of exports of consumer IP licences, includ ing to the developing world. One music industry 
report
151 estimated digital revenues at 60% of the domestic music market, following 3.4% growth 
in 2013. The report charted pronounced growth in subscription and advertisement-supported 
streaming (described as a business model based on access to, and not only ownership of music), their share of digital revenues rising to 27%, up from 14% in 2011. This growth was attributed in part to music consumers moving away from pirate services. The U.S. publishing industry reported 
significant growth in the export of e-books in 2012
152, export revenues rising by 63%: major 
export markets comprised the United Kingdom,  Australia, Germany, France, Norway, and 
Switzerland, while the fastest growing markets were Germany, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, 
                                               
150 U.S. International Trade Commission (2013a). 
151 IFPI (2014). 
152 AAP (2013) . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 91 - 
 
 South Africa, and Brazil. By contrast, export reve nues for printed books rose by 1.3%. The market 
for applications ("apps") for mobile devices grew exponentially: one on-line store reported a 50% rise in app downloads from US$50 billion to US$75 billion in the year to June 2014
153, with 
sales of US$10 billion in 2013 derived from 155 countries, and with an overall total of 
US$15 billion paid to software developers. One industry estimate of another on-line store reported 
strong growth from 2013 to 2014 both in downlo ads (a 50% rise) and revenues (140% growth)154, 
suggesting increasing capacity to derive revenue from downloaded apps. Fastest growth in 
downloads reportedly came from the United States , Brazil, the Russian Federation, the Republic of 
Korea, and India, while growth in revenues was greatest for Japan, the United States, the Republic of Korea, Germany, and the United Ki ngdom, with growth in Indonesia, Mexico and 
Turkey also noteworthy.  
3.196.  Patenting activity gives a further indication of the significance of IP for U.S. international 
trade policy. Growth in U.S. innovators' use of the international patent system was strong in 2013: U.S. filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty rose 11%, the fastest growth since 2001, 
accounting for 56% of global growth and surpassing  its 2007 (pre-financial crisis) filing level for 
the first time. The U.S share of ownership of patent families worldwide among high income countries increased slightly to 21% in 2011, from 20% in 2001, but the strong relative rise in 
patent ownership among emerging economies reduce d its global share of patent families from 
18% to 14% in the same period. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) received 542,815 patent applications in 2012
155, representing 7.8% growth, maintaining its position since 
2011 as the world's second largest recipient of applications after China's patent office. A 
WIPO study of inventor mobility156, based on patent filing statistics, concluded that between 2006 
and 2010 the United States received 117,244 inventor immigrants, 57% of the global total. Concerning public sector patenting, a WIPO study reported that U.S. universities accounted for 
10 of the 11 highest users of the patent system.
157  
3.3.6.2  Participation in WTO and international initiatives 3.197.  USTR reported active participation in the TRIPS Council reviews of TRIPS Agreement 
implementation and use of the TPR mechanism to "seek constructive engagement on issues 
related to TRIPS Agreement implementation"
158, and has raised a wide range of IP interests in 
these processes. The United States introduced TRIPS Council discussions on IP and innovation and the role of IP in sport, and contributed to discu ssions regarding IP and climate-related technology. 
In turn, during the most recent review of U.S. trade policies, other Members raised questions on 
methodologies for assessing the contribution of IP to the economy, as well as on many patent issues (patent quality and pendency, unity of invention, litigation by non-practicing or patent-
assertion entities, humanitarian and green-technology initiatives, disclosure standards, remedies, 
post grant review, grace periods), copyright (for eign works, performers' rights, technological 
protection measures), trademarks and geographical indications, and enforcement of foreign-owned 
IP rights.
159 In its Trade Policy Review and at the DSB, the United States also reported on 
legislative activities linked to implementation of DSB recommendations concerning IP-related case.
160 
3.198.  During the review period, the United States made 21 legislative notifications to the TRIPS 
Council, including Consolidated Copyright Regulations, Consolidated Patent Laws and Rules, 
legislation to implement the Geneva Act of th e Hague Agreement Concerning the International 
Registration of Industrial Designs and Patent Law Treaty, and a wide range of other patent, 
trademark, copyright, and enforcement measures.161 The United States updated the Council on its 
implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement162, noting that the primary driver for 
technology transfer from the United States is the private sector, observing that the U.S. tax 
                                               
153 Online information. Viewed at: www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-Top-10-
Billion-in-2013.html . 
154 The State of Play: A Look at the Growth of Google Play. Viewed at: www.appannie.com. 
155 WIPO  (2013). 
156 WIPO (2014b). 
157 WIPO, How Universities and Public Research Organizations Use the PCT System. 
158 USTR (2014c). 
159 WTO document WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1, 1 November 2012. 
160 WTO documents WT/DS160/R, 15 June 2000; and WT/DS176/R, 6 August 2001. 
161 WTO document IP/N/1/USA/6, 18 April 2013. 
162 WTO document IP/C/W/594/Add.6, 9 October 2013. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 92 - 
 
 system contributes to technology transfer throug h allowing tax-exempt donations to non-profit 
organizations, and identifying U.S. institutes of higher learning as a major source of technology transfer to LDCs. TRIPS Agreement-related technical assistance included IP protection and management, administration and human resource de velopment, border enforcement, adjudication 
of IP cases, methodologies and forensics for criminal cases and law enforcement, pharmaceutical 
counterfeiting, and public education and consumer awareness. Some 15 U.S. agencies were reported as providing technical assistance.  
Table 3.23 Summary of intellectual property protection in the United States, May 2014 
Form Main 
legislation Coverage Duration 
Copyright and 
related rights Copyright Law of 
the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code Authors' rights in the artistic, literary 
and scientific domains; to enjoy copyright protection a work must be an original creation Life of author plus 70 years for 
works created on or after 1 January 1978. Anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire 
protected for 95 years after 
publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is the shorter 
Patents Patent Law of 
the United 
States, as 
incorporated in 
Title 35 of the 
U.S. Code Any inventions that are new, useful, 
and non-obvious. Apply to process, 
machine, manufacture or 
composition of matter, or 
improvements thereof 20 years from filing date 
Industrial designs Patent Law of 
the United States, as incorporated in Title 35 of the US Code Any new, original and ornamental 
design for an article of manufacture 14 years from date of grant 
Trademarks The Lanham Act 
of 1946, as 
amended (15 
U.S.C. 1051 et 
seq.) and state 
laws. Any sign used to identify and 
distinguish goods or services of one 
enterprise from those of another 
enterprise 10 years from registration 
date; renewable indefinitely as 
long as the trademark is in use 
in commerce that is lawfully 
regulated by Congress 
Geographical 
indications The Lanham Act 
of 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), and Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 Protection against misuse of 
geographic signs and names of viticultural significance Unlimited 
New plant 
varieties Plant Variety 
Protection Act  
Amendments of 
1994 (7 U.S.C. 
2321 et seq.) New plant varieties which are 
sexually reproduced (by seed) or 
tuber-propagated: not previously 
sold for purposes of exploitation of 
the variety, in the United States, 
more than 1 year prior to the date of 
filing; or in any area outside of the 
United States more than 4 years 
prior to the date of filing, or, in the 
case of a tree or vine, more than 6 
years prior to the date of filing 20 years from date of issue of 
the certificate in the United 
States 
Layout 
designs of integrated circuits Semiconductor 
Chip Protection  
Act of 1984 (17. 
U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.) Topography of microelectronic 
semiconductor products provided it is original (the result of its creator's own intellectual effort) and is not 
staple, commonplace or familiar in 
the industry at the time of its creation 10 years from filing date (or, if 
earlier, from first use) 
Trade Secrets Economic 
Espionage Act of Any information, including a formula, 
pattern, compilation, programme Indefinite WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 93 - 
 
 Form Main 
legislation Coverage Duration 
1996 and state 
laws device, method, technique, or 
process, not generally known to the 
relevant portion of the public, that 
provides an economic benefit to its 
holder, and is the subject of 
reasonable efforts to maintain its 
secrecy  
 
Source: WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, 29 October 2010, updated by the WTO Secretariat. 
3.199.  U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and Panama, which entered 
into force in 2012, included new IP standards for those countries as well as new consultative mechanisms between each of these countries and the United States. 
3.3.6.3  The patent system 
3.200.  The overall strategic goal of the Departme nt of Commerce Strategic Plan for 2014-18 is to 
expand the U.S. economy and fostering U.S. job growth through increased exports and inward foreign investment.
163 It identified a role for the USPTO in helping build the capacity of 
U.S. regional economies to accelerate the production of value-added goods and services, 
strengthening the digital economy, and accelerating  the growth of innovation-intensive economic 
sectors by building public and private capacity to invent, improve, and commercialize new products 
and services, as well as promoting enhanced IP protection abroad. The USPTO's own strategic plan 
for 2014-18164 sets out three goals for this period: optimi ze patent quality and timeliness; optimize 
trademark quality and timeliness; and provide domestic and global leadership to improve IP policy, 
protection, and enforcement.  
3.201.  The continuing significance of internatio nal cooperation to improve examination processes 
was marked by the establishment within USPTO of an Office of International Patent Cooperation 
(OIPC). The OIPC is responsible for implementing technical cooperative projects for improving the 
effectiveness and quality of examination, such as the Patent Prosecution Highway, the Global 
Patent Search Network, the Cooperative Patent Classification system, and the Global Dossier Initiative. 
3.202.  Patent timeliness, measured in terms of total pendency (time from filing date to final 
disposition), improved from 33.9 months in October 2012 to 27.8 months in June 2014
165, 
progressing towards the goal of 20 months by 2019. Several WTO Members showed interest in the 
metrics and initiatives to improve patent quality in the 2012 Trade Policy Review, which elaborated 
further on these measures, including their role in providing feedback and training to help reduce overall examination time and promote high quality examination.
166 The Office of Patent Quality 
Assurance (OPQA) aims to monitor examination quality, including through the Quality Composite 
Score, comprising a weighted total of seven distinct patent quality indicators, such as compliance 
of initial findings of patentability with final decisions, and internal and external survey data. This score rose from 35.2 in first quarter 2012 to 75.9 in second quarter 2014, with 100 representing 
attainment of a "superior level … identified as a stretch goal".
167  
3.203.  Following enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)  in 2011168, significant 
regulatory and administrative reforms were required  to give effect to what was described as "the 
most significant reforms to the U.S. patent law in 60 years".169 These entailed transition to a 
                                               
163 Department of Commerce, America is Open for Business, Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018 
(2013). 
164 USPTO Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ . 
165 USPTO, Patents Dashboard June 201 4, online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml. 
166 WTO document WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1, 15 May 2013. 
167 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http: //www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml. 
168 Pub. Law. No. 112-29. Viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ29/content-
detail.html . 
169 USPTO online information. "Global Impacts of the AIA" . Viewed  at: 
www.uspto.gov/aia_implementa tion/global_impacts.jsp . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 94 - 
 
 first-inventor-to-file system, an enhanced grace period, new prior art standards, post grant review, 
and fee discounts for micro entities. The USPTO identified AIA implementation as helping 
"the U.S. align with international norms", in turn providing "a renewed opportunity to harmonize 
the international patent system and facilitate office cooperation through work-sharing with 
international patent offices," leading to higher quality examination, more predictability in 
prosecution process, and cost reduction for applicants around the world.170 
3.204.  During the review period, the Administration announced a series of initiatives to build on 
the AIA reforms with a view to improving the patent system foster innovation and to protect 
innovators from what was te rmed "frivolous litigation".171 These included: 
(a) a proposed rule on transparency to ensure that records of patent ownership are 
accurate and up to date. This would require patent owners and applicants to 
provide  the USPTO with information on the attributable owners of patents and 
applications, with a view to illuminating the competitive landscape, facilitating more efficient  technology transfers, reducing abusive patent litigation, helping 
ensure the highest quality patents, and leveling the playing field for all 
innovators
172; and 
(b) a crowdsourcing initiative, making use of crowdsourcing techniques and resources, 
so as to expand ways for identifying prior art relevant to determining the novelty 
of claimed inventions.173  
3.205.  These initiatives also included annual renewal of the pilot Patents for Humanity Program, 
which created incentives to leverage patented technology to address global humanitarian needs. 
Past awards aimed at lowering the price of HIV and malaria drugs, improve food nutrition, provide 
solar energy to remote locations, address toxic co unterfeit drugs, and provide safe drinking water. 
Under the programme, the USPTO provides grant awards in the five development categories of 
medicine, nutrition, sanitation, household energy, and living standards. 
3.206.  During the review period, the United States Supreme Court issued several significant 
decisions involving the issue of patent-eligible subject matter. Cases included Association for 
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics ( concerning  the patent-eligibility of a naturally occurring 
D N A  s e g m e n t ,  i n  w h i c h  i t  f o u n d  t h a t  i t  i s  " a  p r oduct of nature and not patent eligible merely 
because it has been isolated," in contrast with complementary DNA (cDNA), which is "not naturally occurring"); and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International , in which it held that mere 
computer implementation of an "abstract idea" in the form of the established commercial practice 
of intermediated settlement, was insufficient to form a patent- eligible invention. 
3.3.6.4  Trade secret protection 
3.207.  The Administration issued a Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets in 
2013.
174 The 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. It proposed the use of "trade policy tools", including cooperation with trading partners, using the Special 301 process to identify weaknesses in trade secret protection, seeking new provisions in trade negotiations that would make available 
remedies similar to those under U.S. law, and raising trade secret protection in bilateral, regional, 
and multilateral forums, including the TRIPS Council. Domestically, while civil enforcement is principally addressed through state law, criminal enforcement is principally governed by Federal 
law, e.g., the Economic Espionage Act. With respect to civil enforcement, all 50 states maintain 
                                               
170 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http: //www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml. 
171 The White House Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues, 4 June 2013. 
Viewed at: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-
patent-issues . 
172 USPTO online information. "USPTO-led Executive Actions on High-Tech Patent Issues". Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp . 
173 USPTO online information. "USPTO-led Executive Actions on High-Tech Patent Issues". Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp . 
174 The White House (2013a). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 95 - 
 
 common law courses of action covering trade se cret theft, and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act 
(UTSA), developed by the Uniform Legal Commission , has been adopted by 48 states (as well as 
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and th e U.S. Virgin Islands). On 1 September 2013, 
Texas enacted legislation implementing the UTSA. Implementing legislation was also introduced in 
Massachusetts. At the federal level, the Theft of  Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012 clarified 
the application of the Economic Espionage Act to  source code, following the 2012 decision of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Aleynikov . 
3.3.6.5  Copyright  
3.208.  The Administration and Congress have focused on the increasing significance of the digital 
environment for dissemination of copyright material. The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF or Task Force) was launched in 2010 to conduct a comprehensive review of the 
nexus between privacy policy, copyright, global free flow of information, cybersecurity, and 
innovation in the internet economy. It draws on  the expertise of the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA), the USPTO, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), and the International Trade Administration (ITA). In July 2013, the IPTF 
released a green paper
175, which framed the policy questions in terms of "how to retain a 
meaningful copyright system that continues to drive the production of creative works while at the 
same time preserving the innovative power of the Internet and the free flow of information" at a 
time when a "broadening array of creators continue to express themselves and share their valuable works with the world, and as the Internet continues to grow in economic, social and cultural relevance." Its recommendations include: 
(a) adjustments to the public performance right for sound recordings by extending the 
right to cover broadcasting, and urging that any reassessment of the appropriateness of different rate-setting standards for different types of digital 
music services take into account the impact on creators and right holders as well 
as on different types of services; 
(b) assessing and improving enforcement tools to combat online infringement and 
promote the growth of legitimate services while preserving the Internet's essential 
functioning. It included a call for legislation to adopt the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted works as exists for criminal reproduction and distribution, and a proposal for policy discussions on statutory damages in the 
context of individual file-sharers and secondary liability for large-scale online 
infringement. The Task Force proposed establishing a multi-stakeholder dialogue on how to improve the operation of the DMCA's notice and takedown system, and 
support the work of the Copyright Offi ce to improve the DMCA database of 
designated agents and examine possible small claims procedures that can assist individual creators and SMEs in enforcing their rights online. The Task Force also 
encouraged appropriate voluntary private sector initiatives for online enforcement, 
proposing to monitor and evaluate their effectiveness; and encouraged public education and outreach efforts for consumers; and 
(c) realizing the potential of the Internet as  a legitimate marketplace for copyrighted 
works and as a vehicle for streamlining licensing, foreshadowing input into 
Congressional review of music licensing, support for the Copyright Office's improvements on registration and recordation, and enhanced incentives to use 
such systems; and promoting policy discussion on the Government's role in 
improving the online licensing environment. 
3.209.  The IPTF established a multi-stakeholder di alogue on improving the operation of the DMCA 
takedown system, including a forum convened in March 2014. Further policy roundtables took 
place during 2014 and covered remixes, the first sale doctrine, and statutory damages in the context of individual file sharers and of secondary liability for large-scale infringement. 
                                               
175 USPTO online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/news/public ations/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 96 - 
 
 3.210.  The U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 
Internet is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law to ensure that current law keeps pace with the digital environment. 
3.211.  The U.S. Copyright Office undertakes stud ies on U.S. copyright law at the request of 
Congress and also under its own initiative. Recent  reports prepared for Congress have included:  
(a) Small Copyright Claims (September 2013)
176: Congress asked the Copyright Office 
to study the challenges of the current system for resolving small copyright claim 
disputes, as well as possible alternative systems; and 
(b) Resale Royalties: An Updated Analysis (December 2013)177: Congress asked the 
Copyright Office to review how the current copyright legal system affects and supports visual artists; and how a federal resale royalty right for visual artists 
would affect current and future practices of groups or individuals involved in the 
creation, licensing, sale, exhibition, dissemination, and preservation of works of visual art. 
3.212.  The Copyright Office is also engaged in several ongoing studies in order to advise Congress 
and the public on issues of importance. These include requests for public comment, and often 
involve public roundtables. Current active studies on U.S. copyright law include:  
(a) orphan works and mass digitization (initiated in October 2012)
178: the Copyright 
Office is continuing its previous work undertaken by the Copyright Office on the problem of orphan works and mass digitization in order to advise Congress as to possible next legislative steps. The Copyright Office held a public roundtable issues 
in March 2014 and has sought written public comments for the record; 
(b) the right of making available (initiated in February 2014)
179: the Copyright Office 
has been asked by Congress to review and assess: how the existing bundle of 
exclusive rights under Title 17 of the U.S. Code covers the making available and 
communication to the public rights in the context of digital on-demand transmissions such as peer-to-peer networks, streaming services, and music 
downloads, as well as more broadly in the digital environment; how foreign laws 
have interpreted and implemented the relevant provisions of the WIPO internet treaties; and the feasibility and necessity of amending U.S. law to strengthen or 
clarify U.S. law in this area. The Copyrigh t Office held a two-day public roundtable 
in May 2014, and has sought written public comments for the record; and 
(c) Music licensing (initiated in March 2014)
180: the Copyright Office is undertaking a 
study to evaluate the effectiveness of th e existing methods of licensing musical 
works and sound recordings. In June 2014, the Copyright Office hosted a series of 
public roundtables in several cities across the United States on music licensing issues, particularly issues in the digita l and online environment. The Copyright 
Office has also sought written public comments for the record. 
3.213.  The Copyright Office is also engaged in additional work on issues related to copyright 
registration, a review of the copyright recordation system, an inquiry into technological updates, and associated regulatory rulemakings.
181  
                                               
176 U.S. Copyright Office, Report on Small Copyright Claims. Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/ . 
177 U.S. Copyright Office, Report on Resale Royalties. Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/resaleroyalty/ . 
178 U.S. Copyright Office, onli ne information. Viewed at: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ . 
179 U.S. Copyright Office, onli ne information. Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/making_available/ . 
180 U.S. Copyright Office, onli ne information. Viewed at: 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/ . 
181 For links to all ongoing work of the Copyright Office, see: http://www.copyright.gov . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 97 - 
 
 3.214.  Statutory licensing provisions in the U.S. Copyright Act govern the retransmission of 
distant and local television broadcast signals by cable operators and satellite carriers to those who 
cannot receive broadcast signals. A Copyright Office report issued in August 2011 on marketplace alternatives to replace these statutory licences, considered the repeal of these provisions, and 
addressed how the licenses may be phased out.
182 The statutory licensing authority for such 
satellite retransmissions is scheduled to expire on 31 December 2014. In July 2014, the U.S. Congress also passed the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act
183, 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 to different wireless network providers. The President signed the Act into law on 1 August 2014. 
3.215.  The challenges of copyright in the online en vironment have led to continued litigation with 
significant implications for the publishing industry, including foreign holders of copyright. For instance, associations of publishers and artists had brought separate lawsuits against Google, Inc. 
for copyright infringement in relation to the Google Book Search project, an initiative to digitize 
books in libraries and make them searchable on the Internet, against a background of concern about the scanning and digitizing of millions of works, both foreign and domestic, still under 
copyright without the permission of the author an d the international copyright implication of such 
an undertaking. Following rejection of a proposed settlement agreement in 2011, the Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. litigation led to a judgmen t in 2013 that the digitization project conformed 
with the fair use doctrine in U.S. copyright law.
184 This decision, at District Court level, was 
reportedly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in April 2014.185 
The Copyright Office had earlier published "Legal Issues in Mass Digitization: A Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document" to promote policy discussion on mass digitization of books, and 
as mentioned above, is undertaking a study on orphan works and mass digitization.  
3.216.  With respect to judicial developments, the Supreme Court considered several significant 
copyright questions during the review period, including Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,  
on the application of the "first sale" doctrine to textbooks published abroad with the copyright 
holder's consent and then imported into the United States for sale, holding that there was no geographical limitation on the doctrine and that the owner of a copy "lawfully made" under U.S. copyright law, which the Court held included copies purchased abroad, is entitled to sell or 
otherwise dispose of the textbook copy in th e United States without the copyright owner's 
authorisation
186; American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., v. Aereo, Inc ., the creation by Aereo of 
subscriber-specific copies of television programmes to be streamed to the subscriber's computer or 
Internet-connected device. The Supreme Court held that this activity infringed the exclusive right 
of the owners of the copyrights in the programmes to perform those works publicly.187 
3.3.6.6  Registered designs 
3.217.  A landmark in design protection in the United States was reached with the entry into force 
of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of  2012, establishing the legal basis to implement 
The Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning  the International Registration of Industrial 
Designs (the Hague Agreement). This enables the United States to join the WIPO-administered 
system for filing a single international application for protection of industrial designs, with potential 
effect in the currently 47 parties to the Geneva Act (including two regional organizations, the EU and OAPI, Organisation Africaine de la Propriété intellectuelle ). Rule changes proposed to 
                                               
182 U.S. Copyright Office (2011). 
183 Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, S. 517, 113th Cong (2014). 
184 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Viewed at: http://docs.justia. com/cases/federal/district-
courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/1088/0.pdf?1384528570. 
185 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), appeal docketed , No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2013). Viewed 
at: http://docs.justia. com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/1088/0.pdf?1384528570. 
186 568 U.S. __, No. 11-697, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2371 (March 19, 2013). Viewed at: 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_4g15.pdf . 
187 573 U.S. ___, No. 13–461, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4496 (June 25, 2014). Viewed at: 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 98 - 
 
 implement the Hague system in the United States included188: standardized formality 
requirements; the USPTO established as a receiving office for international design applications; substantive examination of international design applications designating the United States; provisional rights for international design applications designating the United States; and extension 
of term of protection to 15 years from grant. 
3.218.  U.S. participation in the Hague system progressed with the policy objective of protecting 
SMEs that "lack a global footprint by enabling them  to easily and swiftly ac quire design protection 
in multiple markets", and recognizing the importance of industrial design, whether in mobile 
technologies, manufacturing, or household appliances, to bridge "the gap between complex computer operations and a user-friendly interface."
189 
3.3.6.7  IP enforcement  
3.219.  Coordination and effectiveness of mechanisms  to enforce IP rights both domestically and in 
foreign markets remain a major policy concern for the United States. The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) issued the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property 
Enforcement
190, which highlighted developments in enforcement since 2009. These included 
increases of 71% in new cases, 159% in arrests, 103% in convictions, and 264% in indictments by 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Pending 
Federal Bureau of Investigation health and safety-focused investigations rose by 308% and related 
arrests by 286%. Seizures of infringing imports increased by 53%. Voluntary private sector "best practice" initiatives were undertaken by financial service providers, on-line markets, Internet service providers, and advertisers.  
3.220.  Of 20 recommendations put forward by the Administration in the 2011 White Paper on 
Intellectual Property Enforcement Legislative Recommendations
191, the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan 
noted that seven had been enacted into law, including increased penalties for counterfeit goods or 
services sold to, or for use by, the military or national security apparatus, for economic espionage, 
and for trafficking in counterfeit drugs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given authority to destroy counterfeit or adulterated drugs imported in small packages, and to require 
pharmaceutical manufacturers to report when a drug they manufacture has been found to be 
counterfeited or stolen (to address the sale of counterfeit goods and reducing online piracy). 
Alongside a range of domestic measures that bolstered or added to existing domestic measures, the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan identified action items for enforcing U.S. rights abroad by means of 
foreign law enforcement cooperation; IP enforcement through international organizations; 
IP enforcement through trade policy tools; combating foreign websites that infringe U.S. IP rights; protecting intellectual property at ICANN; supporting U.S. SMEs in foreign markets; and examining 
labour conditions associated with infringing goods. 
3.221.  There has been extensive discussion in the United States about the concept of "standard 
essential patents" that are encumbered by voluntary commitments to licence on fair reasonable 
and non-discriminatory terms in high-tech industry sectors. The issue was addressed in a joint 
Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments issued by the Department of Justice and the USPTO.
192 It was also discussed in the 
disapproval by USTR of a final ITC determin ation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930193, 
which had granted a border exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain infringing 
Apple communication, music, and data processi ng devices, and a cease and desist order 
concerning domestic sales. The USTR referred to policy considerations related to the "effect on 
                                               
188 Federal Register Notice, Proposed Rule: Changes To Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning 
International Registration of Industrial Designs, November 29, 2013. Viewed at: https://www.federalregiste r.gov/articl es/2013/11/29/ . 
189 USPTO online information, Director's Forum Blog, A New Chapter for Protection of Industrial Design 
for the United States , March 1, 2013. Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov . 
190 IPEC  (2013). 
191 The White House online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf . 
192 USPTO online information. Viewed at: http ://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/ogc/Final_DOJ-
PTO_Policy_Statement_on_ FRAND_SEPs_1-8-13.pdf. 
193 Letter from USTR Ambassador Michael Froman to ITC Chairman Irving Williamson, Disapproval of 
Determination in the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Co mputers, Investigation No. 337-TA-794 (August 3, 2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 99 - 
 
 competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers", citing the joint 
Policy Statement on this matter . Separately, in 2013 the IPEC launched an interagency review of 
the exclusion orders pertaining to intellectual property issued by U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection and the ITC under Section 337, including a request for submissions from the public.194 
The review was announced as "directed at strengthening the procedures and practices used during 
enforcement of exclusion orders pertaining to intellectual property." An interagency working group would review procedures used "to evaluate the sco pe of exclusion orders and work to ensure the 
process and criteria utilized during exclusion order enforcement activities are transparent, 
effective, and efficient." One specific question cited in the background to the review was the complexity of determining whether imported articles fall within the scope of an exclusion order "particularly in cases in which a technologically sophisticated product such as a smartphone has 
been successfully redesigned to not fall within the scope of the exclusion order."
195 
Recommendations resulting from th e review are yet to be made.  
3.222.  The USTR 25th annual Special 301 Report196 monitoring IP protection in trading partners 
linked IP protection to global health, the digital economy, education, and entertainment 
internationally, and to more than 30 million jobs in the United States. The report focused on concerns about trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy; digital, internet, and broadcast 
piracy; government use of software; and trademark and domain name disputes. It recorded 
concerns that geographical indications (GI) protection should not violate prior trademark rights or deprive interested parties of the ability to use generic or common terms. Other aspects included IP and health policy, and supporting pharmaceutical and medical device innovation through 
improved market access. Some 95 trading partners were reviewed in 2013 and 82 in 2014; with 
40 and 36 placed on the Priority Watch List or Watch List, respectively. The Special 301 Report also described positive trends in a number of countries, outlined international cooperation and 
capacity building on enforcement, and identifi ed international best practices among trading 
partners.  
3.223.  The Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets  for 2013 identified specific 
markets around the world that were assessed as causing particular economic harm to 
U.S. businesses and workers, through IP infringement.
197 The report listed 23 online markets, 
located in Canada, East Asia, Eastern Europe, and the EU that were assessed as responsible for extensive copyright piracy, as well as a number of  physical markets in Asia, Latin America, and 
Eastern Europe. The report cited successful enforcement actions to close or disrupt a number of 
online markets listed in the corresponding review  for 2012, including the closure of a BitTorrent 
index in Canada and the restriction of facilities enabling infringing activities and pirate and 
counterfeit trade on sites in China, as well as a major licensing deal with a Chinese website. 
Successful enforcement activities against physical markets in infringing goods were reported in Pakistan and Mexico.  
                                               
194 Federal Register online information. Viewed at: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-14743 . 
195 The White House, Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues: Legislative 
Priorities & Executive Actions". Viewed at: http:// www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-
sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues  . 
196 USTR (2014c). 
197 USTR (2014a). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 100 - 
 
 4  TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1  Agriculture 4.1.1  Agricultural Act of 2014 4.1.1.1  Overview  
4.1.  The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) expired in 2012, although 
many provisions were extended for another year by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The new Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L . 113-79) was enacted on 7 February 2014. Most 
programmes are authorized for a period of five years (crop or fiscal years 2014-18), although 
some are permanently authorized by the legislation.  As required by the Act, the USDA is in the 
process of developing the implementing regulation s, which are necessary for producer sign-up and 
government payments. 
4.2.  The 2014 Farm Bill was prepared during a period (2012-13) of exacerbating budgetary 
pressures. Government expenditures are estimated at US$489 billion for the life of the new Farm Bill, with savings of about US$5 billion (Chart 4.1).
1 However, about 80% of the projected 
expenditures under the new Farm Bill are for nutrition programmes. The 2014 Farm Bill continues 
a long-term policy shift from the traditional commodity, conservation, and disaster payments towards subsidized crop insurance (Chart 4.2). 
Chart 4.1 Projected outlays under the 2014 Farm Bill, fiscal years 2014-18 
Commodities
5% Crop 
insurance
8%
Conservation
6%
Nutrition
80%Other
1%
Total outlays = US$489 billion
 
 
Note: USDA Economic Research Service using data from Congressional Budget O ffice, Cost Estimates for 
the Agricultural Act of 2014, January 2014.  
 Source: Source: USDA ERS onli ne information. Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/agricultural-act-of-
2014-highlights-and-implications.aspx#.VBrvVhZvoUM . 
                                               
1 The U.S. Congressional Budget  Office estimates that mandatory outlays would have been 
US$494 billion for the five-year period FY2014/18, if the 2008 Farm Bill had continued (the baseline assumption). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 101 - 
 
 Chart 4.2 Crop insurance subsidies and other farm safety net payments 
(US$ billion) 
051015202530
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Commodity, conservation, and disaster payments Crop insurance premium subsidies
 
 
Notes: ERS analysis of Office of Budget and Policy Analysis data on actual expenditures for 1997-2013; the 
2014 Farm Act Congressional Budget Office estimates for 2014-18. 
 Source: USDA ERS online information. Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-may/2014-
farm-act-continues-most-previous-tren ds-in-conservation.aspx#.VBrwORZvoUM . 
Crop sector 
4.3.  One of the most significant changes affecting the structure of the U.S. farm safety net is the 
elimination of the Direct Payments (DP) programme. The DP programme has been a cornerstone 
of U.S. agricultural policy reforms since the en d of the Uruguay Round negotiations, and provided 
about US$5 billion annually in decoupled income support to farmers and landlords. The 
Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) programme and the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) 
programme have also been eliminated. These three measures (DP, CCP, and ACRE) have been replaced by two new measures, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC).  
4.4.  In the PLC programme, deficiency payments are provided when commodity prices fall below 
the statutory "reference prices". The PLC payments are coupled to current prices, but decoupled from actual production, to the extent that payments are based on historical yields and a 
percentage of historical planted acres (base acres). Farmers have a one-time opportunity under 
the new Farm Bill to update their historical payment yields and re-allocate base acreage, which may more closely align base acres with recent plan ting, thereby linking payments to a more recent 
base period. 
4.5.  As an alternative to the PLC, farmers may participate in the new ARC programme, 
a revenue-based deficiency payments scheme, which is coupled to current prices and also tied to a percentage of base acres, amongst other parameters. The PLC and ARC have the same commodity 
coverage as the repealed programmes (grains, ri ce, oilseeds, pulses, peanuts), excluding upland 
cotton.  
4.6.  The marketing loan programme, which provides income support via loan deficiency 
payments/marketing loan gains in a low-price environment, remains unchanged (with the 
exception of a potentially lower loan rate for upland cotton). Thus, the key commodity 
programmes may be considered as variants of deficiency payment schemes in the trade-distorting 
category. 
4.7.  Federal crop insurance with subsidized insurance premiums is available for over 
100 commodities and livestock. Crop insurance traditionally provides coverage for about 70-75% WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 102 - 
 
 of expected revenues or yields. The 2014 Farm Bill introduces a new subsidized insurance 
programme (Supplemental Coverage Option) that al lows eligible farmers to top up their crop 
insurance, in order to cover a portion of the deductible of the insurance.2 For producers of upland 
cotton, a new subsidized insurance plan, Stacked Income Protection (STAX), will be available 
starting in the 2015 marketing year. The Supplementa l Coverage Option (SCO) is not available for 
ARC and STAX participants. These are examples of how the new Farm Bill attempts to address the 
issue of overlap of the price- and revenue-based  income supports and crop insurances, and the 
potential for overcompensation of farmers' actual losses.3 The sugar regime with its key 
instruments (price support; a domestic marketing allotment fixed at 85% of domestic consumption; feedstock flexibility programme and other measures to divert surplus sugar to ethanol production and other uses; tariff rate quotas) remains unchanged.  
Livestock sector  
4.8.  Some of the biggest reforms will be introd uced in the dairy regime. Two long-standing pillars 
of dairy market support – price supports and ex port subsidies - have been removed. The dairy 
deficiency payment programme (Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program) has also been 
eliminated. Two new policy instruments are introduced in the 2014 Farm Bill. The new Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers takes a new direction in dairy policy by providing 
subsidized insurance coverage for dairy producers, to insure against declines in milk production 
margins (the difference between farm-gate milk price and average feed costs). Payments are 
decoupled from current production levels. Unde r the new Dairy Product Donation Program, the 
CCC is authorized to temporarily  purchase dairy products at prevailing market prices for 
distribution to low-income residents when dairy milk margins are depressed. Three livestock 
disaster programmes that ended in September 2011 were restored retro-actively (Table 4.1).  
Table 4.1 Overview of main programme changes in the 2014 Farm Bill 
 2008 Farm Bill 2014 Farm Bill Commodity programmes Marketing loan programme  
 Maintained 
• Coupled to current prices and production  
• Loan rates unchanged, except for potential 
downward adjustment of upland cotton loan 
rate 
Direct payments  Eliminated 
• DP-style programme for upland cotton until 
Stacked Income Protection (STAX) is 
implemented 
Counter-cyclical payments (CCP) Eliminated 
  
 Introduces Price Loss Coverage (PLC). 
• Payments coupled to current prices 
(counter-cyclical) with a guarantee price 
level higher than in the CCP programme 
• Payments are tied to base acres and 
historical yields with the option of updating 
yields and realloca ting base acres 
Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) 
programme Eliminated 
 
  Introduces Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). 
• Payments based on revenue loss  
• Choice between reve nue guarantee at 
county level (county ARC) and farm-level 
(individual ARC) 
• Payments are coupled to current prices 
• Payments are tied to base acres, with the 
option of reallocating base acres 
                                               
2 The deductible is the amount of expenses that must  be paid out of pocket before an insurer will pay 
any expenses. 
3 Given the complexity of the U.S.  farm programmes, the USDA has pr eviously drawn attention to this 
issue. USDA online information, "Identifying Overlap in the Farm Safety Net". Viewed at: 
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib87.aspx . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 103 - 
 
  2008 Farm Bill 2014 Farm Bill Crop 
insurance Federal Crop Insurance Programme (permanently 
authorized) 
 Maintained 
Amendments include new subsidized insurance 
programmes: 
• Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) 
• Stacked Income Prot ection Plan for 
producers of upland cotton (STAX) Disaster assistance Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Programme 
(NAP) Maintained 
 
Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments 
Programme (SURE) Not authorized after FY2011. 
Livestock Indemnity Programme (LIP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond 
Livestock Forage Disaster Programme (LFP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond 
Emergency Livestock Assistance Programme 
(ELAP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond 
Tree Assistance Programme (TAP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond Export credit 
guarantees Export credit guarantee programme (GSM-102) 
 
 Maintained 
Amendments include: 
• Maximum tenor reduced to 24 months 
• Flexibility given to the U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture to adapt the programme 
pursuant to such terms as may be agreed 
between the United States and Brazil in the 
cotton dispute WTO/DS267 Sugar  Sugar programme 
 Unchanged 
Includes price support and supply control measures. Dairy  Dairy Export Subsidy Programme (DEIP) Eliminated 
Dairy Product Price Support Programme Eliminated 
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Programme Eliminated. 
  
 Introduces Margin Protection Programme for 
Dairy 
• Subsidized scheme for insuring milk margins 
(US$4-8/cwt)  
• Deficiency payments are made when milk 
margin declines below (insured) level of 
US$4-8/cwt  
•Decoupled from actual production 
 Introduces Dairy Product Donation Program. 
• CCC dairy product purchase programme for 
distribution to low-income people in times of 
low margins (US$4/cwt or below) 
• Time-limited market support purchases at 
prevailing market prices 
Federal Milk Marketing Orders Unchanged 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat. 
4.9.  Overall, the new Farm Bill is a big change in agriculture policy for some products. Its impact 
will depend upon a number of choices producers must make (e.g., PLC ve rsus ARC; ARC versus 
SCO; reallocation of base acreage, etc.). The new Farm Bill eliminates market price support and 
export subsidies for dairy products, and direct payments for historical crop production. However, 
the move from decoupled direct payments to deficiency-payment type instruments linked to current prices could potentially cause an increase in trade and production distortions. 
4.10.  Tariffs and tariff rate quotas are not covered by the 2014 Farm Bill. The export credit 
guarantee programme (GSM-102) is maintained , though the maximum loan tenor has been 
reduced to 24 months, and the US Secretary of Agriculture is granted flexibility to adjust the programme on terms agreed with Brazil in the WT O cotton dispute. The 2014 Farm Bill also retains 
the so-called WTO circuit breaker provision, whereby the Secretary of Agriculture is required, to 
the maximum extent practicable, to adjust if necessary commodity programme expenditures, to WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 104 - 
 
 ensure that they do not exceed allowable levels (e.g. AMS) under the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1601(d)).  
4.11.  The following description of individual measures roughly follows the 356-page 2014 Farm 
Bill, which is divided into 12 titles.4 The Congressional Research Service of the United States has 
prepared a detailed comparison between the new Farm Bill and prior law.5  
4.1.1.2  Title I (Commodities) 4.1.1.2.1  Elimination of direct payments 
4.12.  Direct payments (DPs) were eliminated at the end the 2013 crop year (P.L. 113-79, 
Sec. 1101).
6 DPs have been controversial in the United States in a climate of fiscal restraint 
because they were paid out to farmers and some landlords irrespective of record commodity prices and healthy farm incomes in recent years and even if no crops were grown on eligible land.
7 The 
DP programme and its predecessor (Production Flexibility Contract payments) have been a feature 
of US agricultural policy since the 1996 Farm Bill , following the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. 
Both schemes were notified in terms of Gr een Box decoupled income support. Since the 
introduction of DPs in the 2002 Farm Bill, annual  budgetary expenditures have been relatively 
constant, averaging about US$5 billion (Table 4.2). 
Table 4.2 Key domestic  support programmes 
(US$ million) 
 Marketing 
year 2010 Marketing 
year 2011 
Green Box 118,958 125,117 
 Domestic food aid 94,915 103,151 
 Direct payments 4,898 4,745 
 Conservation Reserve Program 1,793 1,795 
 Environmental Quality Incentiv es Program (EQIP) 1,246 1,231 
Blue Box 0 0 
Current Total AMS 4,119 4,654 
 Dairy product price support 2,845 2,835 
 Milk income loss contract payments (MILC) 0.6 403 
 Sugar price support 1,258 1,406 
De minimis 5,880 9,714 
 Subsidized crop insurance 4,712 7,461 
 Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) 525 1,442 
 Counter-cyclical payments 17 0 
 ACRE payments 9 52 
 Marketing loan paymentsa 349 89 
Total domestic support 128,958 139,485 
 
a Mainly loan deficiency payments for wheat (M Y 2010), and commodity loan interest subsidies. 
US$6 million in loan deficiency payments for wool in MY 2010 are included in the Current Total AMS, 
to avoid double-counting. 
 Source: WTO documents G/AG/N/USA/89/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/93, 9 January 2014. 
4.1.1.2.2  Price Loss Coverage 
4.13.  The Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) programme has been repealed (P.L. 113-79, 
Sec. 1102) and a similar price-based programme, Price Loss Coverage (PLC), introduced. The main 
purpose of both the CCP and the PLC is to help stabilize farm incomes by providing deficiency 
                                               
4 US Government Printi ng Office online information. Viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-
113hr2642enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr2642enr.pdf . 
5 Congressional Research Service (2014c). 
6 Transitional DPs for upland cotton apply in the crop year 2014 and possibly also in crop year 2015 in 
some areas, due to the delayed implementation of the STAX programme (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1119). 
7 The DPs are fixed payments for producers and some landowners based on historical acreage and yields 
of covered commodities (wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, upland cotton, rice, soybeans and 
other oilseeds, and peanuts). The programme has planting flexibility prov isions, but production is not required 
to receive the DPs. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 105 - 
 
 payments when commodity prices fall below certain levels (target prices under CCP, reference 
prices under PLC).  
4.14.  The PLC is open for enrolment by farmers with eligible historical acreage (base acres) of 
"covered" commodities.8 Eligible commodities are the same as under the CCP programme (wheat, 
feed grains, rice, oilseeds, peanuts, and pulses), with the exception of upland cotton, for which a 
new insurance programme was established (Stacked Income Protection Plan). The voluntary enrolment for PLC is on a commodity-by-commodity basis and the farmer's decision cannot be 
changed during the lifetime of the new Farm Bill.
9 PLC payments are linked to current prices, as 
under the CCP programme. The payment rate equa ls the difference between the reference price 
minus the higher of the national average market  price during the marketing year or the loan 
rate.10 The reference prices are fixed for crop years 2014-18 (Table A4.2). Overall, the new 
reference prices are higher than under the CCP programme. According to U.S. Congressional 
Budget Office projections, PLC expenditures are forecast to be US$5.1 billion over 2014-18.11 In 
the 2014 Farm Bill, some of the DP-related saving s might be used indirectly in PLC payments 
(where those payments are actually triggered), wh ere the "effective" price to be compared with 
the trigger price no longer includes DP rates. 
4.15.  Like the expired CCP programme, PLC payments are based on a percentage (85%) of base 
acres and historical yields, i.e. they are decoupled from current production. However, farmers 
have the one-time option of updating yields, and of allocating base acres among covered commodities based on the average planted acres in 2009-12. Acreage shifts among commodities in recent years, include an increase in corn and soybeans, and a decline in wheat, feed grains, and 
upland cotton (Table 4.3). A reallocation of base acres and yield updating could increase the link or 
correlation between base acres, and actual crop production and farmers' risks. Base acres for upland cotton ("generic" base acres) are excluded from reallocation. The payments on generic 
base acres are tied to the covered commodities planted on those acres (i.e. payments are coupled 
to current planting decisions), which increases the link between current production and payment on those acres. However, rules governing th e allocation of payments from generic and 
commodity-specific base acres aim to minimize some of those effects. The maximum total base 
acreage remains the same as in previous Farm Bi lls, i.e. the number of acres that may receive 
payments is unchanged. Producers are free to produce most crops on base acres (with some limits, though less restrictive than before, on fruits and vegetables, and wild rice), but production 
is not required in order to receive the PLC payments. Conservation compliance provisions apply 
(section 4.1.1.3).  
Table 4.3 Reallocation of base acreage 
 
 Base acres 
(million),  
2008 Farm Bill Planted acres 
(million),  
2009-12 average 
Wheat 73.7 55.7 
Corn 84.3 90.9 
Feed grains 23.3 12.0 
Soybeans 50.1 76.8 
Upland cotton 17.9 11.6 
Rice 4.4 3.0 
Peanuts 1.5 1.3 
 
Source: Information provided by the U.S. authorities. 
4.16.  The United States has notified the CCP programme in terms of non-product-specific AMS 
(de minimis ), arguing that payments cannot be ascribed to a specific product. Counter-cyclical 
payments declined to US$16.9 million in FY2010 and zero in FY2011, as market prices of most 
covered commodities have been above target prices in recent years (Table 4.2). Since the 2006 
                                               
8 To acquire base acres, a new farmer would have to  buy or rent a farm with  existing base acres. 
9 A farmer may elect to enroll one or more commo dities under PLC and ot her covered commodities 
under county level ARC. Additionally, farmers who enro ll in PLC may also receive the Supplemental Coverage 
Option. 
10 By comparison, the CCP rates equalled the target  price minus the direct payment rate minus the 
higher of the loan rate or the (marketing year average) market price of the covered commodity. 
11 USDA online information. Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/agricultural-act-of-2014-highlights-
and-implications/crop- commodity-programs.aspx . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 106 - 
 
 marketing year, payments have been made only  for upland cotton and peanuts base acres. 
CCP payments were terminated at the end of the 2013 crop year. 
4.1.1.2.3  Agriculture Risk Coverage 4.17.  The Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) programme ends with the 2013 crop year 
(P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1103) and a new revenue-based programme, the Agriculture Risk Coverage 
(ARC), begins with the 2014 crop year (Sec. 1117). The ACRE programme was available to farmers as an alternative to the CCP programme, to guard against a decline in market revenues 
rather than price. The ACRE programme, which al so required acceptance of a reduced DP and 
lower marketing assistance loan rate, was much less popular among farmers than the CCP scheme.
12 The United States notified the ACRE pa yments in terms of non-exempt direct 
payments (product-specific AMS). Most ACRE paym ents went to wheat (US$40.1 million in MY2010 
and US$5.5 million in MY2011).  
4.18.  The ARC scheme is revenue-based. The programme guarantees a portion of a producer's 
revenue loss relative to a target (benchmark) revenue from covered commodities (Table A4.1).13 
When actual revenues are below the benchmark, producers absorb the first 14% of the revenue 
loss14, and the government pays for the next 10%.15 The programme was designed to provide 
payments only for losses not already covered by traditional crop insurance, where typical coverage 
is 70-75% of expected revenues or yields. Farmers are given a choice between a revenue 
guarantee that is determined at farm-level (individual ARC) or at county level.16 The county level 
ARC option applies commodity-by-commodity. A farm er may opt, for example, for PLC for wheat 
and county ARC for soybeans but cannot switch back and forth. If a farmer chooses individual 
ARC, then every covered commodity on the fa rm must participate in individual ARC. 
4.19.  County-level ARC payments are made on revenue calculations using current prices 
(i.e. PLC reference prices or current national market prices) and current yields, but are made on 
85% of base acres of the commodity enrolled in ARC.  A particular feature of the individual ARC is 
that payments to the farm as a whole are based on revenue calculated using current planted acres, but are paid on a proportion (65%) of historical base acres for all covered commodities on 
the farm. Like PLC, the ARC programme provides the possibility of reallocating base acres, 
excluding generic base acres. 
4.1.1.2.4  Marketing loan programme 4.20.  The marketing loan programme remains unchanged, with the exception of a potential 
downward adjustment of the loan rate for upland cotton. Marketing assistance loans 
(i.e. nine-month post-harvest loans) at below market interest rates are available from USDA to eligible producers of covered commodities (i.e. a slightly larger set of eligible commodities than 
those eligible for PLC or ARC, see Table A4.2). Such loans allow for delayed sale of the commodity 
until prices are at their highest. The loan may be repaid at the loan rate plus interest, or at a lower marketing loan repayment rate when market prices are below the loan rate, or the loan collateral 
may be forfeited to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
17 Marketing loan benefits (marketing loan 
gains or loan deficiency payments) accrue to farmers when commodity prices are lower than the respective loan rates; these options aim to minimize potential crop forfeitures and accumulation of government stocks.  
                                               
12 In CY2013, 234.9 million base acres were enroll ed in the CCP programme, and 20.2 million base 
acres in the ACRE programme. 
13 The ARC benchmark revenue equals 86% of the mo ving average of revenues during the preceding 
five marketing years (i.e. the "Olympic average" re moving the lowest and highest number), meaning the 
ARC revenue guarantee is adjusted annually to market price trends. 
14 "The agricultural risk coverage guarantee for a crop year for a co vered commodity shall equal 86% of 
the benchmark revenue", see Sec. 1117(c)(1). 
15 The maximum government paym ent rate is 10% of the hi storical benchmark revenue 
(Sec. 1117(d)(2)). Such coverage for "shallow losses" is often complemented by farmers' crop insurance for larger revenue losses. 
16 Payments are made when the applicable trigger (f arm revenue trigger or country revenue trigger) is 
met. ACRE payments were made when two trig gers were met at the state and farm level. 
17 Because the loans are non-recourse, producers may choose to forfeit the commodity when the loan 
matures. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 107 - 
 
 4.21.  With the exception of upland cotton, the 2014 Farm Bill holds the loan rates at the same 
level as for crop years 2010-13 and the statutory rates are fixed for the crop years 2014-18. For most commodities, loan rates in recent years have been far below current market prices and cost of production, thus providing income support in a low-price environment.
18 Unlike the PLC or ARC, 
marketing loan programme payments are not tied to, or capped by, base acres. Thus, marketing 
loan support is fully coupled to current prices and production. To be eligible, farmers must comply with environmental cross-compliance provisions and report all crop acreage planted on the farm.  
4.22.  The marketing loan programme figures as trade-distorting domestic support (AMS) in 
U.S. domestic support notifications, with loan deficiency payments, marketing loan gains, and 
forfeitures classified as non-exempt direct paymen ts. The United States has also notified interest 
rate subsidies resulting from below market interest rates and any interest waived on marketing 
loans.
19 Marketing loan payments reached a peak of US$5.5 billion in 2005-06. Apart from 
US$104 million in marketing loan benefits for wheat in MY2010, marketing loan payments were relatively small in MYs in 2010 and 2011, since market prices were higher than the loan rates 
(Table 4.2). 
4.1.1.2.5  Sugar 4.23.  The U.S. sugar programme, composed of price support and supply control measures, 
remains unchanged. The "non-recourse" sugar loan programme guarantees a minimum or floor 
price to domestic sugar producers. The 2008 Farm Bill requires the sugar programme to be administered, to the maximum extent possible, with no cost by avoiding forfeitures of sugar loan collateral. Hence, USDA must establish a level of domestic marketable supply to support a market 
price that is higher than the loan rate offered by the sugar loan programme (so-called loan 
forfeiture level). Once the U.S. government acquires ownership of the sugar, the CCC is limited in the ways it may dispose of it, and the CCC will al ways lose money when it sells its inventory. 
USDA controls the level of marketable sugar su pply through: (1) management of the marketing 
allotments, which limits the amount of domestic sugar that may be marketed for food or human consumption during the year, (2) limiting import access via tariff quota administration, and (3) the 
Feedstock Flexibility Program, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell surplus sugar to 
bio-energy producers (sugar for ethanol).
20 The United States is traditionally a net-importer of 
sugar. 
4.24.  In crop year 2012/13, U.S. sugar prices declined below the forfeiture loan levels, and as a 
result USDA took several actions to support U.S. sugar prices. The USDA spent US$174 million to 
acquire 440,000 short tonnes of sugar, which was auctioned to ethanol producers under the Feedstock Flexibility Program; another US$85 million was spent to purchase 608,000 tonnes of 
import access rights; and the total net government spending on sugar price support in 2013 was 
US$259 million.
21 Sugar cane and sugar beets crops are not eligible for direct payments, 
counter-cyclical or ACRE payments, or PLC or ARC payments.  
4.25.  The sugar tariff rate quotas are administered by USDA and USTR as part of the U.S. 
Uruguay Round and other commitments.22 Before 1 October, USDA must set the WTO sugar tariff 
quota at the minimum level necessary to comply with international trade agreements, and cannot increase the tariff quota before 1 April
23, unless there is an emergency shortage declared by the 
Secretary.  
                                               
18 Sugar has been the exception. Since the last TPR of the United States in December 2012, world 
market prices for raw cane sugar (New York N.11) have be en near or slightly below the loan rate for raw cane 
sugar (US$ 0.1875/lb). 
19 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/93, 9 January 2014, Supporting Table DS:7. 
20 The Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioene rgy Producers has been renewed until FY2018 
(Sec. 9009). For the sugar re-export programmes, see WTO (2010). 
21 USDA Economic Research Service online information, "Sugar & Sweeteners Outlook: January 2014". 
Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sssm-sugar-and-sweeteners-outlook/sssm-
305.aspx#.U6xwQ7EvD5w . 
22 See WTO document G/AG/N/USA/92, 11 February 2013. 
23 See WTO documents G/AG/N/USA/79/Add.1, 8 Febr uary 2013 and G/AG/N/USA/94, 4 February 2014. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 108 - 
 
 4.1.1.2.6  Dairy 
Elimination of the Dairy Product Price Support Program 4.26.  The Dairy Product Price Support Program was repealed (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1421). Under this 
programme, price support was provided by USDA st anding ready to purchase unlimited quantities 
of designated dairy products (cheese, butter and non-fat dry milk) at statutory purchase 
(intervention) prices. The price support programme figured as one of the main trade-distorting domestic support measures (US$2.83 billion in terms of price-gap calculation, see Table 4.2).
24 
Significant government purchases were last made in 2009. Surplus dairy products were made 
available under several domestic and foreign food aid programmes, some of which remain in force. 
Elimination of the Dairy Export Incentive Program 4.27.  The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) was repealed (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1423). The 
DEIP was introduced in 1985 during the Uruguay Round mainly to counter the EU's subsidized 
exports of dairy products. Export subsidies (bonuses) were awarded by USDA for targeted products (non-fat dry milk, cheese and butterfa t) and destinations, within the limits of the 
U.S. WTO export subsidy commitments. Export bonuses were last granted during the 
marketing/fiscal year 2009.
25 Termination of the price support scheme for dairy products means 
there is no longer any need for dairy export subsidies because U.S. prices will follow world market 
prices.  
Elimination of the Milk Income Loss Contract Program 4.28.  The Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Prog ram was repealed and ends upon entry into force 
of the new Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1422). The 
MILC Programme provided deficiency payments based on a target price of US$16.94 per cwt of 
milk, with adjustments for feed costs. The payment rate was 45% of the difference between the target price and the Class I price in the Boston milk marketing order. In marketing year 2012/13, 
individual producer payments were capped at 2.985 million lb of milk marketed, equivalent to 
annual milk production from a herd of about 100-150 cows.
26 The MILC scheme covered about 
35% of domestic milk supply. The MILC payments were notified in terms of non-exempt direct 
payments and have varied considerably depending on the milk order price and feed costs 
(Table 4.2). 
Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers 4.29.  No later than 1 September 2014, the new Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers 
will be implemented and the 2008 Farm Bill da iry programmes will be eliminated. The new 
programme is a subsidized governmental insurance scheme against declines of milk production margins (difference between farm-gate milk prices and average feed costs). Government 
payments to enrolled producers are triggered when the actual national benchmark milk margin 
falls below the chosen threshold margin of US$4-8 per cwt of milk for two (statutorily-paired) successive months.
27 The scheme is intended to protect agai nst increased milk price volatility and 
rising input costs, which occurred in 2009 and 2012 when milk prices fell below production costs.28 
The basic programme parameters include (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1402-1407): 
(a) actual dairy production margin: the actual national benchmark margin for 
triggering government payments is defined as the national average "all milk price" 
minus national representative feed costs per cwt of milk, as calculated by USDA for 
a consecutive paired two-month period; 
                                               
24 Total milk production was eligible to receiv e the applied administered price. WTO document 
G/AG/N/USA/93, 9 January 2014, ST DS:5. 
25 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/82, 13 September 2011. 
26 FAPRI (2010). 
27 During 2000-13, the dairy production margin averaged US$8.26 per cwt of milk. Statutorily paired 
months means January-February,  March-April, and so on. 
28 FAPRI (2010). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 109 - 
 
 (b) production history: each enrolled dairy operation is assigned a production history 
equal to the highest annual milk sales in any of the 2011, 2012  or 2013 calendar 
years; in subsequent years, USDA is to adjust individual producers' production history reflective of overall increases in the national milk production; 
(c) coverage percentage: between 25% and 90% of production history may be 
insured;  
(d) coverage level: margin protection levels range from US$4 to US$8 per cwt of 
milk
29; and 
(e) insurance premiums: insurance of a US$4 per cwt margin is free with respect to 
the first 4 million lb of annual production history; premiums increase incrementally for supplemental margin coverage and incremental production history sales; the 
premium schedule is specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. 
4.30.  The voluntary programme requires annual enrolment and selection of coverage against an 
administrative fee of US$100. There are no re strictions on eligibility by farm size.
30 The 
Congressional Budget Office of the United States estimates the annual cost of the programme at 
US$30-190 million over the life of the new Farm Bill. 
Dairy Product Donation Program 
4.31.  The new Dairy Product Donation Program ha s the objective of intervening in the market 
when prices are low to promote demand for dairy products and provide nutrition assistance to low-income people (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1431). Purchases are triggered (immediately) when actual dairy production margins fall below US$4 per cwt of milk for two consecutive months. The types 
and quantities of dairy products for purchases are determined by USDA in consultation with public 
and private non-profit organizations. Purchases of  dairy products are made at prevailing market 
prices, for distribution as food assistance and not for storage. Organizations are prohibited from 
reselling the products in commercial markets. The suspension of purchases is subject to a number 
of triggers (dairy production margin, as well as domestic and world market prices for cheddar cheese and SMP). The programme enters into force in 2014 and ends in 2018. 
Other Dairy Programmes 
4.32.  The system of Federal Milk Marketing Orders , aimed at classified pricing and price pooling, 
is maintained without change.
31 
4.33.  The Dairy Forward Pricing Program and the Dairy Indemnity Program (payments following 
government directives to remove milk from markets due to chemical residues) were extended 
through 2018. The Dairy Promotion and Research Program, also extended, authorizes assessment and collection of a payment on dairy products, domestic and imported, at a rate of 
US$0.075 per cwt of milk.  
4.1.1.2.7  Supplemental agricultur al disaster assistance program 
4.34.  The Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE), the main disaster 
assistance programme under the 2008 Farm Bill, expired on 30 September 2011. The SURE 
programme provided financial compensation to eligible farmers for a portion of revenue losses not covered by crop insurance (i.e. the portion subject to  the deductible of the policy). Elements of the 
SURE programme were incorporated in the ARC pr ogramme. Outlays under SURE were notified in 
terms of non-product-specific AMS (Table 4.2). 
4.35.  Four disaster programmes under the 2008 Farm Bill have been reauthorized retroactively to 
cover losses that have occurred since 1 October 2011. These programmes are now permanent and 
                                               
29 According to the authorities, during the last  two calendar years (2012 and 2013) the national 
benchmark milk margin was often below US$8/cwt an d twice below US$4/cwt for two successive months. 
30 Participants in this pr ogramme are ineligible for enrolment in the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy 
Cattle Program, a small-scale insurance programm e implemented by USDA Risk Management Agency. 
31 See WTO document WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2, 8 March 2013. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 110 - 
 
 are funded by the CCC. The Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) provides payments to eligible 
producers at a rate of 75% market value (unchanged) due to weather-related livestock losses and attacks by animals.
32 The Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) provides payments to eligible 
producers of covered livestock for grazing losses du e to drought or fire on public managed land.33 
The Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeyb ees, and Farm-Raised Catfish (ELAP) provides 
emergency relief due to disease, adverse weather, wi ldfires, or other conditions not covered by LIP 
and LFP. The Tree Assistance Program (TAP) prov ides assistance to eligible orchardists and 
nursery tree growers to cover 65% of the cost of re planting or 50% for rehabilitating eligible trees, 
bushes, and vines damaged by natural disaster s. Expenditures under the four disaster 
programmes were notified in terms of non-exempt  direct payments (product-specific AMS) for 
livestock, and orchards/vineyards/nurseries.  
4.1.1.2.8  Eligibility criteria 
Payment limitations 4.36.  Total payments for covered commodities (except peanuts) in terms of marketing loan gains, 
loan deficiency payments, PLC payments, and AR C payments are subject to a limit of US$125,000 
per person (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1603).
34 Peanuts are subject to a separate payment limit of 
US$125,000 per person. There are also separate paym ent limitations on Supplemental Agricultural 
Disaster Assistance (Sec. 1501), Transition Assistance for Producers of Upland Cotton (Sec. 1119), 
Non-Insured Crop Assistance Program (NAP), LIP, LFP and ELAP. There are no payment caps on crop insurance, Supplemental Coverage Option, and STAX. To receive a payment under the commodity programmes, an individual with a farming operation must be "actively engaged in 
farming". The Secretary of Agriculture has been  mandated to promulgate new regulations on 
eligibility requirements for being ac tively engaged in farming (Sec. 1604).
35 
Adjusted gross income limitation 
4.37.  Commodity programmes in Title I of the Farm Bill are subject to an adjusted gross income 
limit from all sources of US$900,000 for receiving a payment or "benefit."36  
4.1.1.3  Title II (Conservation) 
4.38.  The 2008 Farm Bill authorized a range of co nservation measures, 13 of which were notified 
by the United States in the environmental pa yments category of the Green Box (totalling 
US$4.9 billion in FY2011).37 The 2014 Farm Bill retains the three main agricultural conservation 
programmes (Conservation Reserve Program, Environment Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), and 
Conservation Stewardship Program), while the smaller programmes were repealed and 
consolidated into two new programmes.38 All notified conservation programmes are administered 
by USDA. Overall, the new Farm Bill reduces expenditures for conservation measures. 
4.39.  The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) offers financial compensation to farmers willing to 
retire environmentally sensitive land from crop production for at least ten years.39 The CRP cap will 
be gradually reduced from 32 million acres in the 2008 Farm Bill to 24 million acres by FY201740, 
                                               
32 Animals reintroduced into th e wild by federal government or protected by federal law. 
33 The 2014 Farm Bill drought designation categories  for LFP have been changed. In addition, the 
risk-management purchase requirement contained in the 2008 Farm Bill has been eliminated. 
34 Per crop year and per person or legal entity, ex cluding joint ventures or general partnerships. The 
2014 Farm Bill reinstates payment limits on marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments that were eliminated in the 2008 Farm Bill. 
35 See also U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013). 
36 Per person or legal entity; income is averag ed over the three most recent taxable years. 
37 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/93, 9 January 2014. 
38 The new Agricultural Conservation Easement Prog ram combines and replaces the Grassland Reserve 
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland and Ranc h Land Protection Program, amongst other repealed 
programmes. The new Regional Conservation Partnershi p Program combines and repl aces, amongst others, the 
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, and Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative. 
39 For annual CRP rental payments (about US$64 per acre, as of June 2014) an d other incentives for 
conservation practices, see FSA online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?a rea=home&subject=copr&topic=crp-st . 
40 The CRP cap includes a maximum of 2 million CRP acres for grassland. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 111 - 
 
 continuing the policy shift away from land retirement through the CRP towards conservation 
measures on land that is in agricultural production (EQIP or Conservation Stewardship Program).  
4.40.  Participation in conservation programmes is voluntary, although a number of farm 
programme benefits are tied to conservation compliance requirements, notably the requirement to 
implement an approved soil conservation system on  highly erodible land. The new Farm Bill adds 
premium subsidies under the crop insurance programme to the list of benefits (marketing loan programme, PLC, ARC, and disaster payments) that farmers risk losing in case of non-compliance 
(P.L. 113-79, Sec. 1118 and Sec. 2611).  
4.1.1.4  Title III (Trade) 4.41.  The trade title of the 2014 Farm Bill deals with the U.S. international food aid programmes, 
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), and export promotion programmes. 
4.1.1.4.1  Food aid 
4.42.  For many years, the United States has been the world's largest donor of food aid, providing 
about half of the total.
41 Most U.S. food aid is provided fully on a grant basis as emergency or 
development food aid under Title II of the Food for Peace Act of 2008.42 In FY2013, the 
United States shipped 1.37 million tonnes of in-k ind food aid with a total value of US$694 million 
to meet emergency and development food-aid n eeds, and provided US$577 million through cash, 
vouchers, and locally procured commodities.43 U.S. food aid is channelled to the recipients through 
the WFP, private voluntary organizations, coop eratives, intergovernmental organizations, and 
governments.  
4.43.  All international food-aid programmes have been extended in the new Farm Bill until 
FY2018.44 Funding for the Food for Progress programme  was not changed in the Farm Bill, while 
funding for the Food for Peace programme and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programme was not affected by the Bill (US$1.65 billion in FY2014). 
The U.S. move from quantity to cash commitm ent under the new Food Assistance Convention 
2013, with a minimum food assistance level of US$1.6 billion, reflects the focus on budgetary 
resources. The Farm Bill has not changed the requ irement to use U.S.-flagged ships to transport at 
least 50% of the total food-aid tonnage each year. 
4.44.  The 2014 Farm Bill extends the authorizatio n to monetize food aid through each of the 
international food-aid programmes. The current Food for Peace law requires a minimum of 15% of Food for Peace non-emergency food aid be monetized.
45 Under the Food for Peace programme, the 
Farm Bill provides new flexibilities to provide cash  to the organizations distributing the food aid, 
allowing them to cover implementation costs and ot her expenses. According to the authorities, this 
will eliminate the need to use monetization to ge nerate cash in many situations and allow USAID 
to reduce monetization to the 15% floor.46 USAID is also required by the new Farm Bill to report to 
Congress on the comparison of the revenue gene rated from monetization with the government 
cost incurred in procuring and shipping the food aid commodities to the recipients (P.L. 113-79, 
Sec. 3008). Monetization has been controversial because of the risk of commercial displacement in 
local markets. 
4.45.  In order to allow USDA more flexibility in administering food aid programmes, the 
2008 Farm Bill provided authority under a pilot programme to purchase food aid in local and 
regional markets. The new Farm Bill establishes a statutory "local and regional food aid 
                                               
41 U.S. deliveries corresponded to 4.9-6.9 million tonnes of grain equivalents in 2010-12 (WFP Food Aid 
Information System. Viewed at: http://www.wfp.org/fais/ ). 
42 Commonly referred to as P.L. 480. 
43 WTO document G/AG/W/125/Add.3, 21 May 2014. 
44 The relevant statutes are: Food for Peace Act of 2008; Food for Progress Act of 1985; Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust Act; McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The 
Section 416(b) programme under the permanent authority of Agricultural Act of 1949, which provides food-aid 
donations via surplus removal of CCC stoc ks, has been inacti ve since FY2007. 
45 7 USC 1723: Generation and use of currencies by private voluntary organizations and cooperatives. 
46 USAID online information. Viewed at: http://www.usaid.gov/foodaidreform/ . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 112 - 
 
 procurement programme" (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 3207) with increased funding (up to US$80 million 
annually in FY2014/18).  
4.1.1.4.2  Export credit guarantees 4.46.  The Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) is administered by USDA, which is 
required by statute to make US$5.5 billion of loan guarantees available each fiscal year, to 
encourage U.S. private-sector financing of comm ercial exports of U.S. agricultural products, 
particularly to developing countries. The programm e provides guarantees for credits extended by 
U.S. exporters or, more commonly, U.S. financia l institutions to approved foreign banks for 
purchases of US agricultural products by foreign buyers. In FY2013, U.S. exporters had registered 
GSM-102 loan guarantees totalling US$3.0 billion.
47 The programme operates under the statutory 
requirement that fees cover the operating costs and losses of the programme over the long term. 
Fees also vary by tenor, risk category of the obligor country, and repayment frequency.48  
4.47.  Amendments to the GSM-102 in 2014 Farm B ill include the reduction of the maximum loan 
guarantee term from three to two years; and the modification of the Secretary of Agriculture's 
authority to implement the programme (following consultation with the Congressional Committees 
on Agriculture) pursuant to such terms as may be agreed between the United States and Brazil in the cotton dispute WTO/DS267.  
4.1.1.4.3  Export promotion 
4.48.  The Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA administers four export promotion 
programmes, which were reauthorized until FY2018 without changes in funding. The Market Access 
Program (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 3102) provides cost-share financial assistance for export promotion 
activities benefiting generic and branded U.S. products (US$189.8 million in FY2013).
49 The 
Foreign Market Development Program (Sec. 3103) provides matching funding, mainly for generic and bulk commodities (US$32.7 million in FY2013). The Emerging Markets Program (Sec. 3203) 
provides funding of technical assistance for the promotion of U.S. agricultural exports to these 
markets (US$9.2 million in FY2013). The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program (Sec. 3205) assists U.S. organizations in projects to address SPS-related trade barriers and 
technical barriers to trade (US$7.3 million in FY2013).  
4.1.1.5  Title IV (Nutrition) 4.49.  The United States has notified six domestic food-aid programmes or measures under the 
Green Box, which together amounted to US$103 billion in FY2011 or almost 80% of total domestic 
support (Table 4.2). Under the new Farm Bill, domestic food-aid programmes/measures have been 
reauthorized with minor changes. The largest programme by far, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Programme (SNAP), maintains the basic eligibility criteria, but projected spending on 
programme benefits is cut by US$8.6 billion over ten years, because of changes in the calculation 
of benefits.
50  
4.1.1.6  Title V (Credit) 
4.50.  The credit title of the 2014 Farm Bill de als with various farm ownership, operating and 
emergency loan programmes administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) under the authority of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. The farm loan programmes have been reauthorized with relatively minor amendments. The FSA functions as a lender of first 
opportunity for family farms and ranches that are unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere at 
reasonable terms and conditions. The agency provides short-term and long-term loans at preferential interest rates, and guarantees up  to 95% of private loans. Emergency loans are 
                                               
47 USDA online information. Viewed at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2013-12/gsm2013-
final.pdf. 
48 USDA online information. Viewed at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export-credit-guarantee-
program-gsm-102 . 
49 Fruits, vegetables, nuts, pr ocessed products, and bulk and intermediate products. 
50 H.R. 2642, Agricultural Act of 2014, United States Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Viewed 
at: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45049 . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 113 - 
 
 subject to an official disaster declaration of a county. In FY2014, US$5.5 billion are available for 
farm loan programmes. 
4.51.  The value of preferential interest rates (relative to commercial interest rates) for direct 
ownership and operating loans, as well as the value of FSA guarantees of commercial ownership 
and operating loans are reported in the Green Box under "structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids" (US$150 million in FY2011). The value of lower-than-commercial interest rates for FSA em ergency loans are notified under "payments for 
relief from natural disasters" (US$2 million in FY2011).  
4.1.1.7  Title VI (Rural Development) 4.52.  The 2014 Farm Bill reauthorizes most of  the rural development programmes administered 
by USDA and other agencies, with overall reduced funding. For FY2014, USDA Rural Development 
will make available US$38 billion in loans, lo an guarantees and grants through a variety of 
programmes.
51 Financial support for rural development includes Value-added Agricultural Producer 
Grants52, and Rural Cooperative Development Grants, which is the only rural development 
programme notified by the United States (in the general services category of the Green Box).  
4.1.1.8  Title IX (Energy) 4.53.  The energy title of the 2014 Farm Bill deals with various renewable energy programmes that 
provide incentives for research, development, and production of bio-fuels.  
4.54.  The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 9010) was established under the 
2008 Farm Bill to meet the target of the Federal Renewable Fuels Standards II
53, which demands a 
shift from mainly corn-based bio-fuels toward s new non-food energy crops. The USDA FSA 
provides three types of incentives for the prod uction of perennial bio-energy crops and woody 
biomass on eligible and FSA designated land: paymen ts of up to 50% of the cost of establishing 
the perennial crops (75% under the 2008 Farm Bill), with a cap of US$500 per acre or 
US$750 per acre for socially disadvantaged farmers; annual rental payments for up to 5 years for 
herbaceous perennial crops and up to 15 years fo r wood perennial crops; and a matching payment 
of up to US$20 per dry ton (US$45/t under the 2008 Farm Bill) to mitigate the cost of collecting, 
harvesting, storing, and transporting the crop to designated biomass conversion plants. The 
United States has notified expenditures for the programme component "collection, harvest, storage and transportation" in terms of non-product-specific support. As of 2014, 48,000 acres were enrolled in Biomass Crop Assistance Program. The programme funding was reduced in recent 
years (US$432 million FY2010, US$112 million in  FY2011, and US$17 million in FY2012). Under 
the 2014 Farm Bill, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program has a mandatory funding level of US$25 million per FY until 2018. 
4.55.  The Rural Energy for America Program (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 9007) provides financial 
assistance in the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees to eligible applicants (including agricultural producers) to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency 
improvements. The new Farm Bill reduces the f unding of the programme (mandatory funding of 
US$50 million per FY plus discretionary funding of US$20 per FY). The programme was notified as non-product-specific support.
54 
                                               
51 For USDA rural developmen t programmes. Viewed at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/AboutRD.html . 
52 USDA online information. Viewed at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/bcp_vapg.html . The 2014 Farm Bill 
increases the mandatory funding for Value-added Agricultural Producer Grants from US$15 million to 
US$63 million per fiscal year. 
53 The Renewable Fuel Standards II under the Energy  Independence and Security Act of 2007 establish 
a target of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, with a maximum of 15 billion gallons from corn starch; thus, 
21 billion gallons in the national fuel supp ly must come from non-corn-starch biofuels. 
54 In addition, the United States has notified the Biomass Research and Development Program in the 
General Services catego ry of the Green Box. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 114 - 
 
 4.1.1.9  Title X (Horticulture) 
4.56.  Most of the existing programmes in the ho rticulture title aimed at supporting the specialty 
crop55 and organic agriculture sector have been extended, with overall increased funding. The 
provisions and programmes deal mainly with certification of organic operations; research; 
SPS measures; and marketing and promotion of lo cally grown products. The Farmers Market and 
Local Food Promotion Program (funded with US$30 million) is intended, inter alia , "to increase 
consumption of and access to locally and regional ly produced agricultural products" (P.L. 113-79, 
Sec. 10003). In addition, programmes in other Farm Bill sections benefit the specialty crop and 
organic agriculture sector (e.g. Market Access Program and Technical Assistance for Speciality Crops in Title III, Value-Added Producer Grant Prog ram in Title V). According to the authorities, 
most of these programmes are not individually  notified, but expenditures are covered by 
General Services entries for the agencies that implement them.  
4.1.1.10  Title XI (Crop Insurance) 4.1.1.10.1  Overview 
4.57.  The Federal crop insurance programme is permanently authorized under the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act of 1980, as amended, inter alia , by subsequent Farm Bills. The new Farm Bill retains 
the federal crop insurance programme, albeit with a number of amendments and increased 
spending for subsidized crop insurance. Most of the increase is due to two new insurance plans: for 
cotton (Stacked Income Protection Plan for pr oducers of upland cotton), and for other crops 
(Supplemental Coverage Option). New insurance pl ans will also be made available for peanuts 
(peanut revenue insurance) and bio-energy crops, amongst others. 
4.58.  Crop insurance is administered by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), which 
manages the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Insurance policies are currently available for about 130 crops, as well as livestock.
56 In 2013, about 295 million acres (83% of the total acreage 
of major row crops) were insured by federal crop insurance.57 In general, crop insurance is based 
on the yield or revenue of the insured crop or whole farm revenue; most crop insurance plans are revenue-based. The insurance guarantee is based on  the expected/estimated market price of the 
current crop year (not statutory minimum prices).
58 The coverage (indemnity) level is commonly 
at 70-75% (with a range from 50% to 85%) of the historical average yield or expected revenue. 
Catastrophic coverage (CAT) is the basic crop insurance, while buy-up coverage plans offer additional insurance coverage.  
4.59.  Premium rates are set by the Federal Crop  Insurance Corporation and subsidized by the 
federal government. CAT premiums are 100% su bsidized, although farmers pay a fee of 
US$300 per insured crop, subject to a waiver. Premiu m rates for buy-up plans are also subsidized, 
ranging from 38-80%, depending on the insurance plan and coverage options selected. Overall, 
the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance averaged 62% in 2013.
59 Subsidized crop insurance 
has become the United States' most expensive instrument of income support to farmers (followed 
by direct payments): US$7.46 billion in FY2011, up from US$4.7 billion in FY2010, notified in 
terms of non-product-specific AMS (Table 4.2 and Chart 4.2). While coverage has not increased significantly in recent years, commodity prices have increased significantly, which translate into more expensive crop insurance and higher premium subsidies. Four crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, 
and cotton) accounted for most of the premium subsidies (84% of the total in crop year 2009).
60 
Insurance policies are sold by 18 approved pr ivate insurance companies, whose operating and 
administrative costs are partially reimbursed and losses underwritten by the Federal Government 
(as notified by the United States in the General Services category of the Green Box).  
                                               
55 For a definition see USDA on line information. Viewed at: 
http://www.ams.usda.gov/ AMSv1.0/scbgp definitions . 
56 USDA Risk Management Agency online informatio n. Viewed at: http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/ . 
57 Congressional Research Service (2013a), notes (page 4) that "in some cases, RMA has not pursued 
policies for particular commodities because producers have expressed concerns that offering insurance could 
adversely affect the market (because  an insurance policy reduces prod ucer risk, farmers may plant more 
acreage, which could drive down prices and total crop revenue)." 
58 This is in contrast to the price/revenue-based income support programmes (PLC and ARC) that use 
historical (moving average)  prices as a benchmark. 
59 Congressional Research Service (2013a). 
60 Congressional Research Service (2013a). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 115 - 
 
 4.1.1.10.2  Supplemental Coverage Option 
4.60.  The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is a new statutory insurance plan that allows 
farmers to supplement their coverage under crop insurance, by covering a portion of the plan's deductible (P.L. 113-79, Sec. 11003). SCO payments are triggered for all enrolled farmers in a 
county when a county-wide yield or revenue loss exceeds 14% of normal levels, i.e. the first 14% 
of any losses are borne by the farmer, the same percentage as under ARC.
61 Effectively, the 
optional SCO in combination with crop insurance provides coverage of up to 86% of farmers' 
expected revenues in a crop year. The SCO is available in combination with PLC, but not with ARC; 
acres enrolled with STAX are not eligible for SCO. The premium subsidy rate for the SCO is 65%. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is to offer the SCO no later than for the 2015 crop year.  
4.1.1.10.3  Stacked Income Protection Plan for Producers of Upland Cotton 
4.61.  The Stacked Income Protection Plan for Producers of Upland Cotton (STAX) is a new 
statutory revenue insurance that covers losse s of up to 20% of expected county revenues 
(P.L. 113-79, Sec. 11017). Historical acreage planted with upland cotton is not eligible for 
payments under the PLC or ARC programmes. The STAX is generally meant to supplement 
producers' other insurance policies. The policy includes a multiplier factor of 80%-120%, allowing producers to adjust the amount of protection per acre. The premium subsidy rate is set at 80%. 
STAX will not be operational until the 2015 marketing year. 
4.1.1.11  Title XII (Miscellaneous) 4.62.  The "miscellaneous" title of the 2014 Farm Bill contains a variety of measures, including SPS 
or TBT measures (e.g. country-of-origin labelling), and the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance 
programme, which was notified in the natural disaster relief category of the Green Box 
(US$262 million in FY2011).  
4.1.1.11.1  Non-insured cr op disaster assistance 
4.63.  The NAP is administered by the USDA FSA for producers of crops that are not eligible under 
crop insurance programmes (administered by the RMA). Prior to the 2014 Farm Bill, the NAP coverage was similar to the Catastrophic Coverage (CAT) crop insurance, and covered losses 
due to drought, flood, or other natural disasters, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Payments were made to producers if the FSA determined that there was a yield loss greater than 50% of the historical yield for the individual farm; the payment rate was 55% of the average 
market price. The 2014 Farm Bill makes a number of amendments to the programme 
(P.L. 113-79, Sec. 12305): additional "buy-up" coverage above the catastrophic level (50%), 
ranging up to 65% of historical yields and 10 0% payment rate, for a fee and premium charge; 
changes the definition (eligibility) from "indus trial crops" to "sweet sorghum, biomass sorghum, 
and industrial crops (including those grown expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for 
renewable biofuel, renewable electricity, or biobased product")
62; and increases the annual 
payment limit from US$100,000 to US$125,000 per person.  
4.1.2  Agricultural tariffs and tariff rate quotas 
4.64.  Tariffs and tariff rate quotas are not co vered in the 2014 Farm Bill. The average tariff on 
imports of agricultural products (WTO definition) into the United States in 2014 was 9.0%, slightly higher than in 2012 due to lower commodity prices, which led to higher ad valorem  equivalents for 
tariff lines with specific or compound duties (Table 3.2).
63 This average is low compared with some 
other WTO Members and, furthermore, is somewhat over-stated because the United States charges tariffs on the f.o.b. value rather than the c.i.f. value. Tariff rates vary considerably from 
one tariff line to another and range from zero
64 to 510.9% ad-valorem  equivalent for one dairy 
tariff line (Table A3.1). The highest tariffs are out-of-quota tariffs on tobacco, dairy products, peanuts, and sugar. 
                                               
61 The actual indemnity received by a farmer is tied to his chosen de ductible level of the underlying 
insurance. 
62 Trees grown for paper or pulp are not eligible. 
63 Some 754 tariff lines (44.6% of agricultural tariff lines) are non- ad valorem  duties. 
64 385 tariff lines (22.8% of agricultural tariff lines). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 116 - 
 
 4.65.  The United States notifies the Committee on Agriculture for 44 tariff rate quotas 
(section 3.1.4.4).65 The most recent notification is for 2012.66 Fill rates varied significantly from 
one tariff quota to another, but most tariff rate quotas were under-filled. Fill rates have been 
particularly low for cotton and tobacco in recent years. On the other hand, the two sugar tariff rate 
quotas were overfilled. 
4.66.  The United States has reserved the righ t to use the Special Agricultural Safeguard on 
189 tariff lines, mostly dairy products, sugar, products containing sugar and/or dairy ingredients, 
and cotton. Price-based safeguards are invoked automatically on a shipment-by-shipment basis. 
Importers that enter goods under an over-quota tariff line are required to declare which pre-established price range is applicable to its prod uct. If there is a safeguard duty associated with 
that price range, the additional charge is assessed. In nearly all cases, the affected quantities were 
very small.
67 The quantity-based SSG has not been us ed since 2003 as trigger conditions are 
rarely met.  
4.1.3  Level of support 
4.67.  Notifications by the United States to the WTO Committee on Agriculture cover domestic 
support through marketing year 2011. Total support to agriculture was US$139.5 billion, an 8% increase over the 2010 marketing year, largely beca use of higher expenditures for domestic food 
aid (Table 4.2). The current total AMS remained well below the US$19.1 billion limit (total bound 
AMS commitment level). In addition, the notification specifies US$9.7 billion of Amber Box support below the de minimis  limits, a large part of which is for subsidized crop insurance premiums. 
A number of the Amber Box measures are related to prices, production or both, including 
counter-cyclical payments, marketing loan payments, and market price supports. Reflecting the 
continued high prices for commodities, budgetary expenditures for these programmes have declined considerably in recent years. 
4.68.  Agricultural policy in the United States has changed considerably since the Uruguay Round 
negotiations, which is reflected in a reduction in the level of support
68 and in the proportion of 
support provided through the most trade-distorting  measures (Chart 4.3). This signals progress on 
both fronts compared with the OECD. The United States has one of the lowest levels of support in 
the OECD, with a PSE as a percentage of gross farm revenues at 7% in 2012. However, according to the OECD, the decline since 2002 was largely attributable to higher world market prices for agricultural commodities, rather than policy reform.
69 Most U.S. support is provided in the form of 
government payments, rather than market pric e support financed by consumers. Payments 
amounted to about US$27 billion in 2012.70 Although market prices are generally not supported71, 
farmers were and/or will be protected from low prices and/or revenue falls through marketing 
loans, PLC, and ARC. The OECD's Single Comm odity Transfer (SCT) figures show that for 
commodities receiving commodity-specific support, sugar received the most support in 2010-12 through price support and other measures, followed by sheep-meat and milk.  
                                               
65 The United States has 54 separa te WTO tariff-quot a commitments. 
66 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/94, 5 February 2014. 
67 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/95, 5 February 2014. 
68 As measured in terms of the OECD's percentage PSE, i.e. the support as  a share of gross farm 
revenues. The PSE is defined as: total annual monetary  transfers to farmers individually (not agriculture 
generally) from market price support, mainly through bord er measures but also food aid, export subsidies 
(calculated by the price gap between domestic and border  price), payments to farmers, and tax/fee reductions 
(revenue forgone). The percentage PSE is a useful indicator for co mparisons over time and among countries, 
inter alia , because it eliminates the effect of inflation. 
69 OECD (2013a), p. 288. 
70 Calculated as PSE 2012 minus market price support 2012 (US$30.17 billion - US$3.07 billion), see 
OECD PSE/CSE database. Viewed at : http://www.oecd.org/agr iculture/agricultural-policies/producerand 
consumersupport estimatesdatabase.htm. 
71 The 2014 Farm Bill eliminates the price support scheme for dairy products. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 117 - 
 
 Chart 4.3 Level and composition of support to agricultural producers 
% 
0102030405060708090
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0United StatesOECD
2010-12Share of support based on 
commodity output and non-
constrained variable input use in 
the PSE
PSE1986-88
 
 
Note: The level of support is presented by the percenta ge PSE. The composition of support is presented by 
the share in gross farm receipts of market price support, payments  based on output, and payments 
based on non-constrained variable input use. 
 Source: OECD (2013), Agricultural Policy Moni toring and Evaluation, OECD Publishing. Viewed at: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2013-en ; and PSE/CSE database. Viewed at: 
http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/agricultural-p olicies/producerandcon sumersupport estimates 
database.htm. 
4.2  Services 
4.2.1  Financial services 
4.2.1.1  Main features 
4.69.  Financial services, led by banking activities , accounted for 7% of the United States' GDP in 
2012 (7.5% in 2009). The sector (finance and insurance) employs 4.5% of the non-farm 
workforce.72 The United States continues to have the world's biggest banking subsector (in terms 
of assets), and the largest insurance and securities markets.  
4.70.  There were 1,711 "large" commercial banks in the United States at end-June 2013, each 
with consolidated assets of US$300 million or more. Their total consolidated assets amounted to 
almost US$13 trillion, representing some three-quarters of GDP; 87% were domestic assets.73 
At end June 2013, foreign banks from 55 countries and territories74 operated 440 institutions 
(branches, agencies, representative offices of fo reign banks, as well as U.S. commercial banks at 
least 25% owned by foreign entities, and Edge corporations75) in the United States, with assets 
totalling some US$3.5 trillion at end-December 2013, accounting for 22% of the total assets of the U.S. commercial banking system.
76 
4.71.  The U.S. insurance market had gross in surance premiums of US$1.3 trillion in 2012, or 
27.5% of the world market; US$568 billion were in life and health insurance, and US$703 billion in 
                                               
72 Bureau of Economic Analysis, "Industry Economic  Accounts", online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm . 
73 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/default.htm . 
74 Offices located in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and other U.S.-affiliated 
insular areas are excluded. 
75 An Edge corporation is a subsidiary of a bank or  bank holding company or financial holding company, 
chartered under the Edge Act of 1919, to engage in foreign banking activities. 
76 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.go v/releases/iba/fboshr.htm . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 118 - 
 
 property and casualty insurance.77 The United States is tenth in the world with respect to 
insurance premiums per capita, with US$4,047 per head in 2012; it is 13th with respect to premiums as a percentage of GDP (8% in 2012). Some US$94 billion in premiums are estimated to have been paid through cross-border trade to foreign-based insurers to cover risks in the 
United States in 2013; they consisted mostly of reinsurance. Some US$29 billion are calculated to 
have been paid to U.S.-owned insurers establishe d abroad. In 2013, losses paid to U.S. firms are 
estimated at around US$57 billion, while losses paid by U.S. firms were US$20 billion.
78 
4.72.  With some 8,000 listed issues (excluding equities traded through Euronext exchanges), 
NYSE Euronext equities markets represent one-third of the world's equities trading, including about 90% of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The NASDAQ is the second largest stock exchange in the world with some 3,500 listed companies. In November 2013, Intercontinental 
Exchange (ICE) completed a US$11 billion cash and shares deal for NYSE Euronext creating the 
leading global network of regulated exchanges and clearing houses.
79 
4.2.1.2  Recent developments 
4.73.  Bank consolidation and asset concentration are long-term industry trends and have become 
particularly acute among top-tier U.S. banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The assets of the U.S. banking system are dominated by th e eight largest banks (designated as global 
systemically-important financial institutions, or "G-SIFIs"), followed by a tier of large regional 
banks with over US$250 billion in assets. JP Morgan Chase is the largest commercial bank in terms of worldwide assets (about US$2.5 trillion as of 1Q2014)
80, followed by Bank of America 
(US$2.1 trillion), Citigroup (US$1.9 trillion), an d Wells Fargo (US$1.5 trillion). In terms of 
insurance, the top ten firms account for just over 50% of premiums in the sector.81 
4.74.  The U.S. banking system is highly dece ntralized. As of 4Q2013, there were 1,054 bank 
holding companies in the United States (excluding Puerto Rico) with more than US$500 million in 
assets, and with total aggregate assets of about US$18.0 trillion.82 Furthermore, the banking 
sector is comprised of more than 7,300 commercial banks and savings associations; of these, approximately 6,600 institutions have assets under US$1 billion, 88 have assets between 
US$10 billion and US$100 billion, and 19 institutions have assets over US$100 billion. 
4.75.  The recent financial crisis revealed the need to implement financial regulatory reforms to 
address critical gaps and weaknesses within th e U.S. financial system. On 21 July 2010, the 
"Dodd-Frank Act"
83 was signed into law, instituting the most sweeping set of reforms to the 
financial regulatory system since the Great Depression. Among its aims were to promote robust 
supervision and regulation of financial firms; establish comprehensive supervision of financial markets; protect consumers and investors from financial abuses; provide the government with the 
tools needed to manage financial crises; and raise international regulatory standards and improve 
international cooperation. Toward these ends, some of the key reforms established by the 
Dodd-Frank Act include the following: 
(a) the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) was created to identify risks to 
financial stability emanating from both large, interconnected banks and nonbank 
                                               
77 Swiss Re (2013). 
78 Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. 
Table 3: Private Services Transactions. Vi ewed at: http://www.be a.gov./iTable/print. 
79 ICE online information. Viewed at: http://www.theice.com/about.jhtml . 
80 In 2013, JP Morgan Chase agreed to a US$13 billio n settlement over mortgage-backed securities sold 
ahead of the financial crisis. It is the largest settlement with a single entity in the history of the United States, and at issue were allegati ons that JP Morgan and firms it later purchased, Bear Stearns and Washington 
Mutual, sold risky mortgage securiti es during the housing bubble while misrepresenting their quality. The 
settlement includes US$9 billion in fines and US$4 billion in  additional relief for struggling homeowners. Federal 
Housing Finance Agency online information. Viewed at: www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/25649/FHFAJPMo rganSettlementAgreement.pdf. 
81 Federal Reserve online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.go v/releases/iba/fboshr.htm . 
82 US Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/in itiatives/fsoc/doc uments/FSOC%202014%20A nnual%20Report.pdf . 
83 The full name is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Refo rm and Consumer Protection Act. In June 2009, 
President Obama called for a "sweeping overhaul of the United States financial regulatory system, a 
transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression". WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 119 - 
 
 financial companies, promote market discipline by eliminating expectations of 
government bailouts, and respond to emerging threats to financial stability.84 The 
Office of Financial Research (OFR) was also established to support the FSOC through data collection and research
85; 
(b) an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created to 
enforce federal consumer financial protection laws, and to protect consumers in the financial marketplace from unfair, deceptive or abusive practices. The CFPB, inter 
alia, oversees the student loan industry, credit and debit cards, payday and some 
consumer loans, as well as mortgage underwriting standards
86; 
(c) the Office of Credit Rating (OCR), within the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC), was established to administer the SEC's rules regarding credit rating 
agencies, registered as nationally-recognized statistical rating organizations 
(NRSROs) and to conduct annual examinations of NRSROs.87 Concerns over credit 
rating agencies also led the U.S. Congress to mandate that the SEC adopt 
additional rules intended to increase tran sparency and improve the integrity credit 
ratings within a year as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC proposed new draft rules by May 2011 but so far no final rules have been adopted. Congress also 
mandated that U.S. Government agencies  remove certain references to credit 
ratings from their rules and regulations; 
(d) the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), within the Treasury, was created to coordinate 
federal efforts and develop federal policy on prudential aspects of international 
insurance matters. FIO was established to monitor all aspects of the insurance 
industry (except health insurance, some long-term care insurance, and crop insurance), including identifying issues or gaps in regulation of insurers that could 
contribute to systemic crisis in the insurance industry or within the U.S. financial 
system
88; 
(e) The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) was eliminated, shifting to the Federal 
Reserve all regulatory and supervisory authority with respect to savings and 
loan-holding companies. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act shifted all examination and supervisory authority over federal thrift and savings associations to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and regulatory authority over state-chartered 
thrifts to the FDIC
89; 
(f) Title II of the Act granted the FDIC new authorities to liquidate large, 
interconnected financial companies whose failure could pose a significant threat to 
U.S. financial stability. It is designed to  ensure that losses are borne by creditors 
and shareholders, rather than taxpayers90; 
(g) the Volcker Rule (section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act) prohibits insured depository 
institutions and their affiliates from engaging in short-term proprietary trading of 
certain securities, derivatives, and commodities. Additionally, the Volcker Rule 
                                               
84 US Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Pages/home.aspx . The FSOC's authority to designate certain 
non-bank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions, thereby subjecting them to 
supervision by the Federal Reserve, derive s from Section 115 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 
85 US Department of the Treasury online information. Viewed at: 
www.treasury.gov/about/initiatives /fsoc/about/Pages/default.aspx. 
86 CFPB online information. Viewed at: www.consumerfinance.gov/the bureau/ . 
87 SEC online information. Viewed at: www.sec.gov/about/offi ces/ocr.shtml. During  the crisis, certain 
credit rating agencies were blamed for overrating some  bundles of derivatives and mortgage-backed securities, 
which misled investors who failed to realize the debt was in danger of not being repaid. 
88 FIO is also charged with monitoring the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and 
consumers, minorities, and low-and moderate-income persons have access  to affordable insurance (except 
health insurance), and making recommendations to th e FSOC regarding the designation of insurers as 
systemically important. US De partment of the Treasury onli ne information. Viewed at: 
www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-struct ure/office/Pages/Feder al-Insurance.aspx. 
89 FDIC online information. Viewed at: https:// www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol . 
90 The Dodd-Frank Act established an  Orderly Liquidation Fund to facilitate the resolution process by 
providing temporary liquidity. FDIC online information. Viewed at: www.fdic.gov . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 120 - 
 
 prohibits depository institutions from investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or 
private equity funds. However, the Rule provides exemptions for certain activities, including market-making, underwriting,  hedging, and trading in government 
obligations, as well as insurance company activities. Although the Volcker Rule 
came into effect on 1 April 2014, the Federal Reserve has extended the period for 
covered banking organizations to bring their activities and investment into conformity with the rule until 21 July 2015; 
(h) Title VII of the Act addressed the gap in U.S. financial regulation of derivatives
91, 
by providing a comprehensive framework for the regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) swap markets. Standardized OTC deri vative instruments will generally have 
to be cleared through central counterpartie s, traded on exchanges or electronic 
trading platforms, where appropriate, and reported to trade repositories. 
Non-centrally cleared contracts should be subject to higher capital and margin requirements.  
4.76.  On 18 February 2014, the Federal Reserve approved a final rule establishing a number of 
enhanced prudential standards, including liquidity, risk management, and capital to strengthen the supervision and regulation of U.S. banks with assets of at least US$50 billion, as well as 
U.S. operations of foreign banks that have more than US$50 billion in non-agency U.S. assets.
92 
Under the new rule, foreign banks with U.S. assets of at least US$50 billion are required to establish intermediate holding companies for their U.S. financial operations (other than branches and agencies) and to meet, with some accommodative exceptions, the same capital
93, liquidity and 
other standards as U.S. bank holding companies of comparable size.94 The Federal Reserve 
estimates that approximately 20 foreign banks, ma ny based in the European Union, will have to 
establish intermediate holding companies in the United States.95 Domestic banks subject to the 
new rule will need to comply by 1 January 2015, while foreign banks will generally be required to 
do so by 1 July 2016. 
4.77.  The implementation of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act on OTC derivatives has been 
entrusted by the Act to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). To resolve regulatory differences regarding the regulation of cross-border swap activities, most of which are conducted within or between the European Union and the United States, the CFTC and the European Union recently agreed that jurisdictions and 
regulators should be able to defer to each other when it is justified by the quality of their 
respective regulation and enforcement regimes.
96 In addition, on 10 March 2014, the CFTC and 
                                               
91 A derivative is a financial instru ment whose price is derived from the value of one or more underlying 
assets, liabilities, or indices. Before the crisis, certai n OTC derivatives known as swaps operated largely in the 
shadows, without effective oversight or transparency. So me firms took on huge risks that they did not fully 
understand and put the entire financial system in je opardy. U.S. Department of the Treasury online 
information. Viewed at: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fa qs/Markets/Pages/d erivatives.aspx . 
92 Threshold established by the Dodd-Frank Act for special prudential measures. The final rule was 
required by section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Se e "Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding 
Companies and Foreign Banking Or ganizations" Final Rule, Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR Part 252 
[Regulation YY; Docket No. 1438], Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations. 
93 For instance, Deutsche Bank, whose U.S. unit at times has operated with virtually zero capital, faces a 
shortfall of about US$7 billion under the new rules, accord ing to Citigroup. Morgan St anley sees a "capital gap" 
at Deutsche Bank and Barclays but expects some of it to be addresse d by shrinking their balance sheets. 
94 According to the U.S. authorities, this represen ts a major change from the current deference of the 
Federal Reserve to countries with comparable capital standards, particularly in light of section 171 of the Dodd Frank Act, which mandates that the same capita l requirements applicable to U.S. banking holding 
companies be applied to foreig n banks' U.S. operations.   
95 Ten foreign banks now account for mo re than two-thirds of foreign bank  third-party assets held in the 
U.S., up from 40% in 1995. Foreign banks also play a major role in the US securities market. Five of the top-10 U.S. broker-dealers are owned by foreign ba nks. Like their U.S.-own ed counterparts, large 
foreign-owned U.S. broker-dealers we re highly leveraged in the years leading up to the financial crisis. 
96 CTF Press Release, see "Cross-Border Regulation  of Swaps/Derivatives Discussions between the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Union – A Path Forward", 11 July 2013; and "Statement by the CFTC and the European Commission on  progress relating to the implementation of the 2013 
Path Forward Statement", 14 February 2014. Some analysts argue that due to the global nature of derivatives 
transactions, the simultaneous application of US and EU's requirements might lead to overlapping demands 
and legal uncertainty. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 121 - 
 
 Japan signed a Memorandum of Cooperation to enhance supervision of cross-border regulated 
entities dealing in derivatives markets.97 
4.78.  Measures taken to strengthen the U.S. banking system will be complemented by the 
U.S. banking agencies' implementa tion of the Basel III increased capital and liquidity standards 
adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Basel III is aimed at strengthening the 
regulation, supervision and risk management of banks worldwide.98 The Federal Reserve has 
announced that the minimum Basel III leverage ratio would be 6% for eight banks with assets 
above US$50 billion and 5% for their insured bank holding companies.99 The U.S. banking 
agencies have adopted most of the Basel III capital requirements by issuing a final rule in July 2013. They are currently engaged in rulemaking , or are planning to commence rulemaking, to 
adopt other Basel III capital and liquidity standards.  
4.2.1.3  Other policy actions 
4.79.  The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provided budgetary authorization 
of up to US$700 billion to respond to the financial crisis. That authority was reduced to 
US$475 billion by the Dodd-Frank Act and is being utilized through the Troubled Assets Relief 
Program (TARP) to restore the liquidity and stability of the financial system. Foreign institutions established and regulated in the United States were, in principle, eligible for relief. As of 
30 June 2014, a total of US$424.5 billion had been disbursed under TARP. The authority to make 
new commitments under TARP ended on 3 October 2010. The Treasury continues to disburse funds related to its housing programs. Cumulative collections, together with the Treasury's additional proceeds from the sale  of non-TARP shares of AIG amounted to 
US$438.7 billion. Bank support programs, including the Capital Purchase Program providing capital 
to viable banking institutions of all sizes throughout the nation, have thus far recovered US$273.6 billion from the US$245.1 billion disbursed. As of 31 May 2014, the overall cost of TARP 
programmes was estimated at US$37.5 billion (assu ming full disbursement of the TARP housing 
programme budget and excluding the Treasury's proceeds of US$17.6 billion from non-TARP AIG 
shares). 
4.80.  The Dodd-Frank Act does not address the problem of housing finance and the future of the 
two giant mortgage-finance agencies, Federal Na tional Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac), which remain under the control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
100 On 16 March 2014, the Housing Reform and Taxpayer 
Protection Act was introduced in the Senate and remains pending. It would wind down Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac over the next five years and establish a new system to be regulated by a new entity known as the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC), modelled in part after the 
FDIC. The Act would also change other aspects of government regulation surrounding the 
US$10 trillion mortgage market. For instance, under the terms of the legislation, private investors 
would be responsible for taking a first loss position of at least 10% of the mortgage-backed 
security's value.
101  
4.81.  According to the IMF, U.S. financial firms in general have strengthened their balance sheets 
over the last few years. However, more progress is needed in some areas, notably in terms of 
"shadow banking", i.e. given the size and prominence of money market mutual funds in short-term 
funding markets, their regulation should be re inforced to further enhance financial stability102; and 
U.S. banks' exposure to struggling euro-zone sovereigns, although improved recently, is still 
                                               
97 CFTC Press Release, 10 March 2014. 
98 Basel III strengthens prudential requirements on banks with a view to achieving a safer financial 
system. New guidelines on capital, liquidity, maturity  and leverage aim at redu cing the incentives for 
building-up high-risk, highly leveraged bank assets  responsible for the 2008-09 financial crisis. Bank for 
International Settlements online information. Viewed at: www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm . 
99 Federal Reserve Press Release, 24 October 2013. 
100 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received support fo r around US$188 billion, although they are now on 
track to pay back almost all of it. 
101 Summary of the Senate Banking Committee Leader s' Bipartisan Housing Finance Reform Draft. 
Viewed at: http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm ?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2cbe807d-
0b28-4980-b017-1cb1a43079ef . 
102 As was the case with American International Group (AIG), any institution holding low-risk securities 
can build their own shadow bank by lending-out ("repo -ing") their securities fo r cash and investing the 
proceeds in a riskier credit portfolio. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 122 - 
 
 relatively high at around 5% of their assets  if indirect exposure through derivatives and 
guarantees is included. Moreover, the IMF has warned that "too big to fail" banks are still major sources of systemic risks and has called for tighter supervision. The implicit subsidy for "too big to 
fail" banks in the United States is estimated at about US$70 billion.
103 
4.2.2  Telecom 
4.2.2.1  Recent developments 4.82.  The telecommunications market in the United States is the largest in the world by revenue 
(US$526 billion in 2011, up from US$400 billion in 2007), and ICT spending at US$1.2 trillion 
in 2013, i.e. about a quarter of worldwide spending.
104 The United States ranks 17th out of 
157 countries in the ITU's ICT latest Development Index.105 In 2013, the United States had a trade 
surplus in telecommunication services estimated at around US$6 billion.106  
4.83.  During 2009-13, mobile phone subscriptions continued to increase and reached a 
penetration rate of 96.8% in 2013, while fixed-line subscribers decreased to 42.7 per 100 inhabitants (Table 4.4).
107 In 2012, some 236 million individuals in the United States used the 
internet (213 million in 2009), and there were 29.7 fixed-broadband subscribers per 100 people.108 
Some U.S. companies that began as internet search engines have further expanded their telecoms offerings, including mobile-phone operating systems.
109  
Table 4.4 Selected telecommunications indicators, 2009-13 
 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
Fixed telephone subscriptions (million) 153 150 143 138 135 
Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants 49.8 48.5 45.8 44.0 42.7 
Mobile cellular subscriptions (million) 274 285 298 305 306 
Mobile cellular per 100 inhabitants 89.2 92.2 95.2 97.1 96.8 
Internet users (%) 73.5 75.9 76.5 79.3 80.0 
Fixed broadband subscriptions (million) 80 84 88 93 94 
Fixed broadband subscriptions per 
100 inhabitants 26.0 27.2 28.2 28.6 29.7 
Fixed and mobile wireless broadband 
subscriptions (million) 136 182 230 261 276 
 Per 100 inhabitants 44.3 58.8 73.7 83.1 87.3 
 
Source:  ITU online information. Viewed at: www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx ; and 
information provided by the United States authorities. 
4.84.  The United States is the world leader in third-generation (3G) and fourth-generation (4G) 
long-term evolution (LTE) networks which provide faster and more spectrally-efficient technologies 
for mobile broadband, with 5.6 million of the roughly 9 million LTE subscribers in the world at the 
end of 2011. According to some estimates, U. S. investment in wireless broadband networks 
                                               
103 IMF (2014). 
104 ICT or Information and Communication Technologies includes landlines, data networks, internet, 
wireless communications such as cellular and remote wireless sensors, and satellites. Plunkett Research online information. Viewed at: www.plunkettresearch.com/telecommunications-market-research/industry-statistics . 
105 The ICT Development Index comprises 11 indicators covering ICT access, use,  and skills. ITU online 
information. Viewed at: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-ICTOI-2013-U2-SUM-PDF-E.pdf. 
106 Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. 
Table 3: Private Services Transactions . Viewed at: www.bea. gov./iTable/print. 
107 Consumers worldwide continue to move aw ay from fixed-line telephony by using, inter alia , not only 
mobile phones but also Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) servic es and other options. 
108 ITU online information. Viewed at: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx . 
109 Google, for example, provides Android, which acco unted for almost 80% of smartphone software in 
2013. Economist Intelligence Unit (2013). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 123 - 
 
 increased from US$21 billion in 2009 to US$35 billion for 2013.110 Nonetheless, the average speed 
of the internet in the United States is slower than in most developed economies.111  
4.85.  This investment and technological progress has also been crucial during the last few years 
in allowing e-commerce to grow rapidly, both in consumer trade and in terms of firms' fulfilment of 
orders and handling of inventories. Online retail sales accounted for almost 6% of total retail sales 
in the second quarter of 2013, an annual increase of 18%, faster than overall retail sales growth of 5% in the same period.
112 Similarly, U.S. consumers are increasingly accessing the internet 
through their smartphones and tablets and are usin g mobile internet rather than their PC for 
emails, online retailing, banking and other functions.  
4.86.  The merger and consolidation trend, whic h dominated the U.S. telecommunications industry 
for the past decade, has continued providing companies with a way to obtain scarce wireless 
spectrum and the means to afford large infrastructure investments. The major domestic players 
are Verizon, the largest mobile-phone provider in the United States, followed by AT&T, the world's biggest telecoms operator by revenue, and Sprint.
113 
4.87.  In February 2014, Verizon increased its lead in the U.S. market when it acquired a 45% 
stake in Verizon Wireless held by Vodafone (the largest mobile company in Europe) for US$130 billion. The acquisition, the third-largest in corporate history and the second-largest in 
telecoms, meant that Verizon now has 100% ownership of its wireless operation. 
4.88.  Overall the United States was ranked ei ghth out of 161 countries in the ITU's ICT Price 
Basket in 2012. This study finds that measured as a percentage of GNI per capita, the United States has the third lowest fixed-broadband prices in the world. Mobile cellular prices, on 
the other hand, are relatively high.
114 
4.2.2.2  Legal and institutional framework 4.89.  The principal legislation covering telecommunications remains the Communications Act of 
1934 and its amendments, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
115 The Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for "regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.
116 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.117 The International 
Communication and Information Policy (CIP) Office in  the Department of State, along with the FCC 
and NTIA, represent the United States in bilateral and multilateral affairs concerning 
telecommunications, the Internet, and information technology.118 The United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) is responsible for developing and coordinating trade policy, including the negotiation and enforcement of specific provisions relating to telecommunications in the trade 
agreements to which the United States is a party. 
4.90.  Section 310 of the Communications Act, restricts granting of a common carrier wireless 
licence to foreign governments, as well as to any non-U.S. citizens or corporations, or any 
corporation with more than 20% foreign ownershi p. However, under its statutory "forbearance" 
                                               
110 USTR (2014d). 
111 For example, it is a tenth as fast as in Japan and Singapore. Financial Times, 15 April 2014. The 
U.S. average download speed of 44.69 Mbps ranks slig htly above the OECD average of 44.44 Mbps. OECD 
online information. Viewed at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/BB-Portal-5a.xls . 
112 The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013). 
113 In the context of this review, FCC reported that the market share by subscriber for mobile wireless 
providers is confidential. 
114 The United States was ranked 24th out of 161 countries in the ITU's mobile-cellular sub-basket. ITU 
(2013). 
115 See WTO (2010). 
116 The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as an independent 
government agency. Intra-state basic telecoms services continue to be regulated by the state authorities. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. FCC online information. 
Viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/ aboutus.html. 
117 For more information on the NTIA, see: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/about.html . 
118 For more information on the International Communication and Information Policy Group, see: 
http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/abt/index.htm. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 124 - 
 
 authority, the FCC has determined that it will not apply the 20% limit to the class of common 
carrier wireless licensees in which the foreign investment is held in the licensee through U.S.-organized entities that do not control the licensee, to the extent the FCC determines, upon 
the filing of a petition for declaratory ruling by the licensee, that the particular foreign investment 
is consistent with the public interest. In addition, where a common carrier wireless licensee is 
controlled by a U.S.-organized parent company, Section 310 allows foreign individuals, corporations, or governments to own and vote 25% of the U.S. parent's capital stock.
119 In all 
cases, whether an applicant is domestic or foreign, the FCC is authorized to attach conditions to a 
licence, or to deny a licence, if it finds it is in the public interest to do so. 
4.91.  The FCC seeks the advice of other government agencies on matters concerning national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy and trade policy concerns when it considers an 
application from an entity with foreign ownership interests to provide international telecoms 
services or to acquire control of, or the regulated telecom assets of, an existing provider of domestic or international telecoms services. 
4.92.  The United States' commitments on basi c telecommunications attached to the Fourth 
Protocol of the GATS cover most services.
120 Excluded from the commitments are one-way satellite 
transmissions of direct-to-home (DTH) services, direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services, and 
digital audio radio services (DARS). The United States has taken an exemption under 
GATS Article II (MFN) to allow for "differential treatment of countries due to application of reciprocity measures or through international agreements guaranteeing market access or national treatment" for DTH and DBS television services and digital audio services (DARS).
121 The 
United States also reserved the right to "allow the deduction for expenses of an advertisement 
carried by a foreign broadcast undertaking and directed primarily at U.S. market only where the broadcast undertaking is located in a foreign country that allows a similar deduction for an 
advertisement placed with a U.S. broadcast undertaking". The purpose of this MFN exemption is to 
"encourage the allowance of advertising expenses internationally".
122 
4.2.2.3  Policy actions 
4.93.  In November 2012, the FCC adopted the Report and Order (FCC-12-145) and eliminated the 
International Settlements Policy (ISP)123 in order to modernize its international telephony rules, 
further lower the price for international calls124, and increase competition. At the same time, the 
FCC adopted safeguards to protect against anticompetitive conduct in specific cases. Nonetheless, 
the FCC maintains a "List of Foreign Carriers that are Presumed to Possess Market Power in 
Foreign Telecommunications Markets". This list of carriers is used for the purposes of implementing certain FCC rules on switched services over private lines and U.S. international 
common carriers and cable landing licensees. 
4.94.  The FCC has also taken measures to reform and modernize the universal service and 
intercarrier compensation systems to make available affordable voice and broadband service, both 
fixed and mobile.
125 As of June 2012, about 15 million people in the United States lived in areas 
                                               
119 Section 310 provides the FCC with the discretion to allow such foreign investors to own and vote up 
to 100% of the U.S. parent's capital stock to the extent the FCC determines, upon filing of a petition for declaratory ruling by the licensee, that  the particular foreign in vestment is consistent wi th the public interest. 
120 WTO documents GATS/SC/90/Suppl.2, 11 April 1997 and S/DCS/W/USA, 27 February 2003. 
121 WTO document GATS/EL/90/Suppl.2, 11 April 1997. 
122 WTO document GATS/EL/90, 15 April 1994. 
123 The ISP, originated in the 1930s and incorporated into the FCC's rules in the 1980s, had been 
created to ensure fair treatment for U.S. international carriers negotiating agreemen ts with foreign carriers 
with market power by, inter alia , requiring foreign providers to offer a ll U.S. carriers the same settlement rate. 
But as global competition increased, traffic routin g possibilities multiplied, and the ISP was impeding 
competition. As a result, over the last decade, the IS P was gradually removed from most international routes. 
FCC online information. Viewed at: http://fcc.gov/document/international-settlements-policy-reform . 
124 The average U.S. calling price for internationa l phone calls fell from US$0.74 to about US$0.053 per 
minute from 1996 to 2011 due to global competition, even  as minutes of use increased over 250% during the 
period. FCC online information. Viewed at: http://fcc.gov/document/international-settlements-policy-reform . 
125 The previous universal service and intercarrier comp ensation systems were considered ill equipped to 
address the universal service challenges  raised by broadband, mobility, and the transition to Internet Protocol 
(IP) networks. FCC online information. Viewed at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edoc s_public/attac hmatch/FCC-11-
161A1_Rcd.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 125 - 
 
 where there was no access to robust fixed broadband networks.126 Some of the key elements of 
the universal service and intercarrier compensation reforms are described in Box 4.1. 
Box 4.1 Telecoms Universal Service an d Intercarrier Compensation Reforms 
Universal service reform 
Budget: 
The annual funding target is set at no more than  US$4.5 billion per year until 2017 (same as in FY2011), 
with an automatic review trigger if the budget is threatened to be exceeded. 
Public interest obligations:  
All eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) are re quired to offer voice services and also broadband 
services. 
Connect America Fund (CAF):  
The CAF aims to help make broadband  available to homes, businesses, an d community anchor institutions in 
areas that do not, or would not otherwise, ha ve broadband, by expanding the availability of 
broadband-capable fixed and mobile networks. The CAF will replace all exis ting high-cost support 
mechanisms with mechanisms that rely on incentive-based, market-driven policies, such as competitive 
bidding, to distribute universal service funds efficiently. 
Price-cap territories:  
In areas served by price-cap carriers—Bell Operating Companies and other large an d mid-sized carriers, the 
CAF provides targeted support for broadband in two phas es: (1) in Phase I, the FCC froze existing support at 
2011 levels and spurred immediate broadband build out- by providing US$438 million in additional funding 
for price-cap carriers to extend broadba nd to unserved locations; and (2) in  Phase II, the FCC will distribute 
up to US$1.8 billion annually  for up to ten years in support for areas with no unsubsidized broadband 
competitor using a combination of a forward-lookin g broadband cost models and competitive bidding. 
 
 
Rate of return  reforms:  
Various measures are underway to support continued br oadband investment in many of the most difficult 
and expensive areas to serve while increasing accounta bility and incentives for efficient use of public 
resources. 
CAF Mobility Fund:  
The Mobility Fund ensures availability of mobile broadband networks in areas where a private-sector 
business case is lacking. It had two phases: (1) in Phase I, US$300 million in one-time support was 
authorized to immediately accelerate deployment of networks for mobile voice and broadband services in 
unserved areas, and (2) in Phase II, up to US$500 million per year in ongoing support will be provided to 
sustain and expand the availability of mobile broadband. 
Remote areas fund:  
At least US$100 million per year will be made available to ensure that people living in the most remote 
areas, where the cost of deploying traditional terrestrial broadband networks is extremely high, can obtain 
affordable access through altern ative technology platforms, including satellite services. 
 
 
Waiver:  
As a safeguard to protect consumers, an explicit waiv er mechanism is created under which a carrier can seek 
relief from some/all of the reforms if the carrier de monstrates that the reduction in existing high-cost 
support would put consumers at risk of losing voice service, with no alternative terrestrial providers available 
to provide voice telephony. 
 
 
Fees: 
 
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC Rules, telecommunications carriers and certain other 
providers of telecommunications that provide service be tween states and internationally must contribute to 
the Universal Service Fund. Currently, the types of telecommunications providers that must contribute to the 
Universal Service Fund include long-distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone 
companies, paging companies, payp hone providers that are aggregator s, and Interconnected Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.  
 
 
                                               
126 According to State Broadband Initiative data, th ere were approximately 15 million people in the 
U.S. unserved by fixed broadband with  speeds of 3 Mbps downstream and 7 68 kbps upstream as of June 2012. 
National Broadband Map online information. Viewed at: http://www.broadbandmap.gov . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 126 - 
 
 These providers must pay a specified percentage of their interstate and international end-user revenues into 
the Universal Service Fund. This percentage is called  the "contribution factor". The contribution factor 
changes four times a year (quarterly) and is increase d or decreased depending on the projected Universal 
Service programme demand and the revenues reported by  contributors.  The current contribution factor is 
available on the FCC's website. Viewed at: http:// www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contribution-factor-quarterly-
filings-universal-service-fu nd-usf-management-support. 
 
Intercarrier compensation reform 
Access stimulation:  
To address the practice of access stimulation, in whic h carriers artificially inflate their traffic volumes to 
increase intercarrier compensation (ICC) payments, the new rules require competitive carriers and 
rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to refile their interstate switched access tariffs at 
lower rates if two conditions are met: (1) a LEC has a revenue-sharing agreement, and (2) the LEC either 
has (a) a three-to-one ratio of terminating-to-originating  traffic in any month or (b) experiences more than a 
100% increase in traffic volume in any month measured against the same month the previous year. 
Phantom traffic:  
To tackle "phantom traffic" (calls for which identifying information is missing or masked in ways that 
frustrate intercarrier billing), tele communications carriers and providers of interconnected VoIP service are 
now required to include the calling party's telephone number in all call-signalling. Intermediate carriers are 
also required to pass this signalling information, unaltered, to the next provider in a call path. 
Comprehensive ICC reform:  
A uniform national default bill-and-keep framework  is adopted as the ultimate end state for all 
telecommunications traffic exchanged with a LEC. Under bill-and-keep, carriers look first to their subscribers 
to cover the costs of the network, then to explicit  universal service support where necessary. The reform 
goes against the notion that only the calling party bene fits from a call and therefore should bear the entire 
cost of originating, transporting, and terminating a ca ll. Thus, the calling-party- network-pays model of ICC 
regimes is reject ed as outdated. 
 
 
 
Multi-year transition:  
Initial reforms focus on reducing te rminating switched access rates, which are a major source of arbitrage 
problems, and promoting the migration to all-IP networks . First, carriers have to cap most ICC rates as of 
the effective date of the rules. Then, to reduce the disparity between intrastate and interstate 
terminating-end office rates, carriers were required to bring these rates to parity within two steps by July 
2013. Thereafter, carriers must reduce their termination (and for some carriers also transport) rates to 
bill-and-keep, within six years for price-cap ca rriers and nine for rate-of-return carriers. 
New recovery mechanism:  
A transitional recovery mechanism is adopted to mitiga te the effect of reduced intercarrier revenues on 
carriers and facilitate continued investment in broadba nd infrastructure, while pr oviding greater certainty 
and predictability than the status quo . 
Treatment of VoIP traffic:  
A transitional framework for VoIP ICC is adopted so th at all carriers originating and terminating VoIP calls 
will be on equal footing in their ability to obtain co mpensation for this traffic.  Default charges for "toll" 
VoIP-PSTN traffic are equal to interstate rates applicab le to non-VoIP traffic, an d default charges for other 
VoIP-PSTN traffic will be the applicable reciprocal compensation rates.  
 
 
Source: FCC online information. Viewed at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-11-
161A1_Rcd.pdf. 
4.95.  In December 2010, the FCC issued a Report and Order (FCC 10-201) to adopt open internet 
rules.127 The FCC prohibited fixed broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating in 
transmitting lawful network traffic and from blocking lawful content, applications, and services. The FCC also imposed more limited anti-blockin g rules on mobile broadband providers, and 
required both fixed and mobile broadband providers to disclose their network management 
practices. In September 2011, Verizon appealed the FCC's Open Internet Order. In January 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the FCC's blocking and discriminations rules for the internet, but also upheld the FCC's authority to adopt open Internet 
rules under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. 
                                               
127 FCC online information. Viewed at: http://fcc.gov/guid es/open-internet . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 127 - 
 
 4.96.  In response to the Court's decision, on  15 May 2014 the FCC proposed new Open Internet 
rules, so as to enhance the existing transparency  requirement, reinstate the no-blocking rule with 
certain clarifications, and require fixed (and potentially mobile) broadband providers to ensure that their practices are commercially reasonable. The FCC also sought comment on whether it should 
adopt legal presumptions that certain practices by broadband providers are commercially 
unreasonable, including with respect to prioritiza tion of traffic from affiliated services. The 
FCC sought public comment on these proposed rules and on alternative proposals to protect the 
open Internet, including those that would regula te broadband providers as common carriers under 
certain circumstances. The deadline for submitting initial comments was 15 July 2014, and replies to those comments were due on 15 September 2014.
128 New Open Internet rules are expected to 
be adopted by the end of 2014.129 
4.97.  On 4 March 2014, the United States announced its intention to negotiate 
Telecommunications Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with selected countries "to facilitate U.S. exports of telecommunications equipment."
130 The United States has negotiated MRAs with a 
number of multilateral organizations and economies, including in the context of APEC.131 
4.2.3  Audiovisual services 4.2.3.1  Statistical overview 
4.98.  The U.S. market for audiovisual services (as defined by the GATS standard nomenclature, 
i.e. services provided by the film, TV, radio and sound recording industries
132) is one of the largest 
worldwide in value. The statistical tables below describe the main economic indicators of the sector in terms of exports and imports, main trading partners, and inward/outward foreign affiliated, 
i.e. sales by subsidiaries of U.S. companies established abroad (Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7).  
Table 4.5 Imports and exports of  audiovisual services, 2010-12 
(US$ million) 
 2010 2011 2012 
Imports    
Film and television  tape distribution  1,661 2,064 2,648 
Exports    
Film and television  tape distribution  13,690 14,567 16,222 
 
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data base, February 2014; and 
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, March 2014.  
                                               
128 FCC 14-61 (2014), Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet , GN Docket No. 14-28, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, Washington DC. 
129 Both the Open Internet rules adopted in 2010 and those proposed earlier in 2014 concern the 
manner in which broadband providers manage traffic within  their own networks to and from their end-user 
subscribers. 
130 Financial Times , 5 March 2014. 
131 The United States has MRAs in force with seven economies (Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, 
Hong Kong-China, Singapore, Republic of Korea and Vietnam) in the context of APEC. In addition, the 
United States has MRAs with the European Free Trade Association (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein); the EU; Israel; Japan; and Mexico (not yet operational). The FCC and USTR are working with Mexico to make a 
Phase 1 MRA operational. Discussions about possible MRAs  are also being held with  other partners such as: 
Chinese Taipei (Phase 2), Republic of Ko rea (Phase 2), and Malaysia (Phase 1). 
132 Due to statistical limitations and data-collection problems, the trade data do not cover the totality of 
the sub-segments of the audiovisual industry, in pa rticular the omission of radio and sound-recording 
subsectors for the trade data (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). More  precisely, the sub-items of sector 2 D "Audiovisual 
services" of GATT document MTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991 (viewed at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ 
serv_e.htm), namely 2.D.a motion picture and videotape distribution services, 2.D.b motion picture projection 
services, 2.D.c radio and te levision services, 2.D.d radio and television transmission services and 2.D.e. 
sound-recording. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 128 - 
 
 Table 4.6 Film and television tape di stribution, top 10 trading partners, 2012  
(US$ million) 
Exports Imports 
Partner Payment  Partner Payment  
European Uniona 9,093 Brazil 1,194 
 United Kingdom 3,855 European Uniona 525 
 Netherlands 1,356  United Kingdom 443 
 Germany 1,162  Ireland 30 
 France 694  Netherlands 16 
 Spain 446  France 13 
 Italy 422 Mexico 316 
Canada 1,498 Argentina 199 
Australia 906 Venezu ela, Bolivarian 
Republic of 139 
Japan 830 Canada 59 
Brazil 525 Chile 46 
 
a Reflects the country composition of the European Union for the period covered. 
 Source: WTO Secretariat, based on the U.S. Depart ment of Commerce, Bureau  of Economic Analysis, 
March 2014. 
Table 4.7 Inward and outward foreign affiliates statistics (FATS), 2009-11 
(ISIC Rev4, US$ million) 
Services supplied to U.S. persons by foreign companies 
through affiliates 
Inward foreign affiliates statistics (FATS)  2009 2010 2011 
Motion picture, radio, television and other entertainment act 8,486 … … 
Programming and broadc asting activities 167 174 150 
 
(ISIC Rev4, US$ million) 
Services supplied to foreign persons by U.S. companies 
through affiliates 
Outward foreign affiliates  statistics (FATS)  2009 2010 2011 
Motion picture, radio, television and other entertainment act 15,689 15,345 14,192 
Programming and broadc asting activities 9,764 11916 13,207 
 
.. Not available.  Source: OECD, July 2013. 
4.99.  With regard to specific sub-segments of  the audiovisual industry, the tables and boxes 
below provide the main economic indicators for the motion picture production and distribution 
subsector (Table 4.8), the television and video programming subsector (Table 4.9), the radio 
subsector (Box 4.2), and the sound recording/recorded music industry subsector (Box 4.3). 
Table 4.8 Motion picture production and distribution services, 2010 and11 
 2010 2011 
Percentage of feature films that are 100% nationally-produced 87.9 88.4 
Total number of gross box office re ceipts of feature films exhibited 
(US$ million) 10,580 10,186 
Total number of national feature films produced 792 819 
Employment in the film industry: 
Direct 
Indirect 
Supported   
.. 
.. 
..  
284,000 
365,000 
1.9 million 
 
.. Not available.  Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), March 2014; Motion 
Pictures Association of the Americas (MPAA ); and FCC 15 report on  video competition. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 129 - 
 
 4.100.  The U.S. motion picture production and di stribution market and industry are by far the 
largest in the world and, in addition, the industry  is a dynamic and major export sector. Table 4.8 
describes the main economic indicators of that subsector, and Chart 4.4 describes the revenue streams. 
Chart 4.4 Motion picture studio revenue streams, 2011 
(US$ billion) 
 
International
24.9 (53.3%)Home video
7.0 (15.0%)
Theatrical rentals
5.6 (11.9%)
Basic cable
2.9 (6.1%)
Premium cable TV  
1.9 (4.0%)
Digital1.6 (3.5%)Pay per view/video on 
demand
1.2 (2.6%)
Broadcast 
networks
0.2 (0.5%)
TV syndication 
0.2 (0.4%)Other 1.3 (2.7%)Domestic
21.8
(46.7%)
 
 
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate the share of total revenue. 
 Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), March 2014; Motion 
Pictures Association of the Americas (MPAA ); and FCC 15 report on  video competition. 
4.101.  For the purpose of economic monitoring of the television and video programming sector, 
as mandated by the various statutes of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), three main 
subsectors can be distinguished: the broadcast television stations and networks, the multichannel video programming distributors (MPVD), and the online video distributors (OVD).
133  
Table 4.9 Main economic indicators of the TV and video programming subsector  
 Broadcast television 
stations Multichannel 
video-programming 
distributors (MPVD) Online video 
distributors (OVD) Total for the 
television and 
video-programming 
sector 
Number and 
types of actors  End 2012: 
- 1,028 commercial   UHF stations - 358 commercial VHF 
  stations 
- 288 non-commercial   UHF stations  - 107 non-commercial   VHF stations  
- four major networks 
  (ABC, CBS, FOX,   NBC) - other significant   broadcast networks : 
  the CW; my network 
  TV, Univision,   Telemundo,   Telefuture, HSN, TBN, 
  CTN, memorable By June 2012:
- 38 cable MPVD, with    over 20,000 subscribers and 1,000 
with less than 20,000 
subscribers (top 4: Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cablevision) - 2 Direct Broadcasting 
Satellite (DBS) MPVD: 
DIRECTV and DISH Network  - 2 large telephone   companies MPVD: ATT 
U-verse and Verizon FiOS Broadcast networks 
(e.g. CBS, FOX, Viacom central), pure player (e.g. Hulu 
owned Newscorp, NBC 
Universal and Walt Disney Corp), Film studios (e.g. Sony’s Crackle, Paramount's 
Ultraviolet), 
professional sports league (e.g. NBA NHL) internet portals (e.g. Yahoo's 
YahooScreen), tech 
companies (e.g. Amazon's prime service, Apple's Itunes 
and AppleTV, Google's n.a. 
                                               
133 This division in three categories is not strictly sp eaking a regulatory distinction: the three categories 
may cover very different types of actors; a single ac tor may fall within several of these categories; and 
cross-ownership and inter-twinned alliances and contra ctual relationships are extremely frequent among the 
various types of actors. It is nevertheless the most operational classification to describe this complex and rapidly evolving sector. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 130 - 
 
  Broadcast television 
stations Multichannel 
video-programming 
distributors (MPVD) Online video 
distributors (OVD) Total for the 
television and 
video-programming 
sector 
entertainment 
television google TV, Microsoft 
via its commercial agreements for 
Xbox360 video 
content), retailers (e.g. Walmart's Vudu, best Buy's Cinemanow), ex-DVD 
rental companies (e.g. 
Netflix), MPVD (e.g. Dish's Dishworld, Verizon's Redbox 
instant) 
Audience and 
market share  Number of households 
relying only on over the 
air (hertzian) broadcast 
services:  
2012: 11.1 million 
(i.e. 9.7% of total 
audience) 
 
- about 90% of the 
  households receive 
  broadcast stations 
  through an MPVD End 2010: 100.8 million 
of which  
- cable MPVD: 59.3%  
- DBS MPVD: 33.1%  
- telephone MPVD: 6.9% 
June 2012: 101 million  
of which: 
- cable MPVD: 55.7% 
  (top 10 cable 
  companies: 90.4% of 
  that share) 
- DBS MPVD: 33.6% 
(Directv: 19.9 million, 
Dish network: 14 million) 
 
- telephone MPVD 8.5% 
  (Verizon: 4.5 million, 
  ATT: 4.1 million)  In June 2102: 180 
million internet users 
watched online video 
content for an average 
of 20.6 hours per 
viewer  
 
Subscriptions: (mid 
2012) 
- Netflix: 22million 
- Hulu plus: 2 million 
- Amazon prime 
service: between 3 
and 5 million (est.) In percentage 2011-
12: 
- Network 
  affiliates:28% 
- independent: 3% 
- Non- commercial 
  networks: 2% 
- Ad-supported cable: 
  52% 
- premium pay 
networks: 4% 
All other cable 
networks: 6% 
All other tuning: 5% 
Degree of 
geographical overlap/ competition n.a. In 2011: 132.5 million 
homes had access to at 
least 2 MPVD, 130.7 million to 3, 46.8 to 4 n.a. n.a. 
Revenues  2010: US$22.22 billion  
2011: US$21,31 billion 
2012: US$24.7 billion End 2010: total MPVD 
US$137 billion of which 
cable 93.8, DBS 32.9, 
telephone 11.2 
 
End 2011: total 
US$148.8 billion of which 
cable 97.9, DBS 35.9, 
and telephone 15  2011: US$3.1 billion
of which:  
- subscription: 2,076; 
-movie purchases: 
  0,327,  
- TV purchases 0,263, 
-movie rentals 0,455, 
- TV rentals: 0,007)  
 
2012: US$3.9 billion 
(est.) n.a. 
Main 
technological and commercial 
trends  More HD, multicasting, 
networks targeting minorities, 
programming targeting 
niche audiences, HD and connected TV sets with digital video recorders, time shift, 
video on demand and 
online video distribution TV everywhere i.e. on 
tablets, mobile phone and pc subscription 
contract, more HD 
channels, more video on demand channels, more digital channels n.a. n.a. 
 
n.a. Not applicable.  Source: FCC 15
th report on video competition. Viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-15th-
report-video-competition-0 . 
4.102.  The radio sector is suffering from the increased competition of digital media and remains 
dominant only in certain sub-segments of the media market (e.g. car listening). Therefore its 
revenues (essentially based on advertisement, with satellite radio subscription revenues remaining marginal) are at best stable, although it is difficult to separate the impact of the recession and 
subsequent recovery from these structural shifts (Box 4.2). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 131 - 
 
 Box 4.2 Main economic indicators of the radio subsector  
Number of commercial radio stations 
(March 2014) AM: 4,725; 
FM: 6,624 
Revenues of the industry (2011) US$17.4 billion  
Employment (2012) 225,000  
Number of subscribers of the sole satellite radio 
network (Sirius sat) (2012) 24 million 
Detailed subsector indicators:(2007) 
- radio networks (NAICS 515111) 
 
 
 
- Radio stations (NAICS 515112)   
Number of establishments: 858; 
Paid employees: 12,400; 
Annual payroll: US$782 million 
 
Number of establishments: 6,587; 
Paid employees: 111,800; 
Annual payroll: US$5,247 million  
 
Source: FCC; Radio Advertising Bure au; National Association of Broadcasters (NAB); and U.S. Census 
Bureau. 
4.103.  The U.S. sound-recording/recorded-music distribution market and industry are among the 
largest in the world. In 2013, legal digital sales for the first time surpassed physical ones. The transition to digital music has been difficult for the subsector, which has lost revenue due to piracy. According to the Recording Industry Associ ation of America, the subsector lost 47% of its 
sales between 2004 and 2009, and 71,000 jobs during the same period. Box 4.3 describes the 
main economic indicators for the subsector, i.e. the music sector in general, as statistics do not allow the separation of the recorded-music industry from the live-music industry. 
Box 4.3 Main economic indicators of th e sound-recording/recorded-music subsector 
Employment including bands and musiciansa (2009) 146,500 
Number of businesses , including bands and 
musicians (2009) 40,000 
Detailed subsector indicators: (2007) 
- Record production (NAICS 51221) 
 
 
 
- Integrated record-pro duction/distribution 
(NAICS 51222) 
 
 
- Music publishers (NAICS 51223) 
 
 
 
- Sound-recording studios (NAICS 51224) 
 
 
 
- Other sound-recording industries (NAICS 51229)   
Number of establishments: 395; 
Paid employees: 1,500; 
Annual payroll: US$82 million 
 
Number of establishments: 390; 
Paid employees: 7,200; 
Annual payroll: US$989 million 
 
Number of establishments: 710; 
Paid employees: 4,400; 
Annual payroll: US$357 million 
 
Number of establishments: 1,745; 
Paid employees: 5,600; 
Annual payroll: US$257 million 
 
Number of establishments: 525; 
Paid employees: 3,400;  
Annual payroll: US$157 million 
Sound-recording industries revenue streams and 
estimated revenues by subsectors: (2008) 
 
- Integrated record-produ ction and distribution  
- licensing of rights to use musical compositions  
- licensing of rights to use musical recordings 
- sales of recordings  
 
- Music publishers 
- licensing of rights to use musical compositions   
 
 
US$14,931 million 
US$1,364 million 
US$879 million 
US$11,814 million 
 
US$4,231 million 
US$2,712 million WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 132 - 
 
 - licensing of rights to use musical recordings 
- print music 
 
- Sound-recording studios 
- studio recording  n.a. 
US$1,221 million 
 
US$949 million 
US$624 million  
Revenues of the music industry (including concerts 
and touring): (2011)a  
of which: 
- integrated record-production/distribution 
- music publishers  
US$15.2 billion 
 
US$8.3 billion 
US$3.7 billion 
 
n.a. Not applicable. 
 
a Live performance of music is clas sified by the WTO standard services classification MTN/GNS.W120 –
CPVC as an entertainment service.  Those statistics do not allow the split between sound-recording 
and live performance, hence the disc repancies of data with the detail ed number of establishment for 
sound-recording. 
 Source: RIAA; US Census Bureau; and Selectusa.commerce.gov. 
4.2.3.2  Trade regulatory regimes 
4.2.3.2.1  GATS commitments 4.104.  The U.S. GATS commitments on audiovisual services cover all the subsectors and are 
overall very open. There are no restrictions on market access for modes 1, 2 and 3 for motion 
picture and video-tape production and distribution  services (2.D.a), motion picture projection 
services (2.D.b), radio and television services  (2.D.c), sound-recording (2.D.e) and for the 
undefined "other audiovisual services"(2.D.f). As for radio and television transmission services 
(2.D.d), there are no restrictions under mode 1 and on market access, and for mode 3, a limitation stipulates that: 
"A single company or firm is prohibited from owning a combination of newspapers, 
radio and/or TV broadcast stations serving the same local market. Radio and television licences may not be held by: a foreign government; a corporation chartered 
under the law of a foreign country or which has a non-U.S. citizen as an officer or 
director or more than 20% of the capital stock of which is owned or voted by 
non-U.S. citizens; a corporation chartered under the laws of the United States that is directly or indirectly controlled by a corporation more than 25% of whose capital stock 
is owned by non-U.S. citizens or a foreign government or a corporation of which any 
officer or more than 25% of the di rectors are non-U.S. citizens".  
Mode 4 commitments for the four subsectors make a cross-reference for market access to the 
horizontal commitment limitations, which concerns limitations on the temporary entry and stay of 
natural persons. 
4.105.  Regarding national treatment, all subsectors are free of restrictions for all four modes, 
except motion picture, video-tape production, and distribution services. For modes 1 and 3, a 
limitation exists whereby: "Grants from the National Endowment for the Arts are only available for 
individuals with U.S. citizenship or permanent resident alien status, and non-profit companies".  
4.106.  In its GATS Schedule of MFN exemptions, the United States also reserved the right to 
"allow the deduction for expenses of an advertisement carried by a foreign broadcast undertaking 
and directed primarily to a U.S. market only where the broadcast undertaking is located in a foreign country that allows a similar deduction for an advertisement placed with a U.S. broadcast 
undertaking". The purpose of this exemption is to "encourage the allowance of advertising expenses 
internationally".
134 According to the authorities, in practice these measures apply only to Canada. 
                                               
134 WTO document GATS/EL/90, 15 April 1994. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 133 - 
 
 4.2.3.2.2  FTA commitments  
4.107.  Like for the GATS, the U.S. FTA commitments on audiovisual services cover all the 
subsectors and are very open. The limitations on combined ownership of newspapers, radio and/or 
TV broadcast stations serving the same local market and the limitation on foreign ownership on 
radio and television licences contained in the GA TS schedule are shown in identical terms in the 
positive list FTA between the United States and Jordan. As far as negative list FTAs, these licensing restrictions are incorporated as an existing non-conforming measure, with some variations, 
through a reference to the corresponding legislation in the FTAs concluded with the 
Republic of Korea, Australia, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore and in the NAFTA and the CAFTA-DR agreements. 
4.108.  The GATS reservation for grants from the National Endowment for the Arts is not reflected 
in the positive list US-Jordan FTA, in which the motion picture, video-tape production, and 
distribution sector have no restrictions for all four modes, nor does it appear in the negative list agreements concluded so far by the United States , which all carve out subsidies and grants from 
their scope. 
4.109.  Some FTAs (CAFTA-DR, NAFTA, US-Australia, US-Oman, US-Panama, US-Singapore) also 
contain an annex II reservation (national treatm ent, MFN and senior management and board of 
directors) in the investment chapter on cable television, whereby: "The United States reserves the 
right to adopt or maintain any measure that accords equivalent treatment to persons of any c o u n t r y  t h a t  l i m i t s  o w n e r s h i p  b y  p e r s o n s  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  i n  a n  e n t e r p r i s e  e n g a g e d  i n  t h e  operation of a cable television system in that country." These provisions have not been invoked so 
far. 
4.110.  The NAFTA contains a reservation in Article 1207 (quantitative restrictions) for an existing 
non-conforming measure on cross-border trade in radio and cable television services whose main 
objective is to prevent anti-competitive practices by imposing limitations on the carriage of the 
signal in cases where the cable operator would be in a dominant position through its interests in other radio and television networks or stations. The reservation also stringently limits the ability of 
telephone common carriers to own or operate cable networks. 
4.2.3.2.3  Applied regime 4.111.  The only significant trade-related regu latory development during the review period 
concerns radio licences. In August 2012 and April 2013, the FCC relaxed the ownership policy 
scheduled under the GATS and FTA commitments. Prior to these rulings, Section 310(b) of the 
Communications Act required the FCC to review foreign investment in any "broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route  or aeronautical fixed radio station licence". Specifically, 
Section 310(b)(3) prohibited a corporation from holding these types of licences if more than 20% 
of the corporation's equity or voting interests was held by foreign governments or representatives thereof, or by a foreign corporation. In addition, Section 310(b)(4) prohibited a corporation from 
holding these types of licences if it was directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of 
which more than 25% of the capital stock is owned or voted by aliens, foreign governments or foreign corporations. Unlike Section 310(b)(3), however, Section 310(b)(4) grants the FCC discretion to allow higher levels of foreign ownership in controlling U.S. parent companies, 
unless it finds such ownership would be inconsistent with the public interest. 
4.112.  In August 2012, the FCC ruled that it would no longer apply the 20% foreign-ownership 
limit set forth in Section 310(b)(3) of the Communications Act. Instead, the FCC would now draw 
upon the discretionary authority found in Section 310(b)(4) of the same Act to determine on a 
case-by-case basis whether proposed foreign investment in a common carrier licensee is in the public interest. The FCC has not specified, in generic terms, the criteria it would apply to grant 
licences. If less than 20% of the corporation is held by foreign governments or representatives 
thereof or by a foreign corporation, the FCC cannot refuse to grant the licence based on "foreign-ness" grounds, but could do it under other, non-discriminatory bases (e.g. criminal convictions). The prior approval requirement re mains in place. In April 2013, the FCC took 
additional steps to streamline foreign-ownership policies. The FCC will now eliminate the distinction 
between foreign investment from WTO Members and non-WTO members, and streamline the review of foreign investment by (i) requiring identification of only those foreign investors that WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 134 - 
 
 would hold equity and/or voting interests greater than 5% (or 10% in certain situations); 
(ii) considering requests for specific approval for any named foreign investor (even those holding interests below these amounts) to increase its equi ty and/or voting interest at some future time; 
and (iii) considering requests under Section 310(b)(4) for specific approval of any named foreign 
investor to acquire a controlling intere st up to 100% at some future time. 
4.113.  There is no subsidy-based support regime at the federal level for any of the audiovisual 
industries except for the grants of the National Endowment for the Arts, which devotes only a 
small fraction (US$6.3 mil lion of US$49.6 million in 2013
135) of its budgetary allowances to 
projects involving media, as its main focu s is the performing arts and exhibitions. 
4.114.  At sub-federal and municipal levels there exist numerous recent support schemes designed 
to attract, through subsidies or tax breaks, the production of films and television programs. 
Table 4.10 contains a non-exhaustive inventory of those schemes at the State level. 
Table 4.10 Non-exhaustive inventory of stat e-level support schemes for the production 
of films and television programs, 2013 
State-level support schemes 
Alabama : Refundable tax credit/rebate of 25%, if the in-state  spending ranges from US$500,000 to US$10 million. 
Productions covered include film and TV, interactive games, digital media, etc. There is a 35% rebate for wages paid to Alabama residents. The rebates are capped at US$10 million awarded each fiscal year. A new amendment increases the amount that can be rebated per year to US$15 million in 2013 and 2014, and US$20 million in 2015 and each year thereafter. 
Alaska : A 2008 law created the Alaska Film Office and included a transferable tax credit equal to 30% of in-state 
qualified production expenditures (including payroll for serv ices performed in Alaska) for film, television, video, and 
commercial productions. 
Arkansas : The Digital Product and Motion Picture Industry Development Act of 2009 created incentives for digital 
product and motion picture productions. The incentives  include a 15% rebate on all qualified production 
expenditures made in Arkansas. 
California : Legislation signed in 2009 created tax credits for film and television productions. Qualified taxpayers are 
allowed a 20% or 25% credit against income and/or sale s and use taxes, based on qualified expenditures, for 
taxable years beginning on 1 January 2011. 
Colorado : Incentives to production include a 10% rebate on qualifying in-state expenditures, provided 25% of the 
actors and crew are Colorado residents. 
Connecticut : Incentives to production include a tax credit of up to 30% of qualified digital media and motion 
picture production, pre-production and post-production expenses incurred in Connecticut for eligible production 
companies. The credit for compensation paid is capped at the first US$20 million. 
District of Columbia : As of June 2011, the District of Columbia's incentive programme is not funded. It would 
otherwise include a rebate of 42% on qual ifying direct production expenditures subject to D.C. tax. Expenditures not 
subject to D.C. taxes may apply for a 21% rebate. There is a 30% rebate on qualified payroll expenditures. 
Florida : Production incentives include a cash rebate programme on in-state expenditures. There are 4 queues: 
(1) films, TV, commercials, or music videos with expenditures in excess of US$650,000 receive a 15%-22% rebate: 
(2) multiple commercials or music videos with minimum combined expenditures of US$500,000 and a US$100,000 
per project receive a 15%-20% rebate; (3) indies spending US$100,000-US$625,000 receive a 15%-17% rebate; 
and (4) digital media projects receive a 10% rebate. 
Georgia : The 2008 Georgia Entertainment Industry Investment Act grants to qualified productions a transferable 
income tax credit of 20% of all in-state costs for film  and television investments of US$500,000 or more. An 
additional 10% tax credit is awarded to approve projects that embed a Ge orgia Entertainment Promotional logo 
within the titles or credits of each production. 
Hawaii : Production incentives include a refundable income ta x credit of 15%-20% (in certain counties) of the costs 
incurred in the State, capped at US$8 million per production that spends at least US$200,000 in Hawaii, and up to 
7.25% rebate for the transient accommodation tax (hotel room tax). Set to expire 1 January 2016. 
Idaho : Idaho's Motion Media Rebate Program was passed on 25 March 2008, offering a 20% rebate for qualifying 
productions on all goods and services purchased in Idaho if  at least US$200,000 is spen t in Idaho and at least 20% 
of crew is Idaho residents. However, the programme is currently not funded. 
Illinois : The Illinois Film Production Tax Credit entered into effect on 1 January 2009. The tax credit has no sunset 
and consists of: (1) 30% of the Illinois production spending for the taxable year; and (2) 30% credit on Illinois 
salaries up to US$100,000 per worker. 
Kansas : Provides a 30% tax credit on direct production expenditures made by an eligible film production company 
capped at US$2 million per year through 2013. 
Kentucky : Incentives to production include a 20% refundable tax credit for qualifying production and 
postproduction-related expenditures, including payroll with  a minimum in-state expenditure of US$500,000. As an 
alternative, productions can take a sales and use tax ref und for purchases made by a motion picture production 
company in connection with filming in Kentucky if the company films or produces one or more motion pictures in the 
State during any 12-month period. 
Louisiana : Provides a transferable investor tax credit equal to 30% of the in-state investment made if it is in 
excess of US$300,000. The transferable employment tax credit is equal to 5% of the salaries of in-state residents hired. 
                                               
135 Online information. Viewed at: http://arts.gov/grants/recent-grants . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 135 - 
 
 State-level support schemes 
Maine : Production incentives include a wage tax rebate eq ual to 10% of non-Maine residents' wages and 12% of 
Maine residents' wages on qualified productions and an  income tax offset for companies investing in Maine 
productions. There is a separate 5% credit on in-state expenditures. 
Maryland : Film production incentives include a refundable tax credit of 25% for films and 27% for TV series on 
eligible production-related expenditures, including wage s. The programme requires a minimum in-state spend of 
US$500,000 and requires that 50% of pr incipal photography occur in Maryland. 
Massachusetts : Producers and filmmakers, who either shoot at leas t half of their movie or spend at least half of 
their production budget in Massachusetts, are eligible for a tax credit equal to 25 cents for every new dollar of 
spending brought to Massachusetts. Filmmakers may take the credit as either a direct rebate at 90% of the face 
value (guaranteed) or to sell them at ma rket rate, whichever is more favourable. 
Michigan : Beginning in February 2008, the Michigan film production credit provides a refundable, assignable tax 
credit of up to 42% of the amount of a production comp any's expenditures (depending upon type) that are incurred 
in producing a film or other media entertainment project in Michigan. 
Minnesota : Snowbate, Minnesota's Film Jobs Production Pr ogramme, provides a reimbursement of 15%-20% of 
Minnesota production expenditures to films, television an d internet programs and other content. Snowbate funds are 
limited (subject to an appropriation of approximately US$1 million annually) and are approved biennially. 
Mississippi : Incentives to production include a 25% rebate for in-state investments, with a separate employment 
rebate of 30% or 25% for state residents and non-reside nts respectively. The per project rebate is capped at 
US$8 million and the annual amount of available rebates is capped at US$20 million per fiscal year. 
Missouri : Incentives to production include State Tax Credits, which are issued to a qualified film production 
company for up to 35% of the amount spent in Missouri (or up to 30% for qualifying out-of-state cast and crew 
when Missouri income taxes are withheld) for production or production-related activities to facilitate film production 
in Missouri. 
Montana : Under the Big Sky on the Big Screen Act, film and TV productions are eligible for a 14% refundable tax 
credit on up to US$50,000 in wages paid to Montana re sidents and a 9% refundable tax credit on their total 
qualified expenditures in the state. 
New Jersey : Production incentives include a 20% tax credit instituted in 2006. This tax credit is available to 
producers who spend 60% of their budgets in New Jersey, exclusive of post-production costs. The credit is both 
saleable and transferable and may be ca rried over to subsequent tax years. 
New Mexico : 25% tax rebate on all direct production expenditures, including New Mexico crews that are subject to 
taxation by the State. The rebate applies to feature films, independent films, television, regional and national commercials, documentaries, video games and post-production.  Non-resident actors and stunt performers will also 
qualify under a separate tax structure. 
New York : Production incentives include a 30% fully refundable tax credit on qualified expenses while filming in 
New York State, certain sales tax exemptions and an up to 5% tax credit on investment in construction and 
upgrades to qualified film production facilities. 
North Carolina : Effective January 2011, tax incentives include a refundable credit equal to 25% of qualifying in-
state production expenses, provided an in-state minimum of at least US$250,000 is met. There is a per feature credit cap of US$20 million. 
Ohio: The tax incentives for Ohio include refundable credits for film, TV, video and digital media equal to 25% of 
production expenditures (with a minimum in-state spend of US$300,000) including out-of-state wages. There is a 
separate 35% refundable credit for wages paid to Ohio residents. Individual productions are capped at US$5 million 
and there is an annual cap on available credits of US$10 million per year. 
Oklahoma : The Oklahoma Film Enhancement Rebate offers up to 37% on Oklahoma expenditures to qualifying 
companies filming in the State capped at US$5 million per year. The rebate is extended to film, television and commercial productions with a minimum budget of US$500,0 00 and spending at least US$300,000 in Oklahoma, 
based on certain criteria. 
Oregon : Incentives to production include rebates on 20% of a production's Or egon-based goods and services and 
additional cash rebate of up to 16.2% of wages paid to production personnel. The annual cap on rebates is 
US$7.5 million per fiscal year. 
Pennsylvania : Under the Film Tax Credit Program, Pennsylvania offers a 25% tax credit to eligible productions 
(feature films, TV shows and series, and commercials intended for a national audience) that spend at least 60% of 
their total budget in the Commonwealth. 
Puerto Rico : Provides a 40% rebate on all payments to Puerto  Rico residents and 20% on non-residents (subject 
to a 20% withholding over their PR income). There are no salary caps, but there are minimum spending levels and 
an overall annual cap on credits for payments to Puerto Rico residents (US$50 million), which may increase if the 
production meets addi tional requirements. 
Rhode Island : Provides a 25% transferable tax credit for all Rhode Island production-related expenditures - 
including salaries for people working on the ground locally - as well as a non-transferable investor tax credit for Rhode Island residents who invest in projects filmed primarily in Rhode Island. The credits cover eligible films, TV shows, commercials and video games. There is a US $15 million annual cap on the total credits approved. 
South Carolina : Productions that film in South Carolina can receive up to a 20% cash rebate on in-state employee 
wages and a 10% cash rebate up to US$3,500 on out-of-s tate employee wages. Out-of-state performing artists 
(including stunt performers) are eligible for the full 20% cash rebate. Additionally, South Carolina offers up to a 
30% cash rebate on in-state supplier expenditures if at least US$1 million is spent in the state. 
Tennessee : Offers two incentive programmes for a total possible  rebate of 32% of qualified spending, including a 
cash rebate equal to 17% of qualified spending and a rebate of 15% of all qualified expenditures, including promotion and advertising, if th e production company establishes its headquarters in Tennessee. 
Texas : The Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program o ffers qualifying feature films, television programs, 
commercials, video games, and stand-alone post-production/ finishing projects the opportunity to receive a rebate 
payment of 5%-17.5% of eligible Texas spending upon completion of a review of their Texas expenditures. There is 
a cap of US$2 million per film. 
Utah : Offers up to a 25% rebate or refundable tax credit for films, TV and digital media programs with a minimum 
spend of US$1 million. Another incentive is available for productions with less than US$1 million in-state WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 136 - 
 
 State-level support schemes 
expenditures, which provides a cash rebate of 15% on qualified spend. 
Virginia : Virginia's Governor's Motion Picture Opportunity Fund provides a performance-based cash rebate at the 
Governor's discretion, taking into consideration length of filming, job creation, trainees hired and goods and services 
purchased in Virginia. In 2010, productions receiving tax incentives generated an economic impact of 
US$14.2 million. 
Washington : Incentives to production include Washington's  designated production-assistance organization, 
Washington FilmWorks, that offers funding assistance of up to 30% of total in-state qualified expenditures (including 
labour and talent who are Washington state residents) to commercial, television and feature film productions 
selected to be funded by WFW. The production comp any must meet certain in-state spending thresholds. 
West Virginia : Incentives to production include the West Virginia Film Industry Investment Act that currently 
provides for transferable tax credits of up to 31% of qualif ied in-state spend for production on eligible feature length 
theatrical or direct-to-vide o motion pictures, made-for-TV motion pictur es, TV pilots, series, and miniseries and 
more. 
Wisconsin : Production incentives include a refundable individual/corporate income/franchise tax credit equal to 
25% of in-state production-related expenditures and a no n-refundable wage credit equal to 25% up to the first 
US$250,000 for in-state wages on salaries up to US$250, 000. 35% of the total production budget must be spent in 
Wisconsin. The annual aggregate amount  of credits caps at US$500,000. 
Wyoming : The Film Industry Financial Incentive (FIFI) pr ogramme provides a cash rebate for production 
companies of up to 15% of qualifying motion picture-related expenditures in the State of Wyoming, including 
post-production and digital effects services. The production company must spend a minimum amount of 
US$200,000 to qualify for a potentia l rebate percentage between 12%-15%. 
 
Source: MPAA online information. Viewed at : http://www.mpaa.org/po licy/state-by-state. 
4.2.4  Health, medical and medical insurance services 
4.115.  Health services, medical services, and medical insurance services constitute three different 
subsectors in the GATS standard nomenclature,136 but they are nevertheless examined together 
since they constitute an economic cluster, especi ally in the case of the United States, where the 
bulk of the financing of the health system comes from private medical insurance.  
4.2.4.1  Statistical overview 4.116.  The United States is by far the largest market for health services with a total spending of 
US$2,584 billion in 2010 (five times the size of the next largest market, Japan), and with private 
spending of US$1,213.1 billion (ten times the si ze of the next largest market, China), and a 
per capita spending of US$8,233 in 2010 (more than twice the European Union average: 
US$3,268). However as with other developed countries, global health expenditures in the 
United States in recent years have grown more  slowly (compound annual growth rate 2006-10: 
5.19% for global spending, 1.05% for private spending) than the global average (7.5% for global spending) due to the growing private expenditures on health services in developing and emerging 
economies. 
4.117.  The United States continues to maintain a trade surplus in healthcare services which 
totalled US$1.89 billion in 2013. While representing  far less than 1% of the overall U.S. health 
care market, U.S. exports of health-related tr avel services in 2012 of US$3.1 billion exceed 
imports of such services of US$1.2 billion (Table  4.11). By contrast, services supplied by foreign 
owned U.S. affiliates significantly exceed supplies by  foreign affiliates of U.S. firms, largely due to 
the opportunities offered by the U.S. market wi th a net surplus of nearly US$8.2 billion in 2009 
(Table 4.12). 
                                               
136 WTO document MTN/GNS.W 120. More precisely, 1.A .h "medical and dental services" and 1.A.j 
"services provided by midwives, nurses physiotherapis ts and paramedical personne l" within professional 
service for medical services lato sensu , 8.A "hospital services", 8.B "other  human health services" (ambulance 
services, residential health facilities  services other than hosp ital services) and 8.C "s ocial services" (welfare 
services delivered through residential institutions to old persons, the handicapped, children and other clients, child day-care services including day care services for the handicapped, gu idance and counselling relating to 
children, welfare services not delivered through residential institutions and vo cational rehabilitation services for 
health and social services stricto sensu ), and part of 7.A.a "lif e, accident and health in surance services" within 
financial services for private health insurance. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 137 - 
 
 Table 4.11 Health-related travel: imports and exports, 2010-12 
 2010 2011 2012 
Imports (US$ million) 1,019 1,139 1,282 
Exports (US$ million) 2,876 3,032 3,176 
 
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation an d Development (OECD), February 2013. Health-related 
expenditure includes expenditure for medical serv ices, other health care, food, accommodation and 
local transport, acquired by pers ons travelling for medical reasons (Manual on Statistics of 
International Trade in Services 2010  (MSITS 2010)) . 
Table 4.12 Inward and outward foreign affiliates trade sales and value added 
employment for health and social work activities, 2009-11  
 2009 2010 2011 
Inward FATS (ISIC Rev4, US$ million)a 10,799 .. .. 
Outward FATS (ISIC Rev4, US$ million)a 2,607 .. .. 
Value added (ISIC Rev3, US$ million)b 1,062,400 1,102,700 1,136,900 
Employment (ISIC Rev3, in numbers)c 1,4684,000 1,4916,000 1,5158,000 
 
.. Not available.  a Source: OECD, July 2013.  b Source: United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), July 2013. c Source: International Labour Organization (ILO), May 2013. 
4.118.  The world's largest health organizations are located in the United States and most of them 
are private, in contrast to those in other countries where there are often limits for the scope of 
private economic activity in the sector. Further, eight of the world's ten largest private healthcare companies are American. 
4.119.  The total revenues of the U.S. healthcare industry were US$1.75 trillion in 2010, with total 
employment of 14 million persons. The most impo rtant healthcare subsectors, by expenditures, 
were hospital in-patient care (US$829 billion),  ambulatory care (US$750 billion) and nursing and 
residential care (US$190 billion). For healthcare insurance, the size of the market amounted to 
US$712 billion, in premiums collected, in 2012 (Table 4.13). 
Table 4.13 Main economic indicators fo r the U.S. health insurance sector 
Indicator Level 
Premiums collected (2012) US$712 billion 
Annual growth 2009-14 +0.7% 
Employment (2013) 452,500 
Number of companies  956  
Concentration Top 25 = 2/3 of the premium collected  
 
Source: National Association of Insurance Commis sioners, and Ibis world database. Viewed at: 
http://www.ibisworld.com/indus try/default.aspx?indid=1324 . 
4.2.4.2  Regulatory regime 
4.2.4.2.1  Recent development in the general regulatory framework  4.120.  The main recent regulatory development concerning the U.S. health system is the 2010 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (see main provisions, Table A4.3) The 
PPACA represents a significant reform of the U.S.  health care system. An important objective of 
the Act is to increase access to care by providing insurance coverage to previously uninsured individuals as of 2014. 
4.121.  The reform builds on the current financing structure of the U.S. healthcare system, which 
is based on multiple payers. Healthcare payments are split between federal and state governments, private businesses (health insure rs, employers and providers) and households. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 138 - 
 
 In 2012, 47% of national health expenditure was financed by the federal, state and local 
governments, 41% by private business and 12% by households through out-of-pocket payments.  
4.122.  Most health insurance coverage in the Unit ed States is provided by employers, partly due 
to the tax deductibility of premiums for employ er-sponsored plans. These plans offer medical 
coverage to more than half of the population, th ough the proportion has been declining steadily, 
from close to 60% in 2006 to 55% in 2012. 
4.123.  Eligible persons aged 65 and over generally receive core coverage from the federal 
government through the Medicare programme and may add coverage with a "Medicare 
supplement" plan from a private carrier. Alternativel y, they have the option to enrol in a Medicare 
Advantage plan from a private insurer. In 2012, 15.7% of the population was covered by 
Medicare. Combined federal and state programs provide coverage for the poor through Medicaid, 
and for uninsured children through the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  
4.124.  Prior to the PPACA, individuals who did not have access to any of the above sources of 
health coverage could purchase medically underwritten health insurance from regional or national 
insurers. Several states actually did have restrictions on medical underwriting, but most did not. 
Options to buy insurance on the individual market were limited and offered at higher prices than group coverage. People with serious pre-existing
137 conditions were often deemed uninsurable and 
denied coverage.138  
4.125.  The PPACA entails significant regulatory ch anges to the health insurance industry and the 
healthcare system which are scheduled to enter into force between 2010 and 2015 (Table A4.3). 
4.126.  From the international trade perspective, the key measures of the PPACA are those that 
h a v e  a n  i m p a c t  o n  s u p p l y  a n d  d e m a n d  o f  h e a l thcare, i.e. those that extend the number of 
individuals covered, limit the possibilities for health insurance companies to deny or limit coverage or to increase premiums, and create an online ma rket place/insurance exchange that is publicly 
administered by the state or, by default, federal level, in order to offer comparable insurance 
products on a competitive basis to individuals and employers.  
4.127.  The PPACA allows states leeway as to ho w they will implement the exchanges. Each state 
may choose to operate its own exchange or operate a joint partnership with the 
Federal Government, or defer their exchange  to the Federal Government completely. 
4.128.  In terms of impact and coverage
139, 8 million Americans purchased private insurance on 
the marketplace in 2014 and 9 million Americans are projected to enrol in Medicaid or CHIP in 
2014, whereby the marketplace may be used. The Congressional Budget Office projects the rate of 
uninsured to drop by 14 million people in 2014. The 170.9 million people covered by employer insurance will not need to use the marketplace, although many employers will use the marketplace 
to purchase group health plans through a part of the marketplace called "The SHOP" or the 
Small Business Health Options Program
. 
4.2.4.2.2  Regulatory trade regimes 
4.2.4.2.2.1  GATS commitments 4.129.  As with most OECD countries, the United States does not have any GATS commitments 
regarding medical and dental services and services  provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists 
and paramedical personnel. Regarding health in surance services, the limitations listed in the 
U.S. schedule, for insurance, notably numerous sub- federal level limitations, apply also to health 
                                               
137 A "pre-existing condition" is a health risk or a chronic disease that allows the health insurance 
company to deny or limit covera ge or to increase premiums. 
138 For a more detailed description of the U.S. health  insurance system and of its various types of plans 
and coverages (which is not the central object of th e present report) before and after the reform see for 
instance Swiss Re (2014). 
139 Online information. Viewed at: http://oba macarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-
exchange.php. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 139 - 
 
 insurance services. These restrictions have been described in some detail in previous 
TPR reports.140 There are no limitations specific to health insurance.141  
4.130.  The United States is one of the few WTO Members with GATS commitments on health 
services. Those commitments cover the direct ownership, management, and operation of hospital 
and other health care facilities on a "for fee" basis with the following regime: mode 1, unbound 
due to technical feasibility; mode 2: none for market access and a limitation on insurance portability whereby "Federal or state government reimbursement of medical expenses is limited to 
licensed, certified facilities in the United States or in a specific state"; mode 3, a limitation 
indicating that "Establishment of hospitals or other health care facilities, procurement of specific types of medical equipment, or provision of specific types of medical procedures may be subject to a needs-based quantitative limit", as well as three sub-federal limitations for the States of 
New York and of Michigan
142 for market access and none for national treatment; and mode 4, 
unbound except as indicated in the horizontal commitments for market access and none for national treatment.  
4.2.4.2.2.2  FTAs commitments  
4.131.  The commitments contained in the positive list agreement between the United States and 
Jordan reflects exactly the U.S. GATS commitmen ts described above. All negative list FTAs 
concluded so far by the United States (CAFTA -DR, U.S.-Korea, U.S.-A ustralia, U.S.-Chile, 
U.S.-Colombia, U.S.-Singapore ; U.S.-Bahrain, U.S.-Oman, U. S.-Morocco, U.S.-Peru, and 
U.S.-Panama) contain a reservation in the in vestment chapter (national treatment, MFN, 
prohibition of performance requirements, senior management and board of directors) and in the 
cross-border trade chapter (national treatmen t, MFN, market access and local presence).
143 This 
reservation covers the right to adopt or maintain any measure with respect to the provision of law enforcement and correctional services, and the follo wing services to the extent they are social 
services established or maintained for a public purpose: income security or insurance, social 
security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care. Historically, this reservation appeared for the first time in the NAFTA, as an annex 2 reservation 
for non-conforming measures to the national treatment obligation in the investment chapter and to 
the national treatment, local presence and quantita tive restrictions obligations in the cross-border 
trade chapter. There are no other medical and paramedical, health insurance
144, and health and 
social services specific reservations contained in the FTAs. 
4.2.4.2.2.3  Applied regime 
4.132.  The U.S. healthcare industry is largely open to foreign investment as shown by inward 
foreign affiliates trade statistics, i.e. on sales of subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies with 
inward flows being fourfold the outward flows and by the fact that seven out of the ten largest 
private equity deals in global healthcare in 2011 were targeting U.S. companies. This attraction 
prevails despite the fact, recogniz ed by the authorities themselves145, that it can be challenging for 
foreign firms to enter the U.S. market due to state level regulations and licensing requirements, as 
well as difficulties qualifying for reimbursement from third parties. 
                                               
140 Notably in 2006 (WT/TPR/S/160, paragraphs 86 to 92, pages 100 to 102) and in 2008 
(WT/TPR/S/200, paragraphs 138 to 191, pages 110 to 112). 
141 It is worth noting that U.S. commitments for in surance are made according to the GATS Financial 
Services Understanding and that therefore mode 1 re mains unbound for insurance services except limited 
exceptions (e.g. reinsurance) of which health insurance is not part. This implies that incorporation/establishment requirements, if any, do not have to be listed as limitations since the provision of services is bound only for mode 3 which implies some form of establishment, not to mention the prudential 
nature of such requirements. 
142 Namely "In New York, corporate ownership of an op erating corporation for, and limited partnerships 
as operators of, hospitals, nursing homes (including long term health care centres) or diagnostic and treatment 
centres is prohibited. If the operator has any members which are not natural persons or is a corporation whose 
shares of stock are owned by another corporation, a New York corporation must be es tablished as the operator 
of a licenced home care services agen cy and a certified home health agency . In Michigan and New York Health 
Maintenance Organizations must be incorporated in those states". 
143 Only for the cross-border trade chapter for U.S.-Bahrain. 
144 Being understood that the generic reservations on insurance services which have been described in 
previous TPR reports notably in 2006 (WT/TPR/S/160, paragraphs 86 to 92, pages 100 to 102) and in 2008 
(WT/TPR/S/200, paragraphs 138 to 191, pages 110 to 112 ), apply also to the health insurance subsector. 
145 This statement is excerpted from pages 4-16. S ee U.S. International Trade Commission (2013b). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 140 - 
 
 4.133.  The United States is the world's leading destination for foreign healthcare workers. It hosts 
the largest number of foreign healthcare workers in absolute terms although foreign professionals make up a larger share of the workforce in many European countries. In 2010, demand for 
physicians exceeded supply by 13,700 physicians and 22% of the physicians operating in the 
U.S. graduated from foreign medical schools.
146 As a result of the healthcare reform and the 
additional demand it will entail, it is expected that the supply-demand gap for physicians will widen in the coming years. As a consequence, foreign caregivers are allowed to practice in the 
United States under specific programmes, for inst ance a visa-waiver program, which allows U.S. 
trained international medical graduates to stay in the United States if they practice in a medically-underserved area for three years. To date, 9,000 physicians have worked under this 
programme.  
4.134.  The United States' 2010 submission to th e Working Group on GATS rules (WPGR) in the 
framework of the work programme on information exchange on subsidies
147 notes that "the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Government's principal agency for 
protecting health and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to 
help themselves. HHS administers more grant doll ars than all other federal agencies combined. 
HHS and affiliated U.S. public health servic e agencies oversee programs providing support, 
inter alia , to health service providers." HHS grants cover many types of healthcare activities 
(Table 4.14). 
4.135.  The health insurance market of the United States is largely open and proportionally bigger 
than other developed countries’ markets where public social security systems are dominant, thus 
making it an attractive destination for the establishment of foreign-based health insurers. 
Table 4.14 Subsidies granted by the Departme nt of Health and Human Services by type, 
fiscal year 2014 
Activity type Number of 
awards by 
activity 
type US$ million 
Research 
Scientific/health research (includes surveys) 13,842 5,075 
Social science research (includes surveys) 8 8 
  Research Subtotal 13,850 5,084 
Services 
Demonstration 557 180 
Health services 2,390 1,200 
Social services 1,398 3,590 
  Services Subtotal 4,345 4,971 
Training 
Technical Assistance 9 0,2 
Training/traineeship 1,505 295 
  Training Subtotal 1,514 295 
Other 
Other 2,104 1,534 
Construction 11 0 
KDA (Knowledge/Development/Application) 168 19 
Evaluation 26 24 
Fellowship/scholarship/student loans 1,197 33 
  Other Subtotal 3,506 1,612 
Grand Total 23,215 11,963 
 
Notes:  Research: Includes traditional research  projects by individual investigator s and other broadly-based traditional 
and other research as well as research career programmes.  
                                               
146 Outside the United States and Canada. See U.S. International Trade Commission (2013b). 
147 Document Job Serv/1/add.1, 17 August 2010, page 141. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 141 - 
 
 Services: Includes grants to deliver health or soci al services, treatment and rehabilitation programmes, 
education and information programmes, and pr ogrammes to detect health problems.  
Training: Includes research and heal th professions training programmes, education projects, and rural area 
healthcare training.  
Other: Includes construction projec ts, grants for the planning and deve lopment of health programmes and 
health resources, evaluations, and health infrastr ucture awards – a small percentage of the total 
discretionary grants. 
 Source: Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Viewed at: https://taggs.hhs.gov/Reports/ 
GrantsByMajorActivityType.cfm. 
4.2.5  Maritime transport 
4.2.5.1  Recent developments 
4.136.  According to the latest data available, gr oss output of U.S. water transportation increased 
17.8% during 2007-12 while value-added (gross output less the cost of intermediate inputs) for U.S. water transportation remained stable at around US$14.5 billion.
148 As of May 2013, the water 
transportation industry directly employed  some 66,330 workers (up from 61,720 workers 
in 2007).149 
4.137.  Waterborne trade in the United States amounted to 2.3 billion tonnes in 2012, 10.8% 
down from its peak of 2.5 billion tonnes in 2006,  while the share of foreign trade increased from 
60% to 61.6% over 2006-12.150 In 2013, 45% of U.S. foreign trade, in terms of value (all modes, 
including air as well as rail and highway trade with Canada and Mexico) was moved by vessel, 
down from 47% in 2011.151 Since the 2008-09 global crisis, U.S.-foreign container trade has 
increased roughly 4% per year. In 2013, the U.S.-foreign container trade accounted for 18% of 
the total waterborne trade (metric tonnes), with the top five ports (Los Angeles/Long Beach, New York, Savannah, Norfolk, and Oakland) accounting for 38% of U.S. container trade.
152 
4.138.  The United States ranks second behind China in terms of overall containerized port 
traffic.153 In 2012, 7,625 ships made 65,913 calls at U.S. ports, two-thirds of which were tankers 
and containers. Jones Act vessels accounted for 71% of U.S-flag calls in 2011 (down from 79% in 2006).
154 The U.S. flag privately-owned merchant fleet has decreased over the years, from 282 in 
2000 to 179 in 2014. Similarly, the number of Jones Act vessels (those with unrestricted coastwise 
trading privileges, see below) decreased from 193 in 2000 to 90 in 2014, of which Jones Act tankers are down from 110 to 49 and deadweight tonnage to 3.3 million tonnes (6.3 million tonnes 
in 2000).
155 In 2011, 7,836 oceangoing vessels made 68,036 calls at U.S. ports, two-thirds of 
which were tankers and containers.156  
4.2.5.2  Institutional and legal framework 4.139.  The institutional and legal framework for ma ritime transport has not changed over the last 
few years. The United States Coast Guard of the Department of Homeland Security is the primary 
federal agency responsible for regulating maritime transport, including regulating vessel safety and 
security, environmental protection and response, and the licensing of mariners. The 
                                               
148 Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. 
Table 3: Private Services Transactions . Viewed at: www.bea. gov./iTable/print. 
149 Bureau of Labour Statistics online information. May 2007 and May 2013 National Industry-Specific 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Viewed at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm . 
150 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2012). 
151 U.S. Merchandise Trade online information. Viewed at: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-
Release/2013pr/12/ft920/ . 
152 Journal of Commerce  (2014), "Port Import Export Reporting Service", Washington, DC. Numbers are 
roughly the same for both  TEU and metric tonnes. 
153 UNCTAD (2013). 
154 U.S. Department of Transportation – Maritime Ad ministration (MARAD) onli ne information. Viewed 
at: httpp://www.marad.dot.gov/library _landing_page/data_and_staistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm. Data is for 
vessels above 10,000 DWT. 
155 U.S. Department of Transportation - Mariti me Administration (MARAD) online information.  Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/ data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm . 
156 U.S. Department of Transportation (2013), 2011 U.S. Water Transportation Statistical Snapshot , 
Washington, DC. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 142 - 
 
 Maritime Administration (MARAD) of the Department of Transportation is responsible for certain 
maritime regulations, programmes that promote the use of waterborne transportation and its integration with other segments of the tran sportation system, and the viability of the 
U.S. Merchant Marine. The independent Federa l Maritime Commission (FMC) is responsible, 
inter alia,  for the regulation of ocean transportation intermediaries, ocean common carriers, 
cruise operators, and marine terminal operators. The FMC also reviews agreements among ocean common carriers for potential antitrust immunity under the Shipping Act of 1984. 
4.140.  Some of the key laws on maritime transport services include the following: Passenger 
Vessel Services Act of 1 886; Military Cargo Preferen ces Act of 1904; Merchant Marine Act of 1920 
(Jones Act); Merchant Marine Act of 1936; Cargo Preference Act of 1954; Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998;  Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988; and 
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2003.
157  
4.141.  Cabotage of goods and passengers continues to be restricted by Section 27 of the 
Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act) and the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. Under 
the Jones Act, cabotage is reserved for ships registered, built, and maintained in the 
United States, owned by a domestic individual, in cluding corporations, and three-quarters of the 
crew must be U.S. citizens.  
4.142.  Cargo preference laws require shippers to use U.S.-flag vessels to transport any 
U.S. Government-impelled ocean-borne cargoes, such  as military and agricultural/food assistance 
cargoes.158 MARAD estimates that the cargo preference laws generate annually over 10 million 
revenue tonnes of cargo and over US $1 billion of ocean freight revenue. 
4.143.  Requests for waivers of the provisions of the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services 
Act are made to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP is required to consult with MARAD and, as a matter of practice, also consults with other interested agencies 
before a waiver is granted or denied. Waivers of the Jones Act are granted by the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security only "in the interest of national defence"
159, and consequently, 
only in unusual cases, such as natural disasters and other national emergencies. MARAD is 
responsible for canvassing domestically-flagged shi pping to locate suitable vessels. Additionally, 
MARAD has sole responsibility for the programme for small passenger vessels to apply for waivers; it grants some 75 waivers per year.
160 
4.144.  The United States has not made any commitment on maritime transport under the GATS 
and did not table an offer with respect to maritime transport in its services offer in the 
Doha Development Agenda.161 It maintains an MFN exemption under the GATS covering 
restrictions on performance of longshore work by  crews of foreign vessels owned and flagged in 
countries that similarly restrict U.S. crews on U.S.-flag vessels from longshore work.162 
4.145.  The United States has bilateral maritime  agreements in effect with Brazil (signed 
September 2005), China (December 2003), the Russian Federation (June 2001) and Viet Nam 
(March 2007). It also has an exchange of letters  with Japan (November 1997) on port services, 
which has the effect of an agreement, and a Memorandum of Cooperation on Counter-Piracy Training and Education with the Philippines (July 2009).
163 
                                               
157 Cargo preference provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 were repealed in 2012. 
158 MARAD online information. Viewed at: 
htttp://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_pag e/cargo_preference/Cargo_Preference_Landing_Page.
htm. 
159 MARAD online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing _page/domestic_shipping/Domestic_Shipping.htm . 
160 MARAD online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing _page/domestic_shipping/Domestic_Shipping.htm . 
161 WTO documents TN/S/O/USA, 9 April 2003, and TN/S/O/USA/Rev.1, 28 June 2005. 
162 The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, prohibits non-U.S.-national crew 
members from performing longshore work  in the United States, but provides a reciprocity exception. WTO 
document S/C/W/71, 24 November 1998. 
163 Waivers may be granted, subject to reciprocal treatment for U.S.-flag vessels by the recipient 
country. MARAD online information.  Viewed at: WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 143 - 
 
 4.146.  Vessels from Cambodia, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria may not enter 
U.S. ports on national security grounds. 
4.2.5.3  Policy actions 4.147.  The United States continues to support it s maritime transport sector. It finances various 
maritime security programmes designed to protec t the U.S.-flagged fleet and shipyards, such as 
the Maritime Security Programme (Table 4.15). Port infrastructure projects are also eligible for support under the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant 
Authority. The Port Development Program, run by MARAD, aims to address port congestion in the 
medium term, by doubling the cargo-handling capacity in every major U.S. port by 2020.
164 
4.148.  In addition, the United States gives ce rtain preferences for using domestically-flagged 
vessels transporting goods: (i) the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904 requires 100% of items 
intended for use by defence agencies to be carried on U.S. flag vessels; (ii) the Cargo Preference 
Act of 1954 requires that at least 50% of the gr oss tonnage of all "government-impelled cargo be 
transported on privately-owned, domestically-flagged commercial vessels, to the extent such 
vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates165; and (iii) Public Resolution No.17 of 1934 
requires that exports of goods that benefit from ex port loans or credit guarantees from the Export 
Import Bank, must be carried in U.S. vessels, although the vessels of a recipient country may be 
granted access to 50% of those cargoes, where there is no discriminatory treatment against 
U.S.-flag carriers.166 
Table 4.15 Main support programmes to US maritime transport 
Programme Beneficiaries/Mechanism 
Maritime Security 
Programme (MSP)  U.S. flag merchant-marine–operators. Fixed payment administered on the 
basis of renewable one-year contracts. Annual spending of up to US$186 million for FY2010/25 is available 
Voluntary Intermodal 
Sealift Agreement (VISA) 
programme U.S. flag merchant-marine–operators. Provides the Department of Defence 
with assured access to commercial intermodal capacity during time of war or 
national emergency 
Title IX – Federal Ship Financing Programme U.S. merchant marine and shipyards. Credit guarantee to private entities 
seeking to finance the construction or modernization of vessels in U.S. shipyards, and to U.S. shipyards seeking to invest in technology. In FY2010/11, some US$821 million was approved in several projects. 
Construction Reserve 
Fund  U.S. flag merchant marine–owners and op erators. Tax deferral benefits on the 
sale or loss of a vessel, provided the proceeds are used to expand or 
modernize the U.S. merchant fleet 
Capital Construction Fund U.S. flag merchant mari ne–owners and operators. Tax deferral benefits on 
certain deposits of money or other proper ty placed into a Capital Construction 
Fund 
Small Shipyard Grants 
Programme Shipyards that construct/repair/reconfigu re vessels of at least 40 feet in 
length for commercial or government use and have 1,200 employees or less. 
Some US$9.5 million in grants for capital and related infrastructure 
improvements is available 
 
Source: MARAD online information. Vi ewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov. 
4.149.  The carriage of goods for international tr ade by liner services has traditionally been 
exempt from antitrust rules, and subject to regulation. Under the Shipping Act of 1984, 
agreements among liner operators and marine term inal operators to discuss, fix, or regulate 
                                                                                                                                               
http://www.marad.dot.gov/abo ut_us_landing_page/international_activities/international_agreements/Internati
onal_Agreements.htm . 
164 MARAD online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/Headlines/factsheet s/PDF%20Versions/Port%20Development-FS.pdf. 
165 The Act also requires that ship ments from or to the Strategic Pe troleum Reserve use domestically 
flagged tankers for at least 50% of oil transport. 
166 MARAD online information. Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_pag e/cargo_preference/Cargo_Preference_Landing_Page.h
tm [March 2010]. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 144 - 
 
 transportation rates, and other conditions of serv ice, or cooperate on operational matters must be 
filed with, and examined by, the FMC.167 
4.150.  Under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 the FMC is required to monitor and 
investigate conditions arising from foreign government or business practices in the U.S. foreign 
shipping trades. The FMC is authorized to take action to address "unfavourable shipping conditions 
in U.S. foreign commerce and may impose penalties". The FMC continues to monitor potentially restrictive foreign shipping laws and practices. 
 
                                               
167 The Act also requires ocean carriers to publish tariff rates and charges for carriage for trade with 
foreign countries. The FMC also reviews the rates of go vernment-controlled ocean ca rriers to ensure that the 
commercial carriers with whom they compete are not unfairly disadvantaged. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 145 - 
 
  REFERENCES 
 
AAP (2013),  Export Sales Report . Viewed at: http://www.publishers.org/resources/ . 
 
BEA (2011), "U.S. International Services: Cross-Border Trade in 2010 and Services Supplied 
Through Affiliates in 2009", Survey of Current Business . Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2 013/10%20October/1013_int ernational_services.pdf . 
 
BEA (2013a), "Direct Investment Positions for 2012: Country and Industry Detail", Survey of 
Current Business . Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/20 13/07%20July/0713_direct_in vestment _positions.pdf . 
 
BEA (2013b), "U.S. International Services: Cro ss-Border Trade in 2012 and Services Supplied 
Through Affiliates in 2011", Survey of Current Business . Viewed at: 
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2 013/10%20October/1013_int ernational_services.pdf . 
 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (2013), Annual Report to Congress , Report 
period CY2012, Issued December 2013. Viewed at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/2013%20CFI US%20Annual%20Report%20PUBLIC.pdf . 
 
Congressional Research Service (2013a), Federal Crop Insurance: Background . Viewed at: 
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R40532.pdf . 
 
Congressional Research Service (2013b), U.S. Government Agencies Involved in Export 
Promotion: Overview and Issues for Congress . Viewed at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41495.pdf . 
 
Congressional Research Service (2014a), 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and 
Side-by-Side. Viewed at : http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/R43076.pdf . 
 
Congressional Research Service (2014b), Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Current Policy 
and Conditions . Viewed at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30354.pdf . 
 
Congressional Research Service (2014c), The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and 
Side-by-Side. Viewed at: http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/R43076.pdf . 
 
Department of Commerce Internet Policy Taskforce (2013), Copyright Policy, Creativity, and 
Innovation in the Digital Economy.  Viewed at: 
www.uspto.gov/news/publication s/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf . 
 
Economics and Statistics Administration and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2012), Intellectual 
Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus , March. Viewed at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/news/publicat ions/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf . 
 
Economist Intelligence Unit (2013), Telecommunications: United States of America , 
November 2013, London. 
 Export-Import Bank of the United States (2013), Annual Report 2013 , Revised April 2014. Viewed 
at: http://www.exim.gov/about/library/reports/annualreports/2013 . 
 
FAPRI (2010), Dairy Policy Issues for the 2012 Farm Bill . Viewed at: 
http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreachpublicat ions/2010/Dairy_Policy_Issues_April2010.pdf. 
 
FCC online information "FCC 14-61, GN Docket No. 14-28, "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking"". 
Viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/document/protectin g-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm . 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 146 - 
 
  FCC online information, "International Settlements Policy Reform". Viewed at: 
http://fcc.gov/document/international-settlements-policy-reform . 
 
FDIC (2012), 2011 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. FDIC online 
information . Viewed at: www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey . 
 
FRBNY (2013). Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit. Viewed at: 
http://www.newyorkfed.org/householdcred it/2013-Q3/data/pdf /HHDC_2013Q3.pdf. 
 FRBSF (2013), "Economic Letter: Fiscal Headwinds: Is the Other Shoe About to Drop?" Viewed at: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publicatio ns/economic-letter/2013 /june/fiscal-headwinds-
federal-budget-policy/ . 
 
Federal Reserve System online information on "Sha re Data for the U.S. Offices of Foreign Banking 
Organizations". Viewed at: www.federalreserve.gov/r eleases/iba/fboshr.htm . 
 
Federal Reserve System, Press Release : Federal Reserve Board proposes rule to strengthen 
liquidity positions of large financial institutions. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/new sevents/press/bcreg/20131024a.htm . 
 
Federal Reserve System (2013), Press Release:  Federal Reserve releases results of Comprehensive 
Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) . Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/new sevents/press/bcreg/20140326a.htm . 
 
Federal Reserve System (2014), Press Release: Federal Reserve Board announces it is requiring 
Bank of America Corporation to resubmit its capital plan and to suspend planned increases in capital distributions. Viewed at: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/new sevents/press/bcreg/20140428a.htm . 
 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (2013), 74th Annual Report of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to the 
Congress of the United States, August. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/f tzpage/annualreport/ar-2012.pdf . 
 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (2013), 74th Annual Report of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to the 
Congress of the United States , August 2013. Viewed at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/f tzpage/annualreport/ar-2013.pdf . 
 
GPO (2014) Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014 , Appendix. Viewed at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET- 2014-APP/pdf/BUDGE T-2014-APP-4.pdf . 
 
Hong Kong Legislative Council Secretariat (2010), Research and Library Services Division 
Competition policies in selected jurisdictions 2010 . Viewed at: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-
10/english/sec/library/0910rp02-e.pdf . 
 
IFPI (2014), Digital Music Report  2014: Lighting up new markets . Viewed at: 
www.ifpi.org/downloads/Digit al-Music-Report-2014.pdf . 
 
IMF (2014), Global Financial Stability Report: Moving from Liquidity- to Growth Driven Markets . 
Viewed at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/FT/GFSR/2014/01/pdf/text.pdf . 
 
IPEC (2013) , 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement , June. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/o mb/IPEC/2013-us-ipec-jo int-strategic-plan.pdf . 
 
ITU (2013), Measuring the Information Society . Viewed at: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf . 
 
Joint Committee on Taxation (2011), Present Law and Background Information on Federal Excise 
Taxes , January. Viewed at: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3721 . 
 
Kornecki and Ekanayake (2012). State Based Determinants of Inward FDI Flow in the 
US Economy. Viewed at: http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcont ent.cgi?article=1001&context=db-
accounting . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 147 - 
 
  OECD (2013a), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2013: OECD Countries and Emerging 
Economies , OECD Publishing. Viewed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2013-en . 
 
OECD (2013b), State-Owned Enterprises: Trade effects and policy implications . Viewed at: 
http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5k4869ckqk7l. pdf?expires=1383650589&id=id&accname=guest&
checksum=C388D7EFEDE80719ACE48A15E25A65F8 . 
 
Port Import Export Reporting Service online information. Viewed at: https://www.piers.com . 
 
PwC (2012), A homecoming for US manufacturing? Why a resurgence in US manufacturing may be 
the next big be t. Viewed at: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/industri al-products/publications/us-
manufacturing-resurgence.jhtml . 
 
SBA (2014), U.S. Small Business Administration Federal Program Inventory FY 2013 . Viewed at: 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ files/SBA%20Program%20Inventory.pdf . 
 
Swiss Re (2013), World Insurance in 2012:  Progressing on the long and wide to recovery , Sigma,  
No. 3/2013. Viewed at: http://www.swissre.com/clients/Sigm a_3_2013_World_insurance_in_2012.html . 
 
Swiss Re (2014), "The Healthcare Reform in the US: Key Provisions and Implications for Health 
Insurers", Swiss Re Economic Research and Consulting report , February. Viewed at: 
http://media.swissre.com/documents/The_healthcare_reform_US.pdf . 
 
The State of Play: A Look at the Growth of Google Play . Viewed at: www.appannie.com . 
 
The White House (2013a), Administration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets, 
February. Viewed at: www.whitehouse.gov//sites/default/files/omb/IPE Cadmin_strategy_on_mitigating_the_theft_of_u.
s._trade_secrets.pdf. 
 
The White House (2013b), Economic Report of the President.  Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files /docs/erp2013/full_2013_economic_report_of_the_p
resident.pdf . 
 
The White House (2013c), Foreign Direct Investment in the United States , October. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sit es/default/files/docs/cea-
doc_2013_foreign_direct_investment_in_the_us.pdf . 
 
The White House (2014a), Budget of The U.S. Government: Fiscal Year 2015 - Mid-Session 
Review. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/f iles/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/15msr.pdf . 
 
The White House (2014b). Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 
Five Years Later - Final Report To Congress , February 2014. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defau lt/files/docs/cea_arra_report.pdf . 
 
The White House (2014c), Economic Report of the President . Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/d ocs/full_2014_economic_report_of_the_president.
pdf. 
 
The White House (2014d), National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. Viewed at:  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/d ocs/nationalstrategyw ildlifetrafficking.pdf . 
 
TPPC (2012), 2012 National Export Strategy: Powering the National Export Initiative: Year 3.  
Viewed at: http://trade.gov/publications/pdfs/nes2012.pdf . 
 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2012), Waterborne Commerce of the United States . Part 5 – 
National Summaries. Viewed at: http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/pdf/wcusnatl12.pdf . 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 148 - 
 
  U.S. Census Bureau online information on "U.S. Merchandise Trade". Viewed at: 
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2013pr/12/ft920/ . 
 
U.S. Copyright Office (2011), Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act - Section 302 Report  
August. Viewed at: http://www.copyright.gov/repo rts/section302-report.pdf . 
 
U.S. Department of Commerce (2012), Intellectual Property and the U. S. Economy: Industries in 
Focus , Economics and Statistics Administration and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, March. 
Viewed at: http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf . 
 
U.S. Department of Commerce (2013), America is Open for Business, Strategic Plan for Fiscal 
Years 2014-2018 . Viewed at: www.bea.gov/international/in ternational_services.htm . 
 
U.S. Department of State (2012), National Travel and Tourism Strategy . Viewed at: 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs /ps/2012/05/189651.htm. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation (2013), 2011 U.S. Water Transportation Statistical Snapshot . 
Viewed at: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Water _Transportation_Statistical_snapshot.pdf . 
 
U.S. Department of Transportation - Maritime Administration (MARAD) online information.  Viewed 
at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/d ata_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm . 
 
U.S. Department of Treasury (2012), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Program Plan: 
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program. Viewed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiat ives/recovery/Documents/Upda ted%20ARRA%20Program%20Plan
%20NMTC%20Program%205%2012%202010.pdf . 
 
U.S. Department of the Treasury (2014), FOSC 2014 Annual Report . Viewed at: 
www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/docu ments/FSOC%202014% 20Annual%20Report.pdf . 
 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013), Farm Programs: Changes are needed to eligibility 
requirements for being actively engaged in farming , September. Viewed at: 
http://www.gao.gov/a ssets/660/658208.pdf . 
 
U.S. International Trade Commission (2013a), Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, 
Part I , July. Viewed at: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4415.pdf . 
 
U.S. International Trade Commission (2013b), Recent Trends in U.S. Services:2013 Annual 
Report . Viewed at: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4412.pdf . 
 
U.S. Trade and Development Agency (2013), 2013 Annual Report . Viewed at: 
http://www.ustda.gov/pubs/annualreport/2013 . 
 
UNCTAD (2013), Review of Maritime Transport 2013 , Geneva. 
 UNCTAD (2014), Global Investment Trends Monitor , No. 15, 28 January. Viewed at: 
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaeia2014d1_en.pdf . 
 
USTR (2013a), 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report , March. Viewed at: 
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default /files/AnnualReport%20Final2013.pdf . 
 
USTR (2013b), Seventh Report to the Congress on the Operation of the Andean Trade Preference 
Act as Amended . Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default /files/USTR 2013 ATPA Report.pdf . 
 
USTR (2014a), 2013 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, February. Viewed at: 
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/FINAL -PUBLISHED%202013_Notorious_Markets_List-
02122014.pdf . 
 
USTR (2014b), 2014 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade , April. Viewed at: 
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default /files/2014%20TB T%20Report.pdf . WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 149 - 
 
  USTR (2014c), 2014 Special 301 Report , April. Viewed at: 
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/UST R%202014%20Special%2030 1%20Report%20to%20C
ongress%20FINAL.pdf .  
 
USTR (2014d), 2014 Trade Policy Agenda and 2013 Annual Report. Viewed at: 
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/201 4%20Trade%20Policy%20A genda%20and%202013%2
0Annual%20Report.pdf . 
 
WIPO (2013), WIPO IP Facts & Figures , June. Viewed at: 
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/s tatistics/943/wipo _pub_943_ 2013.pdf . 
 
WIPO (2014a), Patent Cooperation Treaty Yearly Review . Viewed at: 
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublicat ions/en/patents/901/wi po_pub_901_2014.pdf.  
 
WIPO (2014b), World Intellectual Property Indicators , 2013. Viewed at: 
http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/wipi/ . 
 
World Bank (2013), Doing Business 2014: Understanding Regulations for Small and Medium-Size 
Enterprises . Washington, DC: World Bank Group. DOI:  10.1596/978-0-8213-9984-2. Viewed at: 
http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Do ing%20Business/Documents/AnnualReports/En
glish/DB14-Chapters/DB14-Mini-Report.pdf. 
 
WTO (2010), Trade Policy Review: United States , Geneva. 
 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 150 - 
 
  5  APPENDIX TABLES 
Table A1. 1 Merchandise exports and re-e xports by groups of products, 2008-13 
(US$ million and %) 
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
Total 1,299,900 1,056,710 1,277,110 1,479,730 1,545,570 1,578,000 
 (% of total exports and re-exports) 
Total primary products 20.5 19.7 21.2 23.9 23.3 23.5 
  Agriculture 10.8 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.1 11.1 
   Food 8.7 9.2 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 
     2222 Soya beans 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.4 
     0412 Other wheat 
(including spelt) and meslin, unmilled 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 
     0577 Edible nuts 
fresh, dried 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 
     0449 Other maize, 
unmilled 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 
     0989 Food 
preparations, n.e.s. 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 
     0123 Poultry, meat 
and offal 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
     0122 Meat of swine 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
     0813 Oil-cake, oilseed 
residues 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 
     0815 Vegetable 
residues, waste 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 
   Agricultural raw 
material 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 
     2631 Cotton (other 
than linters), not carded 
or combed 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 
  Mining 9.7 8.3 10.0 12.5 12.1 12.3 
   Ores and other 
minerals 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.8 
     2882 Other non-
ferrous base metal waste 
and scrap, n.e.s. 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 
   Non-ferrous metals 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 
     6842 Aluminium and 
aluminium alloys, worked 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 
   Fuels 5.9 5.2 6.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 
     334 Crude oils of 
petroleum and bituminous minerals 4.0 3.5 4.2 6.2 6.6 7.1 
     3212 Other coal, 
whether or pulverized, 
not agglomerated 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.7 
     3432 Natural gas, in 
the gaseous state 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 
     3330 Crude oils of 
petroleum and 
bituminous minerals 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 
Manufactures 74.9 68.6 68.1 65.3 65.2 64.6 
  Iron and steel 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 
  Chemicals 13.8 15.1 14.8 14.0 13.4 13.2 
     5429 Medicaments, 
n.e.s. 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 
     5416 Glycosides; 
glands, etc. and extracts; antisera/vaccines, etc. 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 
     5157 Other 
heterocyclic compounds; 
nucleic acids 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 
     5986 Organic 
chemical products, n.e.s. 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 
  Other semi-
manufactures 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.9 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 151 - 
 
  Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
     6672 Diamonds (excl. 
industrial, sorted) not mounted/set 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 
     6996 Articles iron or 
steel, n.e.s. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
  Machinery and 
transport equipment 42.8 34.7 35.2 33.9 34.4 33.8 
   Power generating 
machines 3.2 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 
     7149 Parts of engines 
and motors of 714.41 and 714.8 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 
     7165 Generating sets 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 
   Other non-electrical 
machinery 9.3 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.9 8.6 
     7284 Machinery and 
appliances for particular 
industries, n.e.s. 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 
     Agricultural 
machinery and tractors 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 
   Office machines & 
telecommunication 
equipment 10.6 10.7 10.5 9.5 9.1 8.9 
     7764 Electronic 
integrated circuits and microassemblies 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 
     7599 Parts and 
accessories of 751.1, 
751.2, 751.9 and 752 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 
     7643 Radio or 
television transmission apparatus 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 
   Other electrical 
machines 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 
     7731 Insulated wire, 
cable etc.; optical fibre cables 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 
     7725 Switches, 
relays, fuses etc. for a 
voltage not exceeding 
1000 V 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 
   Automotive products 8.6 6.9 7.8 8.1 8.5 8.5 
     7812 Motor vehicles 
for the transport of 
persons, n.e.s. 3.9 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.6 
     7843 Other motor 
vehicle parts and accessories of 722, 781 to 783 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.7 
     7821 Goods vehicles 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 
   Other transport 
equipment 7.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.1 
  Textiles 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 
  Clothing 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 
  Other consumer goods 9.6 10.5 9.7 9.0 9.1 9.2 
     8722 Instruments 
used in medical, surgical or veterinary sciences 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 
     8973 Jewellery of 
gold, silver or platinum 
metals (except watches) 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 
Other 4.6 11.7 10.7 10.8 11.5 12.0 
  Gold 1.5 1.3 1.4 2.2 2.3 2.1 
 
Source: UNSD, Comtrade database (SITC Rev.3). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 152 - 
 
  Table A1. 2 Merchandise imports by groups of products, 2008-13 
(US$ million and %) 
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total 2,164,830 1,601,900 1,966,500 2,262,590 2,333,810 2,328,330 
 (% of total imports) 
Total primary products 31.1 25.7 26.7 29.2 26.9 25.2 
  Agriculture 5.4 6.3 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.3 
   Food 4.4 5.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 
     1124 Spirits 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
     0361 Crustaceans, 
frozen 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
     1121 Wine of fresh 
grapes (including fortified 
wine) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
   Agricultural raw material 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 
  Mining 25.8 19.4 20.7 23.1 20.8 18.9 
   Ores and other minerals 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 
   Non-ferrous metals 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 
   Fuels 23.2 17.4 18.4 20.5 18.6 16.7 
     3330 Crude oils of 
petroleum and bituminous 
minerals 16.8 12.5 13.6 15.2 13.8 12.0 
     334 Crude oils of 
petroleum and bituminous 
minerals 4.2 3.4 3.5 4.2 4.0 3.8 
Manufactures 65.4 70.0 69.6 67.3 69.3 70.9 
  Iron and steel 2.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 
  Chemicals 8.4 9.6 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.6 
     5429 Medicaments, 
n.e.s. 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 
     5157 Other 
heterocyclic compounds; 
nucleic acids 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 
  Other semi-manufactures 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 6.0 
     6672 Diamonds (excl. 
industrial, sorted) not 
mounted/set 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 
  Machinery and transport 
equipment 34.0 36.2 37.0 35.8 38.0 38.8 
   Power generating 
machines 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 
     7149 Parts of engines 
and motors of 714.41 and 714.8 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 
   Other non-electrical 
machinery 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.0 
     Agricultural machinery 
and tractors 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
   Office machines & 
telecommunication 
equipment 12.0 14.7 14.5 13.1 13.1 13.2 
     7643 Radio or 
television transmission apparatus 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 
     7522 Data processing 
machines, with at least 
processing, imput and 
output units 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 
     7764 Electronic 
integrated circuits and microassemblies 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 
     7611 Color television 
receivers 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.0 
   Other electrical 
machines 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.6 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 153 - 
 
  Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
     7731 Insulated wire, 
cable etc.; optical fibre 
cables 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 
   Automotive products 9.2 8.3 9.6 9.4 10.7 11.2 
     7812 Motor vehicles for 
the transport of persons, 
n.e.s. 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.5 6.4 6.7 
     7843 Other motor 
vehicle parts and accessories of 722, 781 to 783 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 
   Other transport 
equipment 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 
  Textiles 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 
  Clothing 3.8 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.9 
     8453 Jerseys, 
pullovers, cardigans, etc., knitted/crocheted 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 
     8414 Trousers, bib and 
brace overalls, breeches 
and shorts 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 
  Other consumer goods 10.0 11.3 10.9 10.1 10.3 10.8 
     8211 Seats (excl. of 
872.4), and parts 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 
     8722 Instruments used 
in medical, surgical or veterinary sciences 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 
Other 3.4 4.3 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.9 
 
Source: UNSD, Comtrade database (SITC Rev.3). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 154 - 
 
  Table A1. 3 Merchandise exports and re -exports by trading partner, 2008-13 
(US$ million and %) 
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
Total exports and 
re-exports 1,299,900 1,056,710 1,277,110 1,479,730 1,545,570 1,578,000 
 (% of exports and re-exports) 
 America 42.3 41.9 43.0 43.7 44.7 44.9 
   Canada 20.1 19.4 19.4 19.0 18.9 19.0 
   Mexico 11.7 12.2 12.8 13.4 14.0 14.3 
   Brazil 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 
   Colombia 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 
   Chile 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 
   Venezuela, Bolivarian 
 Rep. of 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.8 
   Panama 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 
   Argentina 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 
   Peru 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 
   Ecuador 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 
   Costa Rica 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 
   Dominican Republic 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 
       
 Europe 24.2 23.7 21.7 21.4 20.3 19.8 
  EU (28) 21.4 21.1 19.0 18.4 17.6 17.0 
   United Kingdom 4.1 4.3 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.0 
   Germany 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.3 3.1 3.0 
   The Netherlands 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.7 
   France 2.3 2.6 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 
  EFTA 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 
   Switzerland 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 
  Other Europe 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 
   Turkey 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 
       
Commonwealth of 
Independent States (CIS)a 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 
   Russian Federation 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 
       
 Africa 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 
   South Africa 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 
       
 Middle East 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.9 4.5 4.7 
   United Arab Emirates 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.6 
   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom 
 of 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 
   Israel 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 
       
 Asia 25.8 27.0 28.5 27.9 27.4 27.4 
  China 5.5 6.6 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.7 
  Japan 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.1 
  Six East Asian Traders 10.2 10.2 11.2 11.0 10.3 10.5 
   Hong Kong, China 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.7 
   Korea, Republic of 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 
   Singapore 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 
   Chinese Taipei 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 
   Malaysia 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 
   Thailand 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 
  Other Asia 5.0 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.1 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 155 - 
 
  Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
   Australia 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.6 
   India 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 
   Indonesia 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 
 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
 
a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federa tion, Tajikistan, Turkme nistan, Ukraine, and 
Uzbekistan. 
 Source: UNSD, Comtrade database (SITC Rev.3). WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 156 - 
 
  Table A1. 4 Merchandise imports by trading partner, 2008-13 
(US$ million and %) 
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
Total imports 2,164,830 1,601,900 1,966,500 2,262,590 2,333,810 2,328,330 
 (% of imports) 
 America 33.5 32.4 32.9 33.7 33.6 33.7 
   Canada 15.7 14.2 14.2 14.1 14.0 14.5 
   Mexico 10.1 11.1 11.8 11.7 12.0 12.2 
   Venezuela, Bolivarian 
 Rep. of 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.4 
   Brazil 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 
   Colombia 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 
   Costa Rica 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 
   Ecuador 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 
   Chile 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 
   Peru 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 
   Trinidad and Tobago 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 
   Argentina 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
   Honduras 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
   Guatemala 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
   Dominican Republic 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
       
 Europe 18.9 19.6 18.2 18.4 18.4 18.9 
  EU (28) 17.4 17.9 16.6 16.6 16.7 17.0 
   Germany 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.0 
   United Kingdom 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 
   France 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.0 
   Italy 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 
   Ireland 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 
  EFTA 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 
   Switzerland 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 
  Other Europe 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 
   Turkey 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 
       
Commonwealth of 
Independent States (CIS)
a 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.4 
   Russian Federation 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.2 
       
 Africa 5.4 4.0 4.4 4.2 2.9 2.2 
   Nigeria 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.5 
   Angola 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 
   South Africa 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 
       
 Middle East 5.3 3.8 3.9 4.7 5.1 4.7 
   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom 
 of 2.6 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.3 
   Israel 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 
       
 Asia 35.2 38.7 38.9 37.2 38.4 39.2 
  China 16.5 19.3 19.5 18.4 19.0 19.8 
  Japan 6.6 6.1 6.3 5.9 6.4 6.1 
  Six East Asian Traders 7.7 8.3 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.9 
   Korea, Republic of 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 
   Chinese Taipei 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 
   Malaysia 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.2 
   Thailand 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 
   Singapore 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 157 - 
 
  Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
   Hong Kong, China 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
  Other Asia 4.4 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.5 
   India 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 
   Viet Nam 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 
   Indonesia 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 
       
 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
 
a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federa tion, Tajikistan, Turkme nistan, Ukraine, and 
Uzbekistan. 
 Source: UNSD, Comtrade database (SITC Rev.3). 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 158 - 
 
  Table A2.1 U.S. Involvement in dispute settlement cases, 1 July 2012-30 June 2014  
Subject Respondent/ 
complainant/ap
pellant Request for 
consultation 
received Status 
(as at 
30 June 2014) WTO document 
series 
Requests for consultations 
China - Certain Measures Affecting 
the Automobile and Automobile-
Parts Industries China/ 
United States 17-Sep-12 Consultations WT/DS450 
Indonesia - Importation of 
Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products Indonesia/ 
United States 30-Aug-13 Consultations WT/DS465 
Indonesia - Importation of 
Horticultural Products, Animals 
and Animal Products Indonesia/ 
United States 15-May-14 Consultations WT/DS478 
Panels  
United States as respondent: 
United States - Certain 
Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings involving China United States/ 
China  3-Dec-13 Panel established, 
but not yet composed WT/DS471 
United States - Anti-Dumping 
and Countervailing Measures on 
Large Residential Washers from 
Korea United States/ 
Korea 29-Aug-13 Panel composed on 
20 June 2014 WT/DS464 
United States - Measures 
Affecting the Importation of 
Animals, Meat and Other Animal Products from Argentina United States/ 
Argentina 30-Aug-12 Panel composed on 
8 August 2013 WT/DS447 
United States - Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Certain Shrimp from 
Viet Nam United States/ 
Viet Nam 22-Feb-12 Panel composed on 
12 July 2013 WT/DS429 
United States - Countervailing 
Duty Measures on Certain Products from China United 
States/China 25-May-12 Interim report 
issued to the parties on 28 
February 2014 WT/DS437 
United States - Countervailing 
Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
India United States/ 
India 12-Apr-12 Final report issued 
to the parties on 
11 April 2014 WT/DS436 
United States as complainant: 
Indonesia - Importation of 
Horticultural Products, Animals 
and Animal Products Indonesia/ 
United States 10-Jan-13 Panel established, 
but not yet 
composed WT/DS455 
Argentina - Measures Affecting 
the Importation of Goods Argentina/ 
United States  21-Aug-12 Final report issued 
to the parties on 
26 June 2014 WT/DS444 
India - Measures Concerning the 
Importation of Certain 
Agricultural Products India/ 
United States 6-Mar-12 Interim report 
issued to the 
parties on 
23 May 2014 WT/DS430 
China - Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from the United 
States China/ 
United States 5-July-12 Report adopted on 
18 June 2014 WT/DS440 
United States as a third party: 
European Union – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina EU/Argentina 19-Dec-13 Panel established, 
but not yet composed WT/DS473 
European Union - Measures on 
Atlanto-Scandian Herring EU/Denmark-
Faroe Islands 4-Nov-13 Panel composed on 
26 February 2014 WT/DS469 
Ukraine - Definitive Safeguard 
Measures on Certain Passenger Cars Ukraine/Japan 30-Oct-13 Panel established, 
but not yet composed WT/DS468 
Australia - Certain Measures 
Concerning Trademarks, 
Geographical Indications and 
Other Plain Packaging 
Requirements Applicable to 
Tobacco Products and Packaging Australia/ 
Indonesia 20-Sept-13 Panel composed 
5 May 2014 WT/DS467 
Russian Federation – Recycling 
Fee on Motor Vehicles Russia/EU 9-July-13 Panel established, 
but not yet composed WT/DS462 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 159 - 
 
  Subject Respondent/ 
complainant/ap
pellant Request for 
consultation 
received Status 
(as at 
30 June 2014) WTO document 
series 
Colombia – Measures Relating to 
the Importation of Textiles, 
Apparel and Footwear Colombia/Panama 18-June-13 Panel composed 
15 January 2014 WT/DS461 
China – Measures Imposing Anti-
Dumping Duties on High-
Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from the European Union   China/EU and 
Japan 13-June-13 Panel composed 
11 September 2013 WT/DS460 
Australia – Certain Measures 
Concerning Trademarks, 
Geographical Indications and 
Other Plain Packaging 
Requirements Applicable to 
Tobacco Products and Packaging Australia/Cuba 3-May-13 Panel composed 
5 May 2014 WT/DS458 
Peru – Additional Duty on 
Imports of Certain Agricultural Products Peru/ 
Guatemala 12-April-13 Panel composed 
19 September 2013 WT/DS457 
China – Measures Imposing Anti-
Dumping Duties on High-
Performance Stainless Steel 
Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") 
from Japan China/Japan 20-Dec-12 Panel composed 
29 July 2013 WT/DS454 
Argentina – Measures Relating to 
Trade in Goods and Services Argentina/ 
Panama 12-Dec-12 Panel composed 
11 November 2013 WT/DS453 
European Union – 
Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Imports of Certain Fatty Alcohols 
from Indonesia EU/Indonesia 27-July-12 Panel established, 
but not yet 
composed WT/DS442 
Australia – Certain Measures 
Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and 
Other Plain Packaging 
Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging Australia/ 
Dominican Republic 18-July-12 Panel composed 
5 May 2014 WT/DS441 
Australia – Certain Measures 
Concerning Trademarks, 
Geographical Indications and 
Other Plain Packaging 
Requirements Applicable to 
Tobacco Products and Packaging Australia/ 
Honduras 4-April-12 Panel composed 
5 May 2014 WT/DS435 
Australia – Certain Measures 
Concerning Trademarks and 
Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging Australia/ 
Ukraine 13-March-12 Panel composed 
5 May 2014 WT/DS434 
European Communities – Certain 
Measures Prohibiting the 
Importation and Marketing of 
Seal Products EC/Canada 25-Sept-07 Panel established, 
but not yet 
composed WT/DS369 
Appeals to the Appellate Body  
Countervailing and 
Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Products from China United States/ 
China 17-Sept-12 Currently under 
appeal WT/DS449/AB/R 
Measures related to the 
Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum China/ 
United States  13-March-12 Currently under 
appeal WT/DS431/AB/R 
Implementation (Articles 21.5 and 22.6) 
United States - Measures affecting 
trade in large civil aircraft EC/ 
United States 6-Oct-04 Suspension of 
Article 22.6 arbitration on 19 January 2012, 
Article 21.5 panel 
composed on 17 April 2012 WT/DS353 
European Communities and 
certain member States – 
Measures Affecting Trade in Large 
Civil Aircraft EC/ United States 6-Oct-04 Suspension of 
Article 22.6 
arbitration on 
28 November 2012, 
Article 21.5 panel 
composed on 
30 October 2012 WT/DS316 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 160 - 
 
  Subject Respondent/ 
complainant/ap
pellant Request for 
consultation 
received Status 
(as at 
30 June 2014) WTO document 
series 
United States – Measures 
Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products United States 
/Mexico 24-Oct-08 Article 21.5 panel 
composed on 27 January 2014 WT/DS381 
China – Countervailing and Anti-
Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented 
Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from 
the United States China/ 
United States 15-Sept-10 Article 21.5 Panel 
composed on 
17 March 2014 WT/DS414 
United States – Measures 
Affecting the Production and Sale 
of Clove Cigarettes United States 
/Indonesia 7-Apr-10 Referred to Article 
22.6 arbitration on 
22 August 2013 WT/DS406 
United States – Certain Country of 
Origin Labelling (COOL) 
Requirements United States 
/Canada and 
Mexico 1-Dec-08 Article 21.5 panel 
composed on 
27 September 2013 WT/DS386 and 
384 
 
Source:  Compiled by the WTO Secretariat. 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 161 - 
 
  Table A2.2 Selected notifications to  the WTO, 1 July 2012-30 June 2014  
WTO 
Agreement Description Document symbol  Date 
Agreement on Agriculture 
Articles 10 and 
18.2 (ES:1 and 
ES:2) Export subsidies comm itments: budgetary 
outlays and quantity reduction commitments; 
and notification of total exports G/AG/N/USA/88 27/09/2012 
Article 16.2 NF:1 
(1)-(4) Net-Food Importing Developing Country 
(NFIDC) Decision: food and other assistance; and other specific actions G/AG/N/USA/90 22/10/2012 
Article 18.2 
(DS:1) Domestic support  G/AG/N/USA/80/Rev.1 
G/AG/N/USA/93 
G/AG/N/USA/89/Rev.1 
G/AG/N/USA/89 13/01/2014 
09/01/2014 
09/01/2014 
01/10/2012 
Article 18.2 
(MA:1) Administration of tariff and other quota 
commitments G/AG/N/USA/92 
G/AG/N/USA/84/Add.1 11/02/2013 
08/02/2013 
Article 18.3 
(DS:2) New or modified exempt domestic support 
measures G/AG/N/USA/91 
G/AG/N/USA/86 24/10/2012 
10/09/2012 
Articles 5.7 and 18.2 (MA:5) Special safeguard provisions G/AG/N/USA/95 
G/AG/N/USA/87 15/02/2014 
13/09/2012 
Article 18.2 
(MA:2) Tariff rate quotas G/AG/N/USA/94 05/02/2014 
General Agreement on Trade in Services 
Article V:7(a) Economic integration agreements: U.S-Panama 
regional trade agreement  S/C/N/658 
WT/REG324/N/1 30/10/2012 
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) 
Article 16.4 – 
semi annual Anti-dumping actions (taken within the 
preceding six months) G/ADP/N/252/USA 
G/ADP/N/244/USA  
G/ADP/N/237/USA  
G/ADP/N/230/USA  06/03/2014 
19/09/2013 
13/03/2013 
27/08/2012 
Article 16.4 – ad hoc Anti-dumping actions (preliminary and final)  G/ADP/N/258 
G/ADP/N/257 
G/ADP/N/256 
G/ADP/N/255 G/ADP/N/254 G/ADP/N/251 G/ADP/N/248 G/ADP/N/247 G/ADP/N/246 G/ADP/N/245 G/ADP/N/243 G/ADP/N/242 G/ADP/N/241 G/ADP/N/240 G/ADP/N/239 G/ADP/N/238 G/ADP/N/236 G/ADP/N/235 G/ADP/N/234 G/ADP/N/233 G/ADP/N/232 G/ADP/N/231 19/06/2014 
23/05/2014 
11/04/2014 
24/03/2014 17/02/2014 19/12/2013 14/10/2013 13/09/2013 19/08/2013 26/07/2013 17/06/2013 30/05/2013 16/04/2013 15/03/2013 18/02/2013 21/01/2013 20/12/2012 06/11/2012 16/10/2012 14/09/2012 10/08/2012 19/07/2012 
Article 16.5 Competent authorities G/ADP/N/14/Add.36 
G/SCM/N/18/Add.36 14/10/2013 
 
Article 18.5 Laws and regulati ons, and changes thereto, 
including changes in the administration of such 
laws  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ 
Suppl.16 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.15 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.14 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.13 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.12 19/05/2014 
 
10/10/2013  29/07/2013  22/04/2013  22/04/2013 
GATT 1994 
Article XXIV:7(a) of GATT 1994 and Article Free-trade areas: United States-Panama 
regional trade agreement WT/REG324/N/1 
S/C/N/658 30/10/2012 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 162 - 
 
  WTO 
Agreement Description Document symbol  Date 
V:7(a) of GATS 
Article XVII:4(a)  
and Paragraph 1 
of the 
Understanding 
on the 
Interpretation of 
Article XVII State-trading activities 
 G/STR/N/14/USA/ 
Corr.1 
G/STR/N/14/USA 
 14/08/2012 
 
02/08/2012 
 
Paragraph 3(c)  Notification and statistical data WT/L/921 
WT/L/880 10/01/2014 
10/01/2013 
Agreement on Government Procurement 
Appendix I Procurement thresholds GPA/W/325/Add.1  16/12/2013 
Agreement on Import Licensing 
Article 1.4(a) Licensing procedures  G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.
1/Corr.1 
G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/ Add.2/Corr.1 G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/ Add.2 20/08/2013 
 
21/03/2013  15/03/2013  
Article 7.3 Replies to the questionnaire G/LIC/N/3/USA/10 
G/LIC/N/3/USA/9 24/09/2013 
25/09/2012 
Article 8.2(b) Changes in Laws/r egulations and administrative 
arrangements G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/ 
Add.1/Corr.1 G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/ Add.2/Corr.1 G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/ Add.2 20/08/2013 
 21/03/2013  15/03/2013 
Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions 
G/L/59/Rev.1 Notification of QRs G/MA/QR/N/USA/1 5/10/2012 
Agreement on Rules of Origin 
Paragraph 4 of Annex II Preferential rules of origin G/RO/N/88 18/01/2013 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
Article 25.1 and 
GATT 1994 Article XVI:1 Subsidies  G/SCM/N/253/USA 09/05/2014 
Article 25.11 – 
ad hoc  Countervailing duty acti ons (preliminary and 
final)  G/SCM/N/273 
G/SCM/N/272 
G/SCM/N/271 
G/SCM/N/270 
G/SCM/N/269 
G/SCM/N/266 
G/SCM/N/264 
G/SCM/N/263 
G/SCM/N/262 
G/SCM/N/261 
G/SCM/N/258 
G/SCM/N/257 
G/SCM/N/256 
G/SCM/N/255 
G/SCM/N/254 
G/SCM/N/252 
G/SCM/N/249 
G/SCM/N/248 
G/SCM/N/246 
G/SCM/N/244 17/06/2014 
19/05/2014 
10/04/2014 
14/03/2014 
14/02/2014 
19/12/2013 
09/10/2013 
12/09/2013 
02/08/2013 
10/07/2013 
12/06/2013 
16/05/2013 
10/04/2013 
15/03/2013 
12/02/2013 
22/01/2013 
17/12/2012 
13/11/2012 
17/09/2012 
17/07/2012 
Article 25.11 – 
semi  Countervailing duty actions (taken within the 
preceding six months) G/SCM/N/267/USA 
G/SCM/N/259/USA G/SCM/N/250/USA 
G/SCM/N/242/USA 10/03/2014 
18/09/2013 15/03/2013 
31/08/2012 
Article 25.12 Competent authorities G/SCM/N/18/Add.36  14/10/2013 
 
Article 32.6  
Laws/regulations and changes thereto, including changes in administration of such laws G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/ 
Suppl.15 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.14 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.16  10/10/2013 
 29/07/2013  19/05/2014   WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 163 - 
 
  WTO 
Agreement Description Document symbol  Date 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/ 
Suppl.13 G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.12 22/04/2013 
 22/04/2013 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Article 7 Annex B Sanitary and phytosanitary regulation s Many notifications received, see: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/work_and_doc_e.htm 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  
Article 2.9 Technical regulations  Many notifications received, see: 
http://tbtims.wto.org/  
Articles 2.9 and 
5.6 Technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures G/TBT/N/USA/699  25/04/2012 
Article 3.2 Technical regulations (local government)  Many notifications received, see: 
http://tbtims.wto.org/ 
Article 
unspecified  Technical regulations  G/TBT/N/USA/637/ 
Add.2/Corr.1 
G/TBT/N/USA/638/ 
Add.2/Corr.1 
G/TBT/N/USA/565/ 
Add.3 
G/TBT/N/USA/637/ 
Add.2 
 
G/TBT/N/USA/638/ 
Add.2 
G/TBT/N/USA/637/ 
Add.1 
G/TBT/N/USA/638/ 
Add.1 
G/TBT/N/USA/625/ 
Add.1 19/07/2013 
 
19/07/2013 
 
16/07/2013 
 
03/07/2013 
 
 
03/07/2013 
 
08/04/2013 
 
08/04/2013 
 
19/07/2012 
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
Article 63.2 Laws/regulations; amendment of a 
law/regulation IP/N/1/USA/C/6 
IP/N/1/USA/D/6 
IP/N/1/USA/P/11 
IP/N/1/USA/D/7 
IP/N/1/USA/P/12 
IP/N/1/USA/D/8 
IP/N/1/USA/P/13 
IP/N/1/USA/D/9 
IP/N/1/USA/P/14 
IP/N/1/USA/T/7 
IP/N/1/USA/6 
IP/N/1/USA/E/3 
IP/N/1/USA/C/4 
IP/N/1/USA/C/5 
IP/N/1/USA/D/3 
IP/N/1/USA/P/7 
IP/N/1/USA/D/4 
IP/N/1/USA/P/8 
IP/N/1/USA/D/5 
IP/N/1/USA/P/9 
IP/N/1/USA/E/2 
IP/N/1/USA/G/2 
IP/N/1/USA/T/6 
IP/N/1/USA/P/10 
IP/N/1/USA/5 07/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
06/05/2013 
18/04/2013 
24/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
17/08/2012 
08/08/2012 
Article 67 Contact points for technical cooperation IP/N/7/USA/1 07/11/2012 
 
Source: WTO documents. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 164 - 
 
  Table A2.3 Eligibility coverage, U.S. unila teral trade preferences, status as of 
30 June 2014 
Country/Territory AGOA GSP CBERA/CBPTA Other 
Afghanistan  √*  
Albania  √  
Algeria  √  
Angola √ √*  
Antigua and Barbuda   √  
Armenia  √   
Aruba   √  
Azerbaijan  √   
Bahamas   √  
Barbados   √#  
Belize  √ √#  
Benin √+ √*  
Bhutan  √*   
Boliviarian Plurinational 
State of  √   
Bosnia and Herzegovina  √   
Botswana √+ √   
Brazil  √   
Burkina Faso √+ √*   
Burundi √ √*   
Cambodia  √*   
Cameroon √+ √   
Cabo Verde √+ √   
Central African Republic  √*   
Chad √+ √*   
Comoros √ √*   
Congo √ √   
Côte d'Ivoire √+ √   
Curaçao   √  WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 165 - 
 
  Country/Territory AGOA GSP CBERA/CBPTA Other 
Democratic Republic of 
Congo  √*   
Djibouti √ √*   
Dominica  √ √  
Ecuador  √  
Egypt  √  
Eritrea  √   
Ethiopia √+ √*   
Fiji  √   
Gabon √ √   
Gambia √+ √*   
Georgia  √   
Ghana √+ √   
Grenada  √ √  
Guinea √ √*   
Guinea-Bissau  √*   
Guyana  √ √#  
Haiti  √* √#  
India  √   
Indonesia  √   
Iraq  √   
Jamaica  √ √#  
Jordan  √   
Kazakhstan  √   
Kenya √+ √   
Kiribati  √*   
Kosovo  √   
Kyrgyz Republic  √   
Lebanon  √   
Lesotho √+ √*   
Liberia √+ √*   WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 166 - 
 
  Country/Territory AGOA GSP CBERA/CBPTA Other 
The Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia  √   
Madagascar √ √*   
Malawi √+ √*   
Maldives  √   
Mali √ √*   
Mauritania √ √*   
Mauritius √+ √   
Moldova  √   
Mongolia  √   
Montenegro  √   
Montserrat   √  
Mozambique √+ √*   
Namibia √+ √   
Nepal  √*   
Netherlands Antilles   √  
Niger √ √*   
Nigeria √+ √   
Pakistan  √   
Papua New Guinea  √   
Paraguay  √   
Philippines  √   
Russian Federation  √   
Rwanda √+ √*   
St. Kitts and Nevis   √  
Saint Lucia  √ √#  
Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines  √ √  
Samoa  √*   
São Tome and Principe √ √*   
Senegal √+ √*   WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 167 - 
 
  Country/Territory AGOA GSP CBERA/CBPTA Other 
Serbia  √   
Seychelles √ √   
Sierra Leone √+ √*   
Solomon Islands  √*   
Somalia  √*   
South Africa √ √   
South Sudan √ √*   
Sri Lanka  √   
Suriname  √   
Swaziland √+ √   
Tanzania √+ √*   
Thailand  √   
Timor-Leste  √*   
Togo √ √*   
Tonga  √   
Trinidad and Tobago   √#  
Tunisia  √   
Turkey  √   
Tuvalu  √*   
Uganda √+ √*   
Ukraine  √   
Uruguay  √   
Uzbekistan  √   
Vanuatu  √*   
Venezuela, Boli varian Rep. 
of  √   
Yemen  √*   
Zambia √+ √*   
Zimbabwe  √   
Insular possessions    √ 
Freely Associated States 
(Marshall Islands,    √ WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 168 - 
 
  Country/Territory AGOA GSP CBERA/CBPTA Other 
Federated States of 
Micronesia, Republic of Palau) 
West Bank and Gaza Strip 
(including qualified 
industrial zones)    √ 
 
+ AGOA Third-country fabric provision 
 * GSP Least-developed beneficiary country 
 # Includes beneficiaries of CBTPA, i.e.  CBERA with expanded product coverage. 
 Source: WTO Secretariat, based on data  provided by the U.S. authorities.WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 169 - 
 
  Table A3. 1 Summary analysis of the MFN tariff, 2014  
Description MFN 
No. of lines Average (%) Range (%) Coefficient of 
variation 
(CV) 
Total 10,514 4.8 0 - 510.9 2.8 
HS 01-24 1,873 8.2 0 - 510.9 3.6 
HS 25-97 8,641 4.1 0 - 57.9 1.3 
By WTO category     
WTO Agriculture 1,690 9.0 0 - 510.9 3.5 
 - Animals and products thereof 161 2.9 0 - 26.4 1.8 
 - Dairy products 167 26.0 0 - 510.9 1.9 
 - Fruit, vegetables and plants 527 5.5 0 - 131.8 2.1 
 - Coffee and tea 82 9.0 0 - 44 0.9 
 - Cereals and preparations 182 9.0 0 - 122 1.7 
 - Oil seeds, fats and oils and their 
 Products 107 6.6 0 - 163.8 3.6 
 - Sugars and confectionary 53 10.4 0 - 72 1.1 
 - Beverages, spirits and tobacco 149 23.4 0 - 439.9 3.5 
 - Cotton 16 4.7 0 - 20.2 1.2 
 - Other agricultural products n.e.s. 246 1.5 0 - 57.1 2.7 
WTO Non-agriculture (incl. petroleum) 8,824 4.0 0 - 57.9 1.4 
 - WTO Non-agriculture (excl. 
 petroleum) 8,792 4.0 0 - 57.9 1.4 
 - - Fish and fishery products 331 1.4 0 - 35 2.4 
 - - Minerals and metals 1,547 2.4 0 - 38 1.6 
 - - Chemicals and photographic 
 supplies 1,847 3.7 0 - 6.5 0.7 
 - - Wood, pulp, paper and furniture 525 0.7 0 - 14 2.8 
 - - Textiles 1,082 7.8 0 - 42.7 0.7 
 - - Clothing 571 11.5 0 - 32 0.7 
 - - Leather, rubber, footwear and  travel 
goods 422 7.3 0 - 57.9 1.5 
 - - Non-electric machinery 799 1.4 0 - 9.9 1.4 
 - - Electric machinery 529 2.3 0 - 15 1.0 
 - - Transport equipment 241 2.5 0 - 25 1.9 
 - - Non-agriculture articles n.e.s. 898 3.1 0 - 33.7 1.2 
 - Petroleum 32 1.9 0 - 7 1.4 
By ISIC sectora     
Agriculture and fisheries 580 6.7 0 - 510.9 6.2 
Mining 115 0.4 0 - 10.5 3.4 
Manufacturing 9,818 4.8 0 - 350 2.1 
By HS section     
 01 Live animals & prod. 569 8.7 0 - 510.9 3.3 
 02 Vegetable products 558 3.9 0 - 163.8 3.0 
 03 Fats & oils 69 3.4 0 - 19.1 1.3 
 04 Prepared food etc. 677 11.9 0 - 439.9 3.4 
 05 Minerals 204 0.6 0 - 12.6 2.8 
 06 Chemical & prod. 1,714 3.5 0 - 7.2 0.8 
 07 Plastics & rubber 375 3.7 0 - 14 0.7 
 08 Hides & skins 220 4.3 0 - 20 1.1 
 09 Wood & articles 240 2.4 0 - 18 1.4 
 10 Pulp, paper etc. 275 0.0 0 - 0 n.a. 
 11 Textile & articles 1,592 9.0 0 - 32 0.8 
 12 Footwear, headgear 195 13.4 0 - 57.9 1.1 
 13 Articles of stone 298 5.2 0 - 38 1.2 
 14 Precious stones, etc. 105 3.0 0 - 13.5 1.1 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 170 - 
 
  Description MFN 
No. of lines Average (%) Range (%) Coefficient of 
variation 
(CV) 
 15 Base metals & prod. 988 1.9 0 - 21.9 1.4 
 16 Machinery 1,349 1.7 0 - 15 1.2 
 17 Transport equipment 252 2.4 0 - 25 1.9 
 18 Precision equipment 512 2.9 0 - 22.2 1.1 
 19 Arms and amuniation 33 1.7 0 - 7 1.2 
 20 Miscellaneous manuf 282 3.6 0 - 33.7 1.2 
 21 Works of art, etc. 7 0.0 0 - 0 n.a. 
By stage of processing     
First stage of processing 1,101 4.3 0 - 510.9 7.0 
Semi-processed products 3,444 4.2 0 - 72 1.1 
Fully-processed products 5,969 5.3 0 - 350 2.3 
 
a ISIC (Rev.2) classification, excluding electricity (1 line).  Source: WTO Secretariat estimates, based on data provided by the U.S. authorities. 
 WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 171 - 
 
  Table A4. 1 Main features of the Price Loss Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage 
Programmes, Agricultural Act of 2014  
 Price Loss Coverage 
(PLC) County  
Agricultural Risk Coverage 
(ARC) Individual  
Agricultural Risk Coverage 
(ARC) 
Type of 
instrument Price deficiency payments  Commodity-revenue deficiency 
payments  Farm-revenue deficiency 
payments 
Covered 
commodities  Wheat, corn, grain 
sorghum, barley, oats, 
rice, soybeans and other 
oilseeds, pulses; and 
peanuts Same as for PLC Same as for PLC 
Payment trigger When the national MY 
average market price of the covered commodity falls below the reference price  When the actual crop revenue 
for a county in the current MY falls below the county's ARC revenue guarantee for the crop concerned When the actual crop revenue 
for a farm in the current MY falls below the individual ARC revenue guarantee for the covered commodities 
Target price Reference price The commodity's reference 
price or the 5-marketing year 
Olympic average national price 
(x), whichever is higher for 
the year The commodity's reference 
price or the 5-marketing year 
Olympic average national 
price (x), whichever is higher 
for the year 
Payment yield One time choice between 
CCP payment yield or updated yield (90% of average commodity yield in crop years 2008-12)  5-marketing year Olympic 
average county yield (y) 5-year Olympic average 
farm-specific yield (y) 
ARC revenue 
target  Not applicable 86% of benchmark revenue 
(benchmark revenue is (x) 
multiplied by (y)), calculated 
separately for irrigated and 
non-irrigated crops 86% of benchmark revenue 
(benchmark revenue is (x) 
multiplied by (y))  
Payment rate Difference between the 
reference price and the higher of the national average market price or the commodity loan rate during the MY Difference between the county 
ARC revenue target for the covered commodity and actual county revenue.   Actual county revenue is average county yield in the current crop year multiplied by the higher of the average national commodity price in the current MY or the loan rate. Payment rate is capped at 10% of benchmark revenue  Difference between the 
individual ARC revenue target and actual revenue for individual ARC.   Actual revenue for individual ARC is weighted average of crop revenues, multiplied by the higher of the average national commodity price in the current MY or the loan rate.  Payment rate is capped at 10% of benchm ark revenue 
Payment 
amount Payment rate multiplied by 
85% of commodity's base 
acres Payment rate multiplied by 
85% of commodity's base 
acres Payment rate multiplied by 
65% of commodity's base 
acres 
Base acres Current commodity base 
acres or reallocated commodity base acres (i.e. farm's total current base acres, except generic base acres, allocated according to the shares planted with eligible crops in the 2009-12 crop years). Upland cotton base acres are called generic base acres. Same as for PLC Same as for PLC 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 172 - 
 
  Table A4. 2 Commodity loan rates and Price Lo ss Coverage reference prices, Agricultural 
Act of 2014  
Covered commodities Marketing loan programme 
Commodity loan rates Price Loss Coverage  
Reference prices 
 converted into 
US$/tonne  converted into 
US$/tonne 
Wheat (bu.) 2.94 108.0 5.5 202.1 
Maize (bu.) 1.95 76.8 3.7 145.7 
Grain sorghum (bu.) 1.95 76.9 3.95 155.2 
Barley (bu.) 1.85 89.6 4.95 227.4 
Oats (bu.) 1.33 95.8 2.4 165.3 
Rice long-grain (cwt.) 6.50 143.3 14 308.7 
Rice medium-grain (cwt.) 6.50 143.3 14 308.7 
Peanuts (ton) 355 391.3 535 486.9 
Soybeans (bu.) 6.50 183.7 8.4 308.6 
Other oilseeds (bu.) 10.09 222.5 10.15 372.9 
Dry peas (cwt.) 5.40 119.1 11 242.6 
Lentils (cwt.) 11.28 248.7 19.97 440.3 
Small chickpeas (cwt.) 7.43 163.8 19.04 419.8 
Large chickpeas (cwt.) 11.28 248.7 21.54 475.0 
Graded wool (lb.) 1.15 2535.3 n.a. n.a. 
Non-graded wool (lb.) 0.40 881.9 n.a. n.a. 
Mohair (lb.) 4.20 9259.4 n.a. n.a. 
Honey (lb.) 0.69 1521.2 n.a. n.a. 
Sugar beet, refined (lb.) 0.229 531.2 n.a. n.a. 
Sugar cane, raw (lb.) 0.1875 413.4 n.a. n.a. 
Extra-long staple cotton (lb.) 0.7977 1758.6 n.a. n.a. 
Upland cotton Simple average of the adjusted 
prevailing world price for the two immediately preceding MYs, but not less than US$0.45/lb. or more than 
US$0.52/lb n.a. n.a. 
 
n.a. Not applicable (i.e. not a covered commodity). 
 
Note:  For the conversion factors, see US TPR (2010), Table AIV.1.  Source: Agricultural Act of 2014. WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 173 - 
 
  Table A4. 3 Main provisions of the Affordable Care Act 
Measures entering into force in 2010 
Measures aimed at improving consumer protection: 
- Putting information on coverage  options for consumers online  
- Prohibiting denying coverage of children based on pre-existing conditions 
- Prohibiting insurance companies from rescinding coverage based on a mistake on an application  
- Eliminating lifetime dollar limits on insurance coverage on essential health benefits  
- Regulating annual dollar limits on insurance coverage 
- Creating an appeal system and an external review process of insurance company decisions 
- Establishing Consumer Assistance Programs in the State 
Measures aimed at improving quality and lowering costs: 
- Providing 4 million small business health insurance tax credits of 25% to 35% of the total costs 
- Providing preventive care with no cost-s haring (e.g. mammograms and colonoscopies) 
- Creating a US$15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund 
- Increasing resources to combat fraud 
Measures entering into force in 2011  
Measures aimed at improving quality and lowering costs: 
- Offering prescription drug discounts to seniors wh o reach the "coverage gap": they will receive a 50% 
discount when buying Medicare Part D covered br and-name prescription dr ugs. Over the ten years 
2011-20, seniors receive additional savings on brand-name and generic drugs until the coverage gap is 
closed in 2020 
- Providing preventive care for seniors without cost-s haring (e.g. annual wellness visits and personalized 
prevention plans for seniors on Medicare). Effective 1 January 2011.  
- Establishing a new Center for Me dicare and Medicaid Innovation to  improve the quality of care, and 
reduce the rate of growth in he alth care costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP) 
- Improving care for seniors after they leave the ho spital through a Community Care Transitions Program 
coordinating care and connecting patients  to services in their communities.  
- Establishing an Independent Payment Advisory Boar d to develop and submit proposals to Congress and 
the President aimed at extending the life of the Medi care Trust Fund if Trust Fund expenditure targets 
are not met. 
Measures aimed at increasing access to affordable care: 
- Increasing access to services at home and in the community via the community first choice option which 
allows states to offer home and community-based services to disabled individuals through Medicaid 
rather than institutional care in nursing homes 
Measures aimed  at holding insurance companies accountable:  
- Bringing down health care premiums by requiring by law that  at least 85% of all premium dollars 
collected by insurance companies for large employer pl ans are spent on health care services and health 
care quality improvement,  and 80% for plans sold to individual s and small employers. If insurance 
companies do not meet these goals, because their admi nistrative costs or profits are too high, they must 
provide rebates 
- Addressing excessive payments to big insurance companies and strengthening Medicare advantage: 
Medicare presently pays Medicare Advantage insurance companies over US$1,000 more per person on 
average than is spent per person in Traditional Me dicare. This results in in creased premiums for all 
Medicare beneficiaries, including th e 77% of beneficiaries who are not currently enrolled in a Medicare 
Advantage plan. The law levels the playing fiel d by gradually eliminat ing this discrepancy 
Measures aimed at improving quality and lowering costs:  
- Establishing a hospital Value-Based Purchasing Pr ogram (VBP) in traditional Medicare. This programme 
offers financial incentives to hospitals to improve the quality of care. Hospital performance is also 
required to be publicly reported 
- Encouraging Integrated Health Systems: the new law provides incentives for physicians to join together 
to form "Accountable Care Organizations". These grou ps allow doctors to better  coordinate patient care 
and improve the quality, help preven t disease and illness and reduce unn ecessary hospital admissions. If 
Accountable Care Organizations provide high quality care and reduce costs to the health care system, 
they can keep some of the money that they have helped save 
- Reducing paperwork and administrative costs  by instituting a series of chan ges to standardize billing and 
requiring health plans to begin adop ting and implementing rules for the secure, confidential, electronic 
exchange of health information 
- Understanding and fighting health disparities by  requiring any ongoing or new federal health programme 
to collect and report racial, ethnic and language data to help identify and reduce disparities WT/TPR/S/307/Rev.1 • United States  
 
- 174 - 
 
  Measures entering into force in 2013  
Measures aimed at improving quality and lowering costs:  
- Improving preventive health coverage by providing new funding to state Medicaid programs that choose 
to cover preventive services for patients at little or no cost  
- Expanding authority to bundle payments: the law es tablishes a national pilot programme to encourage 
hospitals, doctors, and other providers to work to gether to improve the coordination and quality of 
patient care. Under payment "bundling", hospitals, doctors, and pr oviders are paid a flat rate for an 
episode of care rather than the current fragmented system where each  service or test or bundles of 
items or services are billed separately to Medicare 
Measures aimed at increasing access to affordable care:  
- Increasing Medicaid payments for primary care doct ors: as Medicaid programs and providers prepare to 
cover more patients in 2014, the Act requires states to pay primary care physicians no less than 100% of 
Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 for primary care services. The increase is fully funded by the 
Federal Government 
- Opening enrollment in the health insurance market place for 2014: individuals and small businesses were 
able in the fall of 2013 to buy affordable and qual ified health benefit plans for 2014 in this new 
transparent and insurance marketplace  
Measures entering into force in 2014 
Measures aimed at establishing new consumer protections: 
- Prohibiting insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage because of an individual's pre-existing 
conditions or charging higher rates due to gender or health status 
- Eliminating annual dollar limits on essential health benefits for all plans  
- Ensuring coverage for individuals pa rticipating in clinical trials by prohibited insurers from dropping or 
limiting coverage in such cases with an exception that applies to network plans 
Measures aimed at improving quality and lowering costs:  
- Tax credits to make it easier for the middle class to afford insurance will become available for people with 
income between 100% and 400% of the poverty line who are not eligible for other affordable coverage. 
(In 2010, 400% of the poverty line amounted to approximately US$43,000 for an individual or 
US$88,000 for a family of four.) The tax credit is advanceable and refundable. These individuals may 
also qualify for reduced cost -sharing (co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles)  
- Fully implementing the health insurance marketplace: Starting in 2014 individuals will be able to buy 
directly in the Health Insurance Ma rketplace. The right to buy on exchanges is not limited to cases in 
which an employer does not offer it (though subsidie s may be). Individuals and small businesses can buy 
affordable and qualified health bene fit plans in this new ma rketplace. The Marketplace will offer a choice 
of health plans that meet cert ain benefits and cost standards 
- Increasing the Small Business Tax Credit: the law implements the second phase of the small business tax 
credit for qualified small businesses and small non-profit  organizations. In this phase, the credit is up to 
50% of the employer's contribution to provide health  insurance for employees. There is also up to a 35% 
credit for small non-profit organizations 
Measures aimed at increasing access to affordable care:  
- Increasing access to Medicaid:  Americans who earn less than 133% of the poverty level (approximately 
US$14,000 for an individual and US$29,000 for a family of four) are eligible to enroll in Medicaid in 
States that have implemented this provisiona. States will receive 100% federal funding for the first three 
years to support this expanded coverage, phasin g to 90% federal funding in subsequent years 
- Promoting individual responsibility: under the law, most  individuals who can afford it will be required to 
obtain basic health insurance coverage or pay a fee to help offset the costs of caring for uninsured 
Americans. If affordable coverage is not available to  an individual, he or she will be eligible for an 
exemption.  
Measures entering into force in 2015 
Measure aimed at improving quality and lowering costs:  
- Paying physicians based on value not volume: a new provision will tie physician payments to the quality 
of care they provide. Physicians will see their paym ents modified so that those who provide higher value 
care will receive higher payments than those wh o provide lower quality care. Effective 1 January 2015 
 
a The Supreme Court prohibited the Federal Govern ment from taking enforcement action against 
States that decline to implement this provision. 
 
Source: U.S. Department of He alth and Human Services onli ne information. Viewed at: 
www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/tim eline/timeline-t ext.html, summarized by the secretariat. 
__________