United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 99 
 
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE  
(i) Agriculture in the United States 
1. The United States has one of the largest agricultu re sectors in the world with a total value of 
production of US$372 billion in 2011.  It is also th e largest agriculture exporting country with exports 
of US$144.8 billion (WTO definition).  Although agri culture represents less than 1% of GDP it is 
important to the economy generally as it represents 11 % of total exports of goods (and 6% of imports) 
and in some States it is one of the main economic  activities with net value added from agriculture 
equivalent to over 6% of GDP in Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 
2. Over 2010-11, the value of agricultural produc tion continued to increase, mainly due to 
higher prices, reaching US$372 billion in 2011.  Alth ough a wide variety of products are produced, a 
relatively small number make up over half of production, with maize a nd soybeans being the principal 
crops and milk, cattle, and poultry and eggs th e main animal products (Table IV.1).   
Table IV.1 
Value of production, 2007-11 
(US$ billion and %) 
 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % of total for most recent year data available 
Total 311.3 318.3 284.5 334.9 372.3 100 
Maize for grain 54.7 49.2 46.7  64.6 76.5 21 
Soybeans for beans 27.0 29.5 32.1 37.5 35.8 10 
Hay 16.8 18.6 14.7 14.7 17.7 5 
Wheat 13.3 16.6 10.7 12.8 14.4 4 
Cotton 5.7 3.0 3.9 7.3 7.3 2 
Milk 35.7 35.1 24.5 31.5 39.7 11 
Cattle and calves 36.0 35.6 32.0 37.0 45.2 12 
Poultry and eggs 32.2 34.0 31.6 34.7 35.6 10 
Source : USDA National Agricultural Statistics Serv ice online information, "National Agricu ltural Statistics Service:  Crop Values 
Annual Summaries".  Viewed at:  http ://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDo cumentInfo.do?documentID=1050;  USDA 
National Agricultural Statistics Service onlin e information, "Quick Stats".  Viewed at:  http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/, for cotton 
and milk;  USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2011), 2011 Agricultural Statistics Annual .  Viewed at:  
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Sta tistics/2011/index.asp, for cattle and cal ves;  and USDA National Agricultural 
Statistics Service online informa tion, "Poultry Production and Value  2012-2009".  Viewed at  h ttp://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/ 
MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID= 1130 for poultry and eggs (includes broilers , eggs, turkeys, and other chickens). 
3. The United States is one of the world's main pr oducers of a number of agricultural products;  
it is the biggest producer of soybeans, maize, b eef, chicken, and turkey, the second biggest producer 
of pig meat, and the third biggest producer of cotton and wheat.1  For many products, the 
United States exports a large portion of production (T able IV.2).  At the same time, total world 
production and consumption of agricultural products are increasing faster than  in the United States 
with the result that U.S. market share for many pr oducts is declining.  For the main commodities, the 
principal exception for the decline in  market share is beef, which has more than doubled its share of 
exports on the world market since 2006.  This in crease reflects the re-opening of major beef export 
markets that had been closed due to the discovery  of BSE in December 2003, and the decline in per 
capita consumption of beef in the United States. 
4. Due to its large share in world production, exports, and imports of agricultural products, 
developments in the United States, including chang es to agricultural policies, have an impact on 
world markets and on agriculture in other countries.  As the U.S. agriculture sector is highly 
                                                      
1 FAOStat database.  Viewed at:  http://faost at.fao.org/site/291/defau lt.aspx [March 2012]. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 100 
  
integrated into world markets, other countries' ag ricultural trade and produc tion policies also affect 
U.S. agriculture. 
Table IV.2 
U.S. and world production and trade of selected commodities, 2006-11 
('000 tonnes, unless otherwise indicated) 
 Marketing year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 
M a i z e         
Production United States 267,503  331,177  307,142   332,549  316,165  313,918  
 % of World 37.5  41.7  38.4   40.6  38.1  36.3  
Exports United States 53,987  61,913  46,965   50,295  46,599  43,182  
 % of World 57.4  62.8  55.6   51.9  51.1  44.7  
W h e a t         
Production United States 49,217  55,821  68,016   60,366  60,062  54,413  
 % of World 8.3  9.1  10.0   8.8  9.2  7.8  
Exports United States 24,725  34,363  27,635   23,930  35,076  27,216  
 % of World 22.1  29.3  19.3   17.6  26.5  18.9  
Cotton (480 lb bales)        
Production United States 21,588  19,207  12,815   12,188  18,104  15,555  
 % of World 17.7  16.0  11.9   11.9  15.5  12.6  
Exports United States 12,959  13,634  13,261   12,037  14,376  11,400  
 % of World 34.5  34.9  43.6   33.8  39.9  27.7  
Soybean, oilseed        
Production United States 87,001  72,859  80,749   91,417  90,606  83,172  
 % of World 36.9  33.2  38.2   35.0  34.3  34.6  
Exports United States 30,386  31,538  34,817   40,798  40,859  35,108  
 % of World 42.7  40.2  45.3   43.9  44.1  39.4  
 Calendar year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Beef and veal        
Production United States 11,980  12,097  12,163   11,891  12,047  11,997  
 % of World 20.8  20.7  20.8   20.8  21.1  21.1  
Exports United States 519  650  905   878  1,043  1,265  
 % of World 6.8  8.5  11.8   11.7  13.3  15.5  
P o u l t r y  m e a t         
Production United States 15,930  16,226  16,561   15,935  16,563  16,694  
 % of World 24.3  23.3  22.7   21.7  21.3  20.8  
Exports United States 2,361  2,678  3,157   3,093  3,069  3,171  
 % of World 35.9  36.3  37.5   37.4  34.7  33.9  
Source : USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Production, S upply and Distribution data base.  Viewed at:  
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonlin e/psdQuery.aspx [April 2012]. 
5. The total number of farms in the United States,  having fallen for several decades, up to the 
late 1990s, have been increasing over the past te n years and there are now about 2.2 million.  
However, this increase is due to more small farms (less than 50 acres or 20 hectares), while 
consolidation of land and production has continued among larger farms.   In 2007, 8% of farms were 
over 1,000 acres but represented 68% of all land in farms, while 2.5% of farms had sales of over 
US$1,000,000 but these farms represented 59% of total sales.2 
6. The vast majority of farms in the United St ates are family farms and even among corporate 
farms the vast majority are family-held corpora tions.  As in other developed countries, off-farm 
income is, in many cases, more important than earnings from farming activities but the opposite is 
true on the larger farms, where most producti on takes place.  The agriculture sector varies 
considerably from one State to another with average farm size ranging from over 2,000 acres in 
Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming to less th an 100 acres in Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
New Jersey, and Rhode Island.3 
                                                      
2 USDA (2009). 
3 U.S. Census Bureau (2012), Section 17, Agriculture. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 101 
 
 
7. The United States remains the biggest agriculture  exporting country in the world and it has a 
large and growing agriculture trade surplus:  be tween 2005 and 2011 exports of agriculture products 
(WTO definition) more than doubled while imports  increased by about 60% (Chart IV.1).  The 
increase in the value of exports over the past fe w years is a result of both increasing quantities 
exported and rising prices. 
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Chart IV.1
Exports and imports of agricultural products, 2002-11
Source: UNSD Comtrade database.Exports
Imports(US$ million )
 
8. Both exports and imports are broadly based w ith the top 10 produc ts (HS 2002 four-digit4) 
representing just over half of total exports and one th ird of imports.  As noted above, the structure of 
exports has changed somewhat over the past few year s, as beef exports have increased considerably, 
although soybeans, maize, wheat, and cotton remain th e main exports.  There has been some change 
to the structure of imports, as imports of coffee and sugar have increased more rapidly than other 
imports (Table IV.3). 
9. The main destinations for exports from the Un ited States depend on the product:  China is still 
the main market for U.S. exports of soybeans as it takes over three quarters of the US$17.6 billion 
soybean exports; exports of other agriculture goods  are more widely dispersed, with Japan, Mexico, 
the Republic of Korea, and China being the main dest inations for maize, and Japan, Nigeria, Mexico, 
and Egypt for wheat. 
10. The main sources of imports also vary depending on the product:  Brazil and Colombia are 
the main sources for imports of coffee;  France , the United Kingdom, and Mexico for imports of 
distilled beverages (although the EU as a whole accounts for over 80% of imports);  Italy, France, and 
Australia for wine (the EU accounts for nearly 70% );  Mexico and the Netherlands for beer;  and 
Canada, New Zealand, and Australia  for meat of bovine animals. 
                                                      
4 Under the Harmonized System, at the four-digit level, beef is divided between fresh and chilled 
(0201) and frozen (0202) while other meats are under single headings, such as meat of swine (0203), meat and 
edible offal of poultry (0207).  For the purpose of showing the main imports and exports for the United States both fresh and chilled, and frozen exports have been shown as s single heading in Table IV.3. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 102 
  
Table IV.3 
Exports and imports of selected products, 2005-11a 
   2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Total exports US$ million 66,727  75,132  94,5 21  120,322  102,727  121,177  144,814  
1201 Soybeans US$ million 6,324  6,923  10,016  15,537  16,4 76  18,586  17,564  
'000 tonnes 25,658  28,120  29,840  51,278  40,506  42,351  34,311  
1005 Maize US$ million 5,039  7,300  10, 100  13,884  9,086  10,110  13,982  
'000 tonnes 45,369  57,886  57,014  71,415  47,813  50,906  45,888  
1001 Wheat and meslin US$ million 4,382  4,23 0  8,345  11,306  5, 380  6,751  11,135  
'000 tonnes 27,179  23,395  32,947  48,613  21,942  27,629  32,790  
5201 Cotton US$ million 3,924  4,503  4, 580  4,832  3,387  5,748  8,425  
'000 tonnes 3,400  3,508  3,259  3,798  2,553  2,962  2,774  
0802 Other nuts, fresh or 
dried US$ million 2,507  2,625  2,776  3,121  3,467  4,164  5,002  
'000 tonnes 562  589  637  608  920  933  1,043  
0203b Meat of swine US$ million 2,063  2,222  2,488  3,789  3,18 1  3,531  4,687  
'000 tonnes 820  907  966  1,530  1,255  1,241  1,548  
0207b Meat and edible offal 
poultry US$ million 2,469  2,238  3,260  4,158  3,851  3,825  4,504  
'000 tonnes 2,727  2,814  3,264  3,047  3,738  3,544  3,747  
2106 Food preparations not 
elsewhere specified US$ million 2,592  3,007  2,974  3,367  3,345  3,686  4,286  
'000 tonnes 532  576  610  806  663  725  806  
2207 Undenatured ethyl 
alcohol 80% or 
higher; other 
denatured spirits US$ million 141  109  396  413  282  915  3,316  
'000 tonnes 167  155  628  -   245  894  3,023  
2304 Oil-cake and solid 
residues, from 
extraction of soybean 
oil US$ million 1,131  1,289  1,685  2,598  3,003  3,103  2,702  
'000 tonnes 5,068  5,976  6,408  11,496  7,678  8,355  6,701  
0201 + 
0202b Meat of bovine animals fresh and 
frozen US$ million 848  1,429  1,897  2,697  2,485  3,397  4,571  
'000 tonnes 206  353  440  271  587  727  884  
Total imports US$ million 65,839  73,547  80, 352  88,246  79,603  88,821  105,520  
0901 Coffee US$ million 2,895  3,220  3,648  4,257  3,872  4,696  7,844  
'000 tonnes 1,261  1,321  1,356  1,586  1,306  1,344  166  
2208 Spirits, liqueurs and 
other spirituous 
beverages US$ million 4,487  5,042  5,677  5,615  5,145  5,742  6,399  
'000 tonnes 1,300  512  543  -   707  1,288  210  
2204 Wine of fresh grapes US$ million 3,945  4,370  4,856  4,841  4,190  4,462  5,047  
'000 tonnes 1,527  782  845  -   927  938  421  
2203 Beer made from malt US$ million 3,343  3, 880  3,928  3,942  3, 564  3,748  3,796  
'000 tonnes 3,941  3,438  3,485  4,372  3,037  3,185  363  
1905 Bread, pastry, cakes, 
biscuits and other 
bakers' wares US$ million 1,945  2,188  2,369  2,544  2,525  2,828  3,157  
'000 tonnes 759  803  829  824  817  900  531  
0201 + 
0202b Meat of bovine 
animals fresh and 
frozen US$ million 3,436 2,915 2,949 2,750 2,471  2,705  2,927 
'000 tonnes 1,077 903 892 636 796  735  656 
1701 Sugar and chemically 
pure sucrose, in solid 
form US$ million 926  1,452  917  1, 224  1,275  2,084  2,912  
'000 tonnes 2,088  2,919  1,948  2,466  2,511  2,917  353  
0803 Bananas US$ million 1,372  1,471  1,525  1,685  1,89 9  2,126  2,327  
'000 tonnes 4,089  4,088  4,261  2,532  3,853  4,382  516  
0702 Tomatoes, fresh or 
chilled US$ million 1,126  1,301  1,283  1,501  1,471  1,880  2,220  
'000 tonnes 952  992  1,071  903  1,190  1,532  208  
0709 Other vegetables, 
fresh or chilled US$ million 1,529  1,680  1,760  1,796  1,721  2,188  2,209  
'000 tonnes 1,176  1,254  1,326  778  1,422  1,651  511  
a Trade volumes in this table are derived from the UNSD Comtrade database and differ from those in Table IV.2, 
which are taken from USDA Foreign Agriculture Servic e, Production, Supply, an d Distribution database. 
b HS headings 0201 (meat of bovine animal s, fresh and chilled) and 020 2 (meat of bovine animals, frozen) have been added 
together so that trade in meat of bovine animals is comparable to HS headings 0203 (meat of swine) and 0207 (meat and edible 
offal of poultry), which both include fresh, chilled,  and frozen meat under the same HS heading. 
Source:    UNSD Comtra de database. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 103 
 
 
(ii) Agriculture policies 
11. There have been no major changes to agriculture  policies in the United States since the last 
Trade Policy Review.5  The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 remains the basis for most 
agricultural programmes and will remain so until it e xpires.  Some of the provisions of the 2008 Act 
expire on 30 September 2012, others  on 31 December 2012, and others in 2013 at the end of the 2012 
crop year.  Should the 2008 Act expire without en actment of successor legislation or a temporary 
extension, farm programmes will revert to the pe rmanent legislation, most of which is in the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agri culture Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Charter Act of 1948.   
(a) Trade6 
Imports 
12. The average tariff on imports of agricultural pr oducts (WTO definition) into the United States 
in 2012 was 8.5%, slightly down on the level of two years previously due to increasing commodity 
prices, which led to lower ad valorem  equivalents for tariff lines with specific or compound duties.  
This average is low compared with some othe r WTO Members and, furthermore, is somewhat 
over-stated because the United States charges tariffs on th e 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, for 620 tariff lines, 
up to 350%, for some tobacco products.  The highest tariffs are on tobacco, sugar, peanuts, and dairy 
products, followed by beef, cotton, and certain  horticultural products (such as mushrooms). 
13. As reported in its last Review, the United States notifies the Committee on Agriculture of 
44 tariff quotas covering 171 tariff lines, mostly  for dairy products, s ugar products, products 
containing sugar and/or dairy ingredients and cotton.7  The most recent notification is for 2010 and 
2011.8  Fill-rates vary significantly from one quota to  another and have been  particularly low for 
cotton and high for some dairy and sugar products. 
14. The United States has reserved the right to u se the Special Agricultural Safeguard (SSG) on 
189 tariff lines, mostly dairy products, sugar prod ucts, products containing  sugar and/or dairy 
ingredients, and cotton.  The volume-based SSG wa s last used in 2003.  However, the price-based 
safeguard has been applied more frequently.  It was used on 48 tariff lines in 2010, and 59 lines in 
2009.9  Whenever an importer declares a price for out -of-quota imports that is below the level where 
the SSG is applicable, the additional duty is automa tically applied.  Hence, in many cases the SSG is 
applied to small quantities such as 4 kg of fr esh cheddar cheese or 3 kg of chocolate bars. 
Exports 
15. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides funding for a number of programmes 
that support exports of agricultural goods from the United States. 
16.  The Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) is administered by the Foreign 
Agricultural Service in conjunction with the Farm  Services Agency of USDA.  Under the Program, 
the CCC may provide guarantees for credits from privat e U.S. banks to approved foreign banks for 
                                                      
5 WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, 29 October 2010. 
6 SPS measures are discusse d in Chapter III(1)(ix). 
7 WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, 29 October 2010. 
8 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/85, 27 June 2012. 
9 WTO documents G/AG/N/USA/74, 16 August 2010;  and G/AG/N/USA/81, 29 August 2011. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 104 
  
the purchase of agricultural products by foreign buy ers.  Currently, no funding is provided to 
GSM-102 as fees and recoveries on default claim pa yments exceed losses.  For the year ending 
30 September 2011, the Export Credit Guarantee Program registered guarantees stood at US$4.1 billion, mostly for exports of wheat, maize, soybeans and soybean products, and cotton.
10 
17. The CCC also has authority to make funding available under the Facility Guarantee Program, 
for storage, handling, and processing facilities in  importing countries on the grounds that these 
guarantees improve sales of U.S. agricultural produc ts.  However, this programme is not currently 
active. 
18. The FAS also administers a number of programmes to promote exports, such as:  the Quality 
Samples Program (through which the CCC funds the provision of product samples to foreign 
importers);  the Market Access Program (the CCC provides funding for some of the costs of marketing and promotional exercises abroad);  the Emerging Markets Program (for technical assistance activities that promote exports, such as feasibility studies and specialized training); the 
Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program;  and the Technical Assistance for Speciality 
Crops Program.  Total funding available for these programmes for FY 2012 was US$255 million.
11 
19. Under the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEI P) the CCC may provide subsidies (bonuses) 
for exports of some dairy products.  According to  the most recent notification to the WTO Committee 
on Agriculture, the budgetary outlay for export subsidies under the DEIP in the year ending 30 June 2010 was US$2.1 million for 15,607 tonn es of butter and butteroil and US$0.2 million for 
1,691 tonnes of cheese.
12  In July 2010, the USDA announced  that, due to prevailing market 
conditions, it would not be making in vitations for offers available but  it would continue to monitor 
market conditions.13   
(b) Food aid 
20. The United States is the world's biggest donor of food aid, delivering over half of total food 
aid in most years (3.2 million tonnes grain equivalent, nearly 56% of total aid in 2010).  About two thirds of aid is for emergencies, a bit less than one third for project aid, and a relatively small amount 
for programme aid.  Since 2006, the structure of ai d has changed noticeably as direct transfers have 
declined while local purchases and triangular  purchases have increased (Table IV.4).
14  Furthermore, 
since 2006, new funding has not been provided for concessional sales as demand has declined and the 
grant programmes have been considered more appropriate ways to provide aid.15 
21. Most food aid is provided under Title II of the Food for Peace Act of 2008 (commonly 
referred to as P.L. 480) with outlays of a bout US$1.5 billion in 2011.  The McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutr ition Program, and the Food for Progress Act of 1985 
also remain in force, with outlays of about  US$205 million and US$162 million, respectively, 
                                                      
10 USDA FAS online information, "Export Credit Guarantee Progr ams".  Viewed at: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/ecgp.asp [May 2012]. 
11 USDA (2012), pp. 35-36. 
12 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/82, 13 September 2011. 
13 USDA FAS Press Release 0161-10, "USDA Announces DEIP Allocations for 2010/11", 
14 July 2010.  Viewed at:  http://www.fas.usda.go v/excredits/deip/deip.asp [May 2012]. 
14 WFP Food Aid Information System database.  Vi ewed at:  http://www.wfp.org/fais/ [May 2012]. 
15 House Committee on Agriculture online information, "Submission to House of Representatives 
Agricultural Program Audit:  Examination of Foreign Agriculture and Food Aid Programs".  Viewed at:  http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/heari ngDetails.aspx?NewsID=1415 [May 2012]. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 105 
 
 
in 2011.  The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is a reserve available to meet unanticipated food aid 
needs.  It currently holds about US$311 m illion in cash reserves and no physical reserves.16 
Table IV.4 
Deliveries of food aid from the United States, 2006-10 
(Tonnes) 
 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Direct transfer 3,496,411 2,574,291 3,161,191 3,125,659 2,851,499 
Local purchase 48,393 36,108 100,627 111,175 764,846 
Triangular purchase 12,961 10,408 68,655 55,790 39,982 
Source:   WFP Food Aid Information System database.  Vi ewed at:  http://www.wfp.org/fais/ [May 2012]. 
(c) Domestic support 
Domestic food aid 
22. For many years, the largest budgetary outlays for programmes operated by the USDA have 
been under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called the Food Stamp 
Program).  Outlays for SNAP and other domestic food-aid programmes have been increasing steadily over the past few years, rising from US$45.9 billion in FY 2004 to US$94.9 billion in FY 2010.  Most of these funds go towards providing vouchers for purchases of food in retail outlets (including 
imported as well as domestic products) by peopl e and families with low incomes.  About 
US$0.9 billion is expended for purchase of comm odities through the Food and Consumer Services' 
food programmes for distribution to low-income or other needy people.
17 
Direct payments 
23. Over the past few years, most support to producers has been provided through direct 
payments that are linked to historic planting and yi elds.  Producers with eligible historical production 
of wheat, maize, sorghum, barley, oats, rice, soyb eans and other oilseeds, upland cotton, and peanuts 
during the base period are eligible for direct payments.  Payments are not linked to production or 
prices, except for some limits to planting fruits, ve getables, and wild rice, although a pilot project has 
been developed to allow planting of selected vegetables for processi ng in seven States for the 2009-12 
crop years.18  Since they were introduced in the 2002 Farm Bill, support to producers provided 
through direct payments has been relatively constant, averaging about US$5 billion per year.19 
Counter-cyclical payments 
24. The counter-cyclical payments programme rema ins in place and provides for payments to 
producers with historical production of the same products as direct payments plus some pulses.  Payments are linked to current prices but not to current production, and the target prices used to 
calculate when payments start are set out in the 2008 Farm Bill.
20  In recent years, prices for most of 
                                                      
16 USDA (2012),  pp. 34-38. 
17 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/80, 20 August 2011;  and U.S. authorities. 
18 7 USC 8701, Sec 1107, PL 110-246;  and USDA ERS online information, "Farm and Commodity 
Policy:  Program Provisions; Direct Payments".  Vi ewed at:  http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmpolicy/ 
directpayments.htm [April 2012]. 
19 USDA ERS (2011), p. 17.  
20 7 USC 8701, Sec 1104, PL 110-246;  and USDA ERS online information, "Farm and Commodity 
Policy:  Program Provisions:  Counter-Cyclical Payments" .  Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/ 
farmpolicy/countercyclicalpay.htm [May 2012]. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 106 
  
the covered commodities have been above target prices and counter-cyclical payments have fallen 
from a peak of nearly US$4.8 billion in crop year 2005 to US$17 million (peanuts only) in CY 2010 and no payments anticipated for CY 2011.
21  Farmers with base acres for peanuts and upland cotton 
have been the most consistent recipients of count er-cyclical payments, while those with base acres for 
wheat and soybeans have never received any payments  since they were introduced in the 2002 Farm 
Bill. 
Marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments 
25. Marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency  payments also remain in place with no 
changes to the provisions that compensa te producers of the commodities covered22 whenever local 
prices (or, for cotton and rice, adjusted world prices)  fall below the loan rates set out in the 2008 Farm 
Bill.23  Under the marketing assistance loans and lo an deficiency payments programme, the support 
may be provided: 
 by way of a post-harvest loan to the producer at  the loan rate for the particular commodity, 
which may be repaid either at the loan rate plus interest, by transferring ownership of the 
product to the Commodity Credit Corporation, or by receiving a benefit equal to the difference between the loan and the mark et price (a marketing loan gain);  
 through a loan deficiency payment equal to the difference between the loan rate and the local 
market price (except for cotton and rice for wh ich adjusted world prices are used instead of 
local prices) for each unit of production;  or 
 up until the 2008 crop year, a producer also had the option of buying a commodity certificate 
from the USDA, which essentially fixed the market ing loan gain at the difference between the 
market price (or adjusted world price) and the loan rate for each unit of production.  
Certificate exchange gains were reali zed at the end of the loan period.
24, 25 
26. Like counter-cyclical payments, budgetary outlays  for loan deficiency payments, marketing 
loan gains, and certificate exchange gains have fallen as prices have increased, and were about 
US$1 million (wool only) for crop year 2011. 
ACRE programme 
27. The ACRE programme remains in  operation as an alternative to counter-cyclical payments 
for producers of cereals, oilseeds, upland cotto n, peanuts, and some pulse crops.  Under the 
programme, producers may opt to forgo counter-cyc lical payments and accept a 20% reduction in 
direct payments and a 30% reduction in loan rate s in return for payments based on the difference 
                                                      
21 USDA FSA (2012). 
22 Wheat, maize, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, extra-long staple cotton, rice, peanuts, 
soybeans, other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, wool, mohair, and honey.  
23 For most commodities, local prices are used for th e loan repayment rates, except for cotton and rice 
where adjusted world prices are used. 
24 Loan periods may start at any time between harvest and:  31 January for mohair, peanuts, and wool;  
31 March for barley, canola, crambe , flaxseed, honey, oats, rapeseed, sesame, and wheat;  and 31 May for 
maize, dry peas, extra-long staple cotton, grain sorghum, lentils, mustard seed, rice, safflower, small chickpeas, 
soybeans, sunflower seeds, and upland cotton.  The loan period is up to nine months starting at the beginning of the month after the loan is made. 
25 7 USC 8701, Sec 1201-1210, 1301-1308, and 1401, PL 110-246;  and USDA ERS online 
information, "Farm and Commodity Policy:  Program Provisions; Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments".  Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmpolicy/malp.htm [May 2012]. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 107 
 
 
between annual State and farm-level revenues for th e commodities covered, and State and farm-level 
benchmark revenues, both calculate d using national prices and State and farm-level yields.  The 
benchmark revenues are calculated using a two-year  rolling average of national market prices and a 
five-year "Olympic" average for State and farm-level  yield.  Enrolment in ACRE has not increased 
significantly over the past few years:  in 2011, 8.2%  of farms were enrolled covering 13.8% of base 
acres compared to 7.8% of farms and 13.0% of base acres in 2009.26 
Insurance programmes 
28. Insurance coverage is available for over 100 diffe rent crops under a wide variety of insurance 
policies covering production, price and/or revenue risks, under the Federal Crop Insurance Program.  
Insurance coverage is provided by the private sector at subsidized rates under terms set by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Corporation and administered by th e USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA).  Most 
of the policies available from th e RMA are for crops, although livestock policies are available for 
cattle, pigs, lambs, and milk to insure against d eclining prices or differences between sale price and 
feed costs, and policies are available for forage, gr azing, and rangelands.  The subsidies provided by 
USDA are on producer premiums paid to privat e insurance companies fo r providing the insurance 
policies, as well as on a portion of the companies'  operating costs and underwriting losses.  The 
premium subsidy to producers was US$4.7 billion in CY 2010 and is expected to be about US$7.2 billion for CY 2011.
27  The value of crops protected by insurance also increased, from 
US$67 billion in 2007 to $114 billion in 2011, represen ting about 80% of area planted to principal 
crops.28 
29. The Supplemental Revenue Assurance Program (SURE) is the largest of five disaster 
assistance measures financed by th e Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund, although it does not 
cover losses incurred after 30 September 2011.  SU RE provided assistance to crop producers in 
counties designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as suffering from a disaster, as well as other counties bordering those directly affected by the event and other counties where losses caused by the 
weather exceed 50% of revenue. The other four  disaster assistance measures cover producers of 
livestock, livestock forage, trees and nurseries, and honey bees and farm-raised fish.  These 
programmes also do not cover losses incurred after 30 September 2011.  Payments under SURE and 
the other disaster programmes were US$1.9 billion in fiscal year 2010 and are estimated at US$2.2 billion for FY 2011.
29   
Sugar 
30. Sugar processors qualify for marketing loans (wit hout provisions for marketing loan gains or 
loan deficiency payments), and production is supported by other schemes.  The sugar programme 
"uses price supports, domestic marketing allotments , and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) to influence the 
amount of sugar available to the U.S. market.  The program supports U.S. sugar prices above 
comparable levels in the world market."30  Under the marketing loan programme, sugar processors 
rather than producers may take out loans and they agree to pay the producers at a rate proportional to 
the loan.  To prevent sugar being transferred to  the CCC to settle a marketing assistance loan, an 
                                                      
26 USDA FSA online information, "Direc t and Counter-Cyclical Program/ACRE" .  Viewed at:   
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=hom e&subject=dccp&topic=09cy [May 2012].   
27 USDA Risk Management Agency online information "Costs and Outlays".  Viewed at:  
http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/bud get/cycost2002-11.pdf [July 2012]. 
28 USDA (2012), pp. 30-31.   
29 USDA (2012), p. 26. 
30 USDA ERS online information, "Sugar and Sweeteners: Policy".  Viewed at:  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing /Sugar/Policy.htm [May 2012]. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 108 
  
overall allotment quantity is applie d, to limit marketing, along with other provisions designed to 
manage domestic supply commensurate with domestic demand.  
Dairy 
31. Federal milk marketing orders (FMMOs) set minimum prices that processors or 
manufacturers are required to pay for fluid milk in th e ten regions covered by the system;  five other 
States operate similar systems.  The two main elemen ts to the FMMO system are classified pricing, 
and revenue pooling.  Under the fe deral and some State milk marketing orders, regulated processors 
must pay a minimum price for Grade A milk according to the class in which it is used. There are four 
classes (uses):  Class I is milk used in all bevera ge milks;  Class II is milk used in fluid cream 
products, yogurts, or perishable manufactured produc ts (ice cream, cottage cheese, and others);  
Class III is milk used to produce cheeses;  and Cl ass IV for milk used to produce butter and dried 
milk.  
32. Producers participating in the revenue pool r eceive identical uniform blend prices, with 
adjustments for butterfat content and location of the plant to which the milk is delivered.  Producers 
are paid a weighted average, or "blend" price for al l uses of milk in a particular order or market.  
Processors pay into or draw out of the pool on the b asis of their milk used relative to market average 
use. 
33. Dairy producers also receive direct payments  under the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) 
programme which partially compensates producers wh en the Class I price in the Boston MMO for 
fluid milk falls below US$16.94 per hundredweight (US$372.53 per tonne), with adjustments for feed 
costs.  Due to the counter-cyclical nature of the programme, spending depends on the FMMO price 
and feed costs;  it reached a high of US$757 million in MY 2007/0831, and is expected to be less than 
US$1 million in MY2010/11.  In addition to mark eting orders and the MILC programme, dairy 
producers benefit from the Dairy Product Price S upport Program (DPPSP), which offers to purchase 
cheddar cheese, butter, and non-fat dried milk at a guaranteed price.  Significant purchases under the 
DPPSP were last made in 2009. 
Other programmes 
34. Other domestic support programmes remain in place, including energy programmes (such as 
the Biomass Crop Assistance Program), credit programmes for loans to farmers, and marketing orders for some horticultural products.
32 
(iii) Levels of support 
(a) WTO notifications 
35. The most recent notification of domestic suppor t from the United States is for marketing year 
2009.33  This showed that support notified under the Green Box has continued to increase compared 
with earlier years as domestic food aid, general services, and environmental programmes increased.  
Domestic food aid is by far the biggest item, ta king over three quarters of support notified as Green 
Box (Chart IV.2). 
                                                      
31 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1, 29 August 2011. 
32 WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, 29 October 2010, pp. 87-89. 
33 WTO document G/AG/N/USA/80, 29 August 2011. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 109 
 
 
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Chart IV.2
Green Box support in the United States, 2001-09
Source: WTO notifications.(US$ million)
General services
Domestic food aid
Decoupled income support
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Structural adjustment
Environmental programs
 
36. The Current Total AMS in the U.S. notificati ons has continued to decline, falling below 
US$5 billion for the first time in 2009.  However,  total support notified under the Amber Box (i.e. 
including de minimis  levels) has increased since 2007, risi ng from US$8.5 billion to US$11.5 billion 
in 2009.  This is due to an increase in support notified as non-product-specific and that has been less 
than the de minimis limit of 5% of the value of production, and, therefore, is not included in the 
Current Total AMS figure.   
37. High prices have reduced budgetary outlays u nder marketing assistance loans and loan 
deficiency payments, and counter-cyclical paym ents.  Spending on these programmes is directly 
related to market prices and relatively high market prices have greatly reduced spending.  On the other 
hand, support under crop insurance has remained high because premiums (and, therefore, premium 
subsidies) are tied to prices, which have been high.   Support for sugar has remained constant at about 
US$1.2 billion while support for dairy dec lined to about US$3 billion (Chart IV.3).34  The high level 
of support for these two commodities reflects the market-price support programmes in place and the 
methodology used to calculate the value of support compared with that used for other commodities.35 
 
                                                      
34 WTO documents G/AG/N/USA/80 and G/AG/N/USA, 29 August 2011;  G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1, 
29 August 2011;  G/AG/N/USA/66, 19 January 2009;  and G/AG/N/USA/60/Rev.1 and 
G/AG/N/USA/51/Rev.1, 28 January 2009. 
35 WTO document WT/TPR/S/235/Rev.1, 29 October 2010, p. 91. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 110 
  
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Chart IV.3
Amber Box support in th e United States, 2001-09
Source: WTO notifications.(US$ million)
Non product-specific
Dairy
Sugar
Wheat
SoybeansLivestock and livestock products
Cotton
Maize
Rice
Other
 
(b) Producer support estimates 
38. The OECD has been publishing reviews of agri culture policies in the United States, other 
OECD countries, and some emerging economies for several years.36  In these publications, the value 
of transfers to agricultural producers is measu red using the Producer Support Estimate (PSE) and 
associated indicators.  The methodology for calculati ng these indicators is different from that used to 
calculate the AMS, and the two sets of data are not compatible or comparable.  The methodology used 
by the OECD is evolving and was revised for th e 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation report, resulting in 
several changes, including the method used to estimate support for specific commodities.37  The total 
PSE is "the annual monetary value of gross transf ers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural 
producers, measured at the farm gate level, aris ing from policy measures that support agriculture, 
regardless of their nature, objectives or impacts on farm production or income.  It includes market 
price support, budgetary payments and budget revenue foregone, i.e. gross transfers from consumers 
and taxpayers to agricultural producers arising fro m policy measures based on: current output, input 
use, area planted/animal numbers/receipts/in comes (current, non-current), and non-commodity 
criteria."  Thus, the PSE includes estimates for the value of transfers provided by market access 
measures, such as tariffs and tariff quotas, as well as input subsides, direct payments to producers that 
are coupled to prices or production, and direct payments decoupled from prices and production.38 
39. The trend for the PSE for the United States has be en declining, in both absolute terms and 
relative to gross receipts since 1999, when it was 26% of gross receipts (US$55.7 billion), to 7% of 
                                                      
36 OECD (2011) and (2009a). 
37 OECD (2007). 
38 OECD (2011). United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 111 
 
 
gross receipts (US$25.6 billion) in 2010 (Table IV.5).  A large part of the decline can be attributed to 
rising prices for agricultural commodities, wh ich have reduced budgetary outlays for some 
commodities (mostly cereals), and the value of market price support measures for others (mainly sugar and dairy products).  At 7% of total receipts from farming, the PSE in the United States is low 
compared with the OECD as a whole for which it is  18%.  However, given the large size of the 
agriculture sector the absolute amount represents 11% of the total PSE for the OECD as a whole. 
Table IV.5 
Total producer support estimate and single commodit y transfer values for selected commodities, 2002-10 
(US$ million or % of gross farm  receipts for respective products) 
 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Producer support estimate      
US$ million 40,332 36,167 43,254 40,626 30, 496 33,174 30,477  31,423 25,551 
PSE as % gross farm receipts 18  15 16 15 11  10 9 10 7 
Single commodity transfers          
W h e a t           
US$ million 708 273 353 124  544 493 940  1,521 809 
SCT as % gross farm recei pts 11 3 5 2 7 4 5 12 6 
M a i z e           
US$ million 1,464 908 316 2,952 4,443  138 -246 2,147 2,168 
SCT as % gross farm recei pts 7 4 1 11 17 0 0 4 4 
S o y b e a n s           
US$ million 302 567 517 -87 -77 152 1,483 1, 198 1,074 
SCT as % gross farm receipts 2 3 3 -1 0 1 5 4 3 
C o t t o n           
US$ million 1,709 848 2,381 1,741 1,772 207 1, 313 252 343 
SCT as % gross farm receipts 34 14 35 25 26 4 30 6 5 
M i l k           
US$ million 8,229 7,226  7,619 5,122 3,257 8,881 8 3,353 568 
SCT as % gross farm receipts 40  31 28 19 14  25 0 13 2 
Beef and veal          
US$ million 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
SCT as % gross farm receipts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Refined sugar          
US$ million 1,185 1, 327 1,053 896  519 775 562  481 746 
SCT as % gross farm receipts 53 60 54 44 21 35 26 19 28 
Source :  OECD. 
40. Although the trend in support for agricultural producers in the United States has been 
downwards for several years this is not due to a ch ange in agricultural policies but to rising prices, 
which have reduced price- and re venue-linked payments.  These polic ies continue to offer producers 
of some commodities guaranteed minimum prices and/or partial compensation should prices or revenues fall below mandated triggers.  In add ition, there has been an increase in support for 
insurance, which is notified as non-product-specifi c support in the notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture.   
(2) F
ISHERIES  
(i) Fisheries in the United States 
41. In 2009, the seafood industry (harvesting, processing, wholesale, and retail) accounted for 
0.3% of GDP in the United States.  Nevertheless,  the United States has one of the biggest fisheries 
sectors in the world:  according to the FAO, in 2010 the capture industry took 4.4 million tonnes or 
nearly 5% of total world catch, putting the United States fourth after China, Peru, and Indonesia.39    
                                                      
39 FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Information an d Statistics Service database.  Viewed at:  
http://www.fao.org/fishery/sta tistics/en [March 2012]. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 112 
  
42. National data differs from FAO data, although bo th show similar trends.  According to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), total commercial landings in 2010 were 
3.7 million tonnes valued at US$4,511 million.  Although total commercial landings have been 
declining in terms of weight, their value has increas ed as a result of higher prices (Table IV.6).   
43. Commercial landings cover a wide range of fish a nd other products.  In value terms, the most 
important are sea scallops, followed by American l obster, walleye pollock, and sockeye salmon, but 
together they make up only about one third of the total value of commercial landings (Table IV.6). 
Table IV.6 
Commercial landings of selected species, 2002-10 
  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Total commercial 
landings '0000 tonnes 4,280  4,312  4,395  4,406  4,302  4,223  3,791  3,656  3,742  
US$ million 3,164  3,346  3,770  3,953  4,041  4,204  4, 394  3,927  4,511  
Scallop, sea '000 tonnes 24  25  29  26  27  27  24  26  26  
US$ million 202  229  320  433  385  386  370  376  456  
Lobster, American '000 tonnes 38  33  41  40  42  37  40  46  53  
US$ million 294  284  374  415  395  368  327  310  399  
Pollock, Walleye '000 tonnes 1,516  1,525  1,521  1,547  1,543  1,391  1,032  846  883  
US$ million 204  203  272  307  330  297  323  271  282  
Salmon, Pink '000 tonnes 116  152  135  224  101  208  118  133  169  
US$ million 18  25  31  49  28  70  74  66  127  
Salmon, Sockeye '000 tonnes 62  84  115  120  108  125  102  116  115  
US$ million 77  110  157  187  159  205  176  204  279  
Halibut, Pacific '000 tonnes 37  36  36  35  33  32  30  27  26  
US$ million 137  173  177  177  202  227  217  140  207  
Crab, Blue '000 tonnes 77  75  77  70  74  70  73  79  89  
US$ million 129  133  129  124  114  142  155  157  199  
Shrimp, White '000 tonnes 44  48  57  50  67  52  50  57  48  
US$ million 182  163  203  193  216  204  228  178  201  
Source: NOAA Fisheries Service data base.  Viewed at:  http://www.st.nmf s.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html 
[March 2012]. 
44. The importance of fishing varies considerably from one State to another and is particularly 
important in Alaska, which accounted for over one th ird of the value of commercial landings in 2010.  
However, the only States in which landings are the equi valent of more than 0.5% of that State's GDP, 
are Maine (0.7%) and Alaska (3.3%).40 
45. In 2008, the United States had 20,231 commercia l fishing and processing vessels in service 
with valid certificates of documentation from the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and a total of 
77,816 commercial fishing vessels.41  Reflecting the great variety of species caught, the fishing fleet is 
diverse in terms of both the size of vessels and the equipment used. 
46. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Un ited States is the largest in the world and 
covers an area 1.7 times the U.S. landmass.  The EEZ covers the area betw een 3 and 200 nautical 
miles seaward for nearly all coastal States and ot her territories under U.S. jurisdiction, except for 
Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida where the EEZ extends from 9 to 200 nautical miles off-shore, 
and Puerto Rico where it is from 12 to 200 nautical miles off-shore.42  The EEZ covers about eight 
                                                      
40 WTO Secretariat calculations, based on the value of landings by State (NOAA Fisheries, Office of 
Science and Technology online information, "Fisheries Statistics".  Viewed at:  http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 
st1/commercial/index.html), and GDP by State (Bureau of Economic Analysis online information, 
"U.S. Economic Accounts:  Regional".  Viewed at:  http://www.bea.gov/index.htm) [July 2012]. 
41 National Transportation Safety Board (2010). 
42 NMFS (2009), p. 4.   United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 113 
 
 
large ecosystems, including those around U.S. overseas territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific.  
These fishing regions cover several climatic zones and many types of fish and other sea products.   
47. Inland fisheries are much smaller than marine fishing and mostly comprise landings from the 
Great Lakes and Mississippi River basin.  Tota l commercial landings for the Great Lakes were 
8,725 tonnes in 2009, valued at US$18 million.43  However, most of the landings and economic 
benefits in the Great Lakes are from recreational rather than commercial fishing.44  The aquaculture 
subsector is small compared with the capture indus try, with production valued at US$1,167 million in 
2009.  Catfish and crawfish are the main products.45 
48. Recreational fishing is popular in the United St ates.  In 2009, there were about 11 million 
recreational anglers who spent US$4.5 billion on  fishing trips and US$15 billion on durable 
fishing-related equipment.  The most commonly ca ught species were seatrout, Atlantic croaker and 
spot, summer flounder, and striped bass.46  The total harvest for recreational fishing has been falling 
for several years from a peak in 2003 when 210 milli on fish were taken compared with 128 million in 
2011.47 
49. Fish processing (of both domestic catch a nd imported products) was valued at over 
US$9,021 million in 2010, nearly all of which was edible fish, with only 6% going for industrial use 
(including bait and animal food).  In 2009, pro cessing and wholesale plants employed a total of 
59,389 people.48  
(ii) Trade 
50. The United States has a trade deficit in fish and fish products as, in 2010, it exported 
US$4,753 million and imported US$15,502 million.49  Imports have grown strongly over the past few 
years, apart from a decline in 2009 compared with 200 8.  Shrimps and fish fillets make up over half of 
all imports with import growth par ticularly strong for frozen fish fillets, tuna, and Pacific salmon.  
The main sources of imports are:  Thailand, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Viet Nam for shrimps;  Chile, Norway, and Canada for fresh fillets;  and China,  Indonesia, and Viet Nam for frozen fillets. 
51. Exports have increased steadily over the past few years and are much more diverse than 
imports;  the top nine products (at HS 2002 six-digit leve l) make up just over half  of total fish exports.  
The main exports are frozen fish fillets but export growth has been particularly strong for Pacific and 
sockeye salmon (Table IV.7).  The main destinations for the principa l exports are the European Union 
and Canada with considerable qua ntities sent to China for processing. 
                                                      
43 NOAA Fisheries Service database.  Viewed a t:  http://www.st.nmfs.noa a.gov/st1/commercial/ 
index.html [March 2012]. 
44 FAO (2005). 
45 NMFS (2011b).   
46 NMFS (2011a), p. 8. 
47 NOAA Fisheries Service online information, "Recrea tional Fisheries Statistics Queries".  Viewed at:  
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreationa l/queries/index.html [March 2012]. 
48 NMFS (2011b).   
49 For the purposes of this section of the Review, fish products are defined as HS Headings 020840, 03, 
051191, 1504, 1603, 1604, 1605, and 230120. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 114 
  
Table IV.7 
Trade in fish and fisheries products, 2004-10 
HS 2002 Description  2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Exports           
030420 Fish fillets, frozen US$ million 293 270  347  424  466  466  445  
'000 tonnes 125 105  111  133  115  132  126  
030490 Fish meat other 
than fillets, frozen US$ million 375 468  428  345  306  258  350  
'000 tonnes 233 224  207  165  110  101  126  
030622 Lobsters, other 
than frozen US$ million 300 322  333  329  321  290  345  
'000 tonnes 25 24  27  25  16  22  30  
030319 Pacific salmon, 
frozen US$ million 115  173  199  247  224  218  296  
'000 tonnes 50  74  72  90  69  80  97  
030380 Fish livers and 
roes, frozen US$ million 411  463  464  450  370  269  256  
'000 tonnes 46  50  51  57  58  30  27  
030379 Fish, n.e.s., frozen US$ m illion 315  344  354  240  206  223  229  
'000 tonnes 141  127  130  90  130  83  93  
Total exports US$ million 3,894  4,277  4,448  4,482  4, 510  4,204  4,753  
Imports           
030613 Shrimps and 
prawns, frozen US$ million 2,953  2,920  3,124  3,104  3,289  2,896  3,379  
'000 tonnes 396  396  418  415  429  407  415  
030420 Fish fillets, frozen US$ million 1, 588  1,777  2,093  2,308  2,391  2,441  2,787  
'000 tonnes 391  422  461  482  451  498  540  
030410 Fish fillets, fresh US$ million 950  1,054  1,139  1,281  1,312  1,166  1,176  
'000 tonnes  145 149 131 150 151  123  111 
160520 Shrimps and 
prawns, prepared US$ million 864  892  1,165  963  981  1,027  1,074  
'000 tonnes  122 136 173 143 144  144  144 
160414 Tunas, skipjack, 
bonito, prepared US$ million 655  710  734  703  877  798  951  
'000 tonnes  248 254 241 218 261  231  267 
030212 Pacific salmon US$ million 303  365  490  536  529  590  668  
'000 tonnes  62 72 86 87 88  93  99 
Total imports US$ million 11,972  12,776  14,070  14,451  14, 968  13,869  15,502  
Source:    UNSD Comtrade. 
(iii) Fisheries policy 
52. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of 
Commerce is responsible for fisheries policy for the EEZ and represents the United States in 
international fora such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT), and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).  Individual States are 
responsible for fisheries managements in State wate rs (in general, the first three miles off their 
coasts50), and for inland fisheries management for inland wa ters within their jurisdiction.  Fisheries in 
the Great Lakes are managed by the U.S. States with shorelines on the Great Lakes and by the 
Canadian province of Ontario through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 
53. Within NOAA, the National Marine Fisherie s Service (NMFS) is responsible for the 
management, conservation, and protection of li ving marine resources within the EEZ.  The NMFS 
works with eight Regional Fishery Management Councils51 to prepare Fishery Management Plans for 
management of fishery stocks.  Members of the Fishery Management Councils are nominated by the 
State governors in each region and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.52  T h e  
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conser vation Act (MSA) sets out the requirements for 
                                                      
50 Except for Texas and Florida, which have jurisdicti on for the first 9 miles off- shore, and Puerto Rico 
which has jurisdiction for the first 12 miles off-shore. 
51 Each Regional Fishery Management  Council corresponds to one of  the eight fishery regions:  
North Pacific, Western Pacific, Gulf  of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, New England, Pacific, South Atlantic, and 
Caribbean. 
52 NMFS (2009), p. 4.  United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 115 
 
 
the ten Fishery Management Plans.  In addition, the National Standards for Fishery Conservation and 
Management guide the development of each manage ment plan to address various issues, such as 
preventing overfishing, using best available scientif ic information, equitable distribution of fishing 
privileges among States and fishermen, bycatch, and safety.  
54. The NMFS is also the host for the Interna tional Monitoring, Cont rol and Surveillance 
Network, which seeks to link fisheries enforcement agencies from different countries to reduce illegal, 
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. 
55. Several other federal government agencies are also involved in developing and implementing 
fisheries policies, including:   
 the United States Coast Guard (USCG), which is responsible for protecting the EEZ and 
enforcing domestic fisheries laws at sea, as well as the requirements of applicable international fisheries agreements;
53  
 the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which th rough the Fisheries and Habitat Conservation 
Program and the Fisheries Aquatic Resource Program, provides advice and assistance to federal and sub-federal agencies and programme s on conservation, and supports the federal 
hatchery system.  Along with NOAA, the FWS chairs the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 
Force, which develops strategies to identify a nd reduce the risk of introduction of invasive 
species and minimize the harmful effects of on es already introduced into U.S. waters;
54  and 
 the Marine Mammal Commission, which supports  and conducts research and reviews of the 
conservation and status of marine mammal stoc ks, and provides advice to the Secretaries of 
Commerce, Interior, and State on policies and programmes for conservation and protection at 
both the domestic and international levels.55 
56. The MSA is the principal legislation on fisheries.56  It was first passed in 1976 and was 
amended in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006.  The MSA provides the legal basis 
for the management and conservation of fisheries st ocks, including the prohibition of overfishing, the 
rebuilding of overfished stocks, and the conservati on of fish habitats.  Other laws that regulate 
fisheries include:  the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the National Environmental Policy Act;  and the Lacey Act, 
which prohibits fish and wildlife trafficking and other transactions that violate federal, Native 
American, tribal or foreign laws. 
57. The main focus of fisheries policy is to end overfishing and rebuild st ocks based on scientific 
assessments of stocks and market-based management  approaches to conservation.  The eight Fishery 
Management Councils, responsible for fishery manage ment in each region, work with the NMFS to 
prepare Fishery Management Plans (see above).  
58. Under the MSA, the Department of Commerce is required to report annually to Congress on 
the status of U.S. fisheries.  According to the re port for 2011, of the 537 stocks and stock complexes 
subject to fishery management plans, 258 had a known overfishing status and 36 were subject to 
                                                      
53 United States Coast Guard online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.uscg.mil/ [April 2012]. 
54 Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ 
default.php [April 2012]. 
55 Marine Mammal Commission online information.  Viewed at:  http://mmc.gov/index.shtml 
[April 2012]. 
56 16 U.S.C. 1801. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 116 
  
overfishing (i.e. current harvesting above maximu m sustainable yield).  Furthermore, 219 had a 
known overfished status and 45 were overfished (i .e. current population below its potential biomass 
level).  Overall, progress has been made to improve sustainable fishing as 27 stocks have been rebuilt 
since 2000, and the NMFS's Fish Stock Sustainab ility Index shows a steady improvement since 
2000.57 
59. The MSA requires that the fisheries manageme nt plans establish annua l catch limits for all 
fisheries stocks and all fisheries are to be mana ged under annual catch limits in 2012.  According to 
one report, a growing number of federally manage d fisheries are being managed through exclusive 
quota programmes and cooperatives, limited-access privilege programmes, and individual fishing 
quotas.58  However, the NMFS's focus on ecosystem-b ased management means that such programmes 
are unlikely to be the only methods used, and fisheries management tools will depend on many 
factors.59  
60. The United States is party to nine regional fishery management organizations for the 
conservation and management of specific species, control of bycatch, and addressing IUU fishing.60  
The United States has also concluded a number of b ilateral and regional agreem ents on shared stocks 
with other countries, particularly Canada.  Under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, U.S.-flagged tuna 
purse seine vessels have access to fi sheries in the waters of the 16 other treaty countries (mostly small 
island nations) in return for which the U.S. tuna  industry provides US$3 million each year to the 
Forum Fisheries Agency and, in association w ith the Treaty, under an Economic Assistance 
Agreement between the U.S. Department of Stat e and the Forum, the U.S. Government provides 
US$18 million into an economic development fund administered by the Forum.61   
61. Support to the fisheries sector in the United States is provided through a number of 
programmes at federal and sub-fede ral levels.  Under the National St andards for Fishery Conservation 
and Management, the measures taken to manage fisheries are required to minimize the adverse 
economic impacts on fishing communities.62  In addition, disaster assi stance may be provided under 
the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and the MSA in response to a disaster63, with US$170.4 million in 
total government financial transfers provided for disaster relief in 2007. The MSA also gives the 
NMFS the authority to implement a capacity-reduction programme, such as a vessel buyback scheme.
64  However, vessel buyback schemes in 2005- 07 did not involve government transfers, with 
any official loans being repaid at market rates from landing fees.65 
62. The most recent figures for Government support to  the fisheries sector are from the OECD for 
2008.  Total Government financial transfers to th e marine capture sector, at US$2,084 million, are 
quite high compared with other OECD countries as th ey are equivalent to 47% of the total landed 
value, while in the OECD as a whole they are equivalent to 20% of landed value.  In the United States, most of the total Government fina ncial transfer is for General Services (mostly 
                                                      
57 NMFS (2012).   
58 OECD (2009b), p. 371.   
59 NMFS (2009), p. 7-8. 
60 International Commission  for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT);  North Atlantic Salmon  
Conservation Organization  (NASCO);   Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO);   Inter-American 
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC);  International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC),  North Pacific 
Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC);  Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), Western and Central Pacific 
Fisheries Convention (WCPFC);   and Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource. 
61 NMFS (2011c). 
62 16 USC 1851 Sec 301(8).PL 94-265 as amended by PL 104-297, 109-479. 
63 16 USC 1851 Sec 312(a).PL 94-265 as amended by PL 104-297, 109-479. 
64 16 USC 1851 Sec 312(b).PL 94-265 as amended by PL 104-297, 109-479. 
65 OECD (2009b), p. 370. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 117 
 
 
enforcement and surveillance and research/managemen t services).  Direct payments and cost-reducing 
transfers are equivalent to 6% of the total landed value, which is the same as for the OECD as a 
whole.66  Imports of most fishery products are duty free (Table AIII.1) but tariffs are charged on some 
(essentially a small number of processed products such as canned tuna, sardines and oysters, smoked 
salmon, and frozen crabmeat).  These tariffs resulted in a transfer from consumers to the fishery sector 
of about US$68 million in 2007.67 
63. Fishers are entitled to an income tax credit for most of the federal fuel tax they pay on the 
grounds that most of the tax is for the Highway Tr ust Fund (HTF) and fuel for fishing does not use the 
highways, just as other non-highway uses are also exempt from paying into the HTF.  The current 
federal fuel tax is US$0.244 per gallon for diesel a nd US$0.184 per gallon for petrol.  The tax credit is 
US$0.243 per gallon for diesel and US$0.183 per gall on for petrol, which represents the part of the 
tax that is for the highway use.  The remaini ng US$0.001 goes to the Leaking Underground Storage 
Tank Trust Fund.  Fishers may also be entitled to concessions from State and local fuel taxes which 
range from US$0.08 to US$0.32 per gallon in coastal States.68 
(3) SERVICES  
(i) Environmental services 
(a) Market structure 
64. The U.S. market for environmental services is matu re;  its growth has been heavily influenced 
by the development of environmen tal regulations during the 1960s to 1990s, both at federal and 
sub-federal level.  It is also the largest singl e market for environmental services (Table IV.8). 
Table IV.8 
Market structure of environmental services 
 
Water utilities and waste water treatment services  
U.S. share of the global market (2008) 40% of a US$212.6 billion market  
Number of firms and employees (2010) 87,990 firms and 366,600 employees  
Share of revenues of publicly owned water 
utilities companies (2010) 88%  
Exports and imports (cross-border trade + 
affiliates sales) (2009) US$0.32 billion and US$2.7 billion  
Main private companies American Water Works Inc. and E Town Waters (subsidiaries of Germany’s RWE);  
American States Water Company;  Aqua America;  California Water Services Group;  
Connecticut Water Inc.;  United Waters (subsidiary of France's Suez);  U.S. Filter 
(subsidiary of France's Veolia);  Severn Trent Services (subsidiary of UK's Severn Trent Plc.);  etc. 
Level of regulation Federal (Environmental Protection Agency) and subfederal (state public utility commissions) 
Main regulations Clean Water Act(1972);  Water Quality Act (1987);  Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
(1987);  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (1997) 
Main objectives of the regulations  Quality and performance standards, environmental protection, investment funding, security, 
pricing (for investor-owned utilities and for all utilities in 12 states) and universal service   
Solid and hazardous waste management services 
U.S. share of the global market (2008) 39% 
Share of the private sector in the revenues  
Solid waste management industry (2010) 74% 
Hazardous waste management industry (2010) 96% 
Market size, number of firms, and employment 
(2010) Solid waste:  US$53.4 billion, 9,950 firms, and 278,000 employees;   
hazardous waste:  US$9 billion, 480 firms, and 43,600 employees 
Table IV.8 (cont'd) 
                                                      
66 OECD (2012), p. 67.  
67 OECD (2012), p. 503. 
68 Martini (2012). WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 118 
  
Volume produced (2009 and 2010) Municipal solid waste:  249.86 million tonnes (2010);   
hazardous waste:  35.3 million tonnes (2009) 
Public sector customer / private sector customer 
ratio (2010) Solid waste  59%-41%;  h azardous waste:  45%-55% 
Concentration (2010) Municipal solid waste sector:  publicly traded investor-owned firms account for about 60% 
of municipal solid waste revenues.  Two firms (Waste Management and Republic Services) 
generated over 60% of such revenues.  Solid and hazardous waste sector :  four companies 
(Waste Management Inc., Republic Services Inc., Covanta Holding Corporation, and Clean Harbors Inc.) account for about 65%, two firms (Waste Management Inc. and Republic 
Services Inc.) account for about 48%  
Assets and annual sales of the top U.S.-based 
waste management firms, and remediation 
affiliates of foreign-owned firms (2008) US$8.3 billion and US$5.9 billion 
Sales of affiliates associated with direct 
investment, waste management, and remediation services (2010) FDI in the United States:  ..
a;  U.S. direct investment abroad:  US$1.3 billion 
Exports and imports (2009) Solid waste management services:  exports:  US$0.15 billion;  imports:  US$0.7 billion;  
hazardous waste management serv ices:  exports:  US$0.09 billi on;  imports:  US$0.1 billion 
Main private companies Municipal solid waste segment:  Waste Management Inc.;  Allied Waste Industries;  
Republic Services;  Onyx (subsidiary of France's Veolia).  Incineration segment:  Ogden 
Projects;  Wheelabrator Technologies and American Ref-fuel.  Hazardous waste segment:  
Clean Harbors Inc.;  Onyx;  Philip Services;  Medical Waste Stericycle 
Level of regulation Federal (Environmental Protection Agency) and sub-federal (state and local government 
environmental agencies) 
Main regulations Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965);  Pollution Prevention Act (1990);  Resources 
Conservation and Recovery Act (1976);  Hazardous and Solid Waste amendments (1984);  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act/"Superfund" (1980) 
Main objectives of the regulations Quality and performance standards, environmental protection, liabilities pricing, and 
universal service   
Air and noise pollution abattement services 
Revenues (2010) Engineering and consulting segment:  US$1.7 billion; 
Analytical services segment US$0.06 billion (air pollution-related revenues only) 
Main private companies Babcok and Wilcox;  Babcock Power;  General Electric;  Thermo Electron; Wheelabrator;  
ABB Environmental Systems (Switzerland);  Alstom (France);  Hamon Research Cottrell (Belgium);  Hitz America (Japan);  KWH (Germany);  Marsulex Environmental Services (Canada);  Mitsubishi Power Systems (Japan) 
Level of regulation Federal (Environmental Protection Agency) and sub-federal (state and local government 
environmental agencies) 
Main regulations  Clean Air Act (1963) and its 1990 amendments;  Air Quality Act (1967);  Toxic Release 
Inventory (1986);  Lead Phasedown Program (1982);  Acid Rain Cap and Trade Program 
(1990);  Noise control Act (1972);  Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970);  Aircraft Noise And Capacity Act (1990) 
Main objectives of the regulations Quality and performance standards, and environmental protection 
Remediation and nature and landscape protection (NLP) services
U.S. share of the global remediation and industrial services market (2010) 28.6% of a US$44.8 billion market 
Revenues, number of firms and employment in 
remediation and industrial services (2010) US$12.8 billion revenues, 2,060 firms, and 108,400 workers 
Exportations and importations of remediation and 
industrial services (2009) US$ 0.79 billion and US$ 0.5 billion 
Main private companies Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc.;  Bechtel Group Inc.;  Parsons, Fluor Daniel 
Inc.;  C2HM hill;  URS Corp.;  Washington Group International  
Level of regulation Federal (Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast 
Guard, Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Interior);  and sub-federal (state and local government 
environmental agencies) 
Main regulations Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (1976);  Comprehensive Environmental 
Response;  Compensation and Liability Act/CERCLA-"Superfund" (1980) 
Main objectives of the regulations Quality and performance standards, and environmental protection 
.. Not available.  
a Data on FDI in U.S. waste management and remediation servi ces affiliates were supressed for the years 2007 through 2010 to 
 avoid disclosure of info rmation on individual firms.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on information provided by the U.S. authorities. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 119 
 
 
65. The degree of private-sector involvement in the collective, network-based environmental 
services (water and waste-water management services, refuse disposal services) in the U.S. market remains relatively marginal as most consumers ar e served by publicly owned or cooperative utilities 
(Table IV.9).    
Table IV.9  
Private-sector involvement in water and waste water treatment services, 2012 
Private ownership BOO/BOT  Concession Lease Operation/ 
management 
contract Outsourcing 
Main characteristics        
Duration Indefinite  20-30 years  20-30 years  5-15 years  3-7 years  1-2 years  
Ownership of assets Private  Public  Public  Public  Public  Public  
Source of capital investment Private  Private  Private  Public  Public  Public  
Scope of private-sector 
responsibilities Entire system  Entire system 
(BOO);  parts of the system 
(BOT)  Entire 
system  Entire 
system  Entire system  Parts of the 
system  
Water utilities (number, 
population served, production, revenues) 50% of the total, 
(16% "for profit" utilities) serving 11% of the population 
1.7 trillion gallons per 
year .. .. .. .. .. 
Private drinking-water business 
US$4.3 billion revenues .. .. .. .. 
Waste water utilities (number, 
population served, production, revenues) 4,200, i.e. 20% of the 
total, serving 3% of the population 2,000 facilities operate under a public-private partnership;  they generate revenue 
of US$1.5 billion annually 
Water and waste water utilities 
combined Population receiving wa ter services from a privatel y owned water utility or a m unicipal utility  operating 
under a public private partnership:  73 million 
Solid waste management utilities  ..  
.. Not available.  
Source:   National Association of Water Companies online informat ion, "Private Water Servic e Providers Quick Facts".  
Viewed at:  http://www.nawc.org /uploads/documents-and-publications /documents/document_ecf5b3ac-c222-
4b6c-b99f-a0128ae1e9aa.pdf [3 May 2012].    
(b) Trade regime  
66. The U.S. trade regimes for environmental services appear very open.  The United States has 
full GATS commitments on environmental services, as defined by the classic GATS classifications (which do not include the distribution of fresh/drinking water).
69  However for two subsectors, sewage 
services and refuse disposal services, those commitments are limited to services contracted by private industry (Table IV.10).  U.S. free-trade agreements contain no reservations for national treatment with 
respect to environmental services.  With resp ect to the market access obligation, the same 
modifications apply as in the GATS, for sewage an d refuse disposal services contracted by private 
                                                      
69 Distribution of fresh water is often considered as an environmental service and is delivered in bundle 
with waste water treatment, by the same utility, and with  a single bill.  However there are various views as to 
where water supply services should be  classified.  The environmental serv ices category of the CPC provisions 
refers only to sewage services and adds that "collec tion, purification and distribution services of water are 
classified in subclass 18000 (Natural water)", the latter be longing to the goods section of the CPC.  The latest 
version of the CPC (CPC 2) has included "water distribution services" under Section 8 ("Business and 
production services").  In classi fication discussions which took place in the Committee on Specific 
Commitments, a proposal to list water collection, purification and distribution under environmental services was 
opposed by several Members.  On the other hand, relevant publications on environmental services tend to 
address both water supply and wastewat er services, and references to water supply as an environmental service 
are found in several non-U.S. preferential trade agreements.  WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 120 
  
industry.  Commitments by the United States in 1994 and 2012 under the WTO Government 
Procurement Agreement (GPA) are negatively liste d and based on the MTN.GNS/W/120 list.  They 
therefore include environmental services, subject to the reservations listed in annex 4 of the 
U.S. commitments.  While environmental services ar e not mentioned explicitly in these reservations, 
the reservation on "public utilities services" cover some environmental services. The government 
procurement commitments under the various U.S. fre e-trade agreements echo this exclusion, though 
in most instances with slightly different wording.70  The applied regime is very open, including for 
publicly contracted services, with numerous fore ign firms present and treated according to the 
national treatment principle. 
Table IV.10 
Summarized trade regimes for environmental services 
Subsectorsa GATSb FTAsc Applied regime  
6A Sewage services 
contracted  by private 
industry  1) 2) 3) none for 
MA and MT 
4) unbound, except as indicated in the 
horizontal section 
for MA and none for MT No restrictions on national 
treatment.  Replicates 
GATS treatment for the market access obligation 
(whereby the scope of 
covered services is defined)
d No restrictions 
6B Refuse disposal 
services contracted  by 
private industry "There are no known measures that are imposed 
specifically on foreign providers of waste services 
industry"  
6.C Sanitation and 
similar services 1) 2) 3) none for 
MA and MT 
4) unbound, except 
as indicated in the horizontal section 
for MA and none for 
MT No restrictions on national 
treatment.  Replicates 
GATS treatment for the 
market access obligation (whereby the scope of 
covered services is 
defined)  No restrictions  
6.D Other environmental 
services (cleaning of exhaust gases, noise 
abatement services, 
nature and landscape services, other 
environmental services 
not elsewhere classified) "The U.S. market for air pollution abatement services 
is open to imports as well as foreign investors.  Numerous European, Canadi an, and Japanese firms 
have acquired U.S. firms or  established affiliates in 
the United States and some maintain manufacturing and engineering operations in the U.S. market" 
"The United States maintains no known trade 
restrictions specifically rela ting to foreign providers  
of remediation  and  nature and landscape protection 
services or relating to foreign investment  in these 
industry segments"  
a The order and structure of the subsectors follow the U.S. GATS commitments not the CPC. 
b All U.S. environmental services commitments under the GATS are qualified by two footnotes:  footnote 19 "In each of the 
following subsectors, U.S. commitments ar e limited to the following activities:  im plementation and installation of new or 
existing systems for environmental cleanup, remediation, preven tion and monitoring;  implementation of environmental quality 
control and pollution reduction services;  maintenance and repair of environment- related systems and facilities not already 
covered by the US commitments on maintenance and repair of equipment;  on-site environmental investigation, evaluation, 
monitoring;  sample collection services;  tr aining on site or at the facility;  consulting related to these areas";  footnote 2 0:  
Nothing in this offer related to transpor tation should be construed to supersede th e existing U.S. commitments on transportatio n 
or related MFN exemptions (WTO document GATS/SC/90, 15 April 1994, p. 50). 
c U.S. FTAs except the one with Jordan ar e negative listing agreements that are not im mediately comparable to the GATS, which 
follows a positive approach for listing co mmitments.  However, commitments subscr ibed in FTAs and in GATS are broadly 
similar and very liberal.  For the purpose of the present table "FTAs" means:  NAFTA , U.S.-Jordan, U.S.-Chile, U.S.-Singapore, 
U.S.-Australia, U.S.-Morocco, CAFTA-DR, U.S.-Bahrain, U.S.-Oman, U.S.-Peru, U.S.-Korea, and U.S.-Colombia.   
d The precise text of the reservation by which U.S. GATS co mmitments with respect to th e market access obligation are 
incorporated in the FTA, reads:  "The Unite d States reserves the right to adopt or ma intain any measure that  is not inconsisten t 
with the United States' obligations under ar ticle XVI of the GATS".  In addition, the scope of the national treatment commitmen t 
for sewage and refuse disposal is not lim ited to privately contracted services.    
Source:  WTO Secretariat;  USITC (2004), Solid and Hazardous Waste Services:  An Examination of U.S. and Foreign 
Markets , pp. 3-11 and 3-12, April.  Viewed at:  http ://www.usitc.gov/publicati ons/332/pub3679.pdf;  USITC 
(2005), Air and Noise Pollution Abatement Services:  An  Examination of U.S. and Foreign Markets , p. 4-12, April.  
Viewed at:  http:// www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/pubs /332/pub3761.pdf;  and USITC (2004), Remediation and 
Nature and Landscape Protection Services:  An Examination of  U.S. and Foreign Markets , p. 3-17, October.  
Viewed at:  http://www.usitc .gov/publications/332/pub3727.pdf.  
                                                      
70 Identical to GATS "public utilities services for th e agreement with Singapore, "utilities:  all" in the 
FTAs with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Morocco, Oman, Peru, the CAFTA-DR, and Colombia.  United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 121 
 
 
(ii) Financial services  
(a) Overview of the sector 
67. The financial services sector accounted for 8.5% of U.S. GDP in 2010, 47% of which was 
generated by banking activities, 33%  by insurance, 16% by securities trading activities, and the rest 
by funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles.71  Over the last decade, th e U.S. has run trade surpluses 
in financial services and trade deficits in insuran ce.  In 2010, exports of financial services, excluding 
insurance, amounted to US$66.4 billion, while impor ts amounted to US$13.8 billion.  Also in 2010, 
exports of insurance services reached US$14.6 billi on, while imports amounted to US$61.8 billion.  
The U.S. sells more financial services through compan ies' foreign affiliates than it buys from foreign 
companies' affiliates established in the United Stat es.  In 2009, sales of financial services, including 
insurance, to foreign persons by U.S. multinati onal corporations amounted to US$226 billion, while 
sales of financial services to U.S. persons by  foreign multinational corporations were 
US$147 billion.72 
68. There were 1,711 "large" commercial banks in  the United States at end-March 2011, each 
with consolidated assets of US$300 million or more.  Their total consolidated assets amounted to 
US$12 trillion, of which 87% were domestic assets.73   
69. At end-March 2012, foreign banks from 57 countries and territories had offices in the 
United States.74  The assets held by these offices totalled US$3.2 trillion (21.8% of total assets of the 
U.S. commercial banking system), while their depos its amounted to US$1.7 trillion (16.9% of total 
deposits in the U.S. commercial banking system).  U.S. banking offices of fo reign banks contributed 
15.3% of total commercial ba nk lending at end March 2012.75   
70. The U.S. insurance market is the world's la rgest, with gross insurance premiums of 
US$1.20 trillion in 2011, or 26.2% of the world market; of which US$537 billion were in life and health insurance, and US$667 billion in property and casualty insurance.
76  The United States is 14th 
in the world in terms of insurance premiums per cap ita, with US$3,846 per head in 2011.  Insurance 
penetration (premiums as a percentage of GDP) was 8.1% in 2011. 
71. The United States has the largest securities market in the world.77  At end 2011, market 
capitalization was US$15.6 trillion, representing about 103% of U.S. GDP, while the value of shares 
traded in U.S. stock markets totalled US$30.8 trillion, about 204% of U.S. GDP.78   
                                                      
71 BEA online information, "Industry Economic  Accounts".  Viewed at:  http://www.bea.gov/industry. 
72 BEA online information.  Viewed at:  http://www .bea.gov/;  and Koncz-Bruner and Flatness (2011). 
73 Federal Reserve online information, "Statistical Release:  Large Commercial Banks as of 
31 March 2011".  Viewed at:  http://www.feder alreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/default.htm. 
74 See Federal Reserve online information, "U.S. Offices of Foreign Banking Organizations by 
Country, 31 March 2012".  Viewed at:  http://www.f ederalreserve.gov/releases/iba/201203/bycntry.htm. 
75 U.S. banking offices of foreign banks include foreign-owned banks and U.S. branches and agencies 
of foreign banks.  See Federal Reserve online information, "Share Data for U.S. Offices of Foreign Banking 
Organizations".  Viewed at:  http://www.fe deralreserve.gov/releases/iba/fboshr.htm. 
76 Swiss Re (2012). 
77 McKinsey Global Institute (2011), Exhibit E2. 
78 See World Bank online information, "World  Development Indicators".  Viewed at:  
data.worldbank.org.  Market capitalization is the market va lue of all domestic listed co mpanies, and the value of 
shares traded is the annual total tu rnover of listed company shares.  A ccording to data provided by the 
U.S. Census Bureau, at the end of 2010, market capita lization in the United States represented about 32% of 
market capitalization in all stock markets around the wo rld.  See U.S. Census Bu reau online information, WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 122 
  
(b) Legislative and regulatory developments 
72. The main regulatory reform since the last TPR of the United States, the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P ub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) (the Dodd-Frank Act), 
entered into force on 21 July 2010.79  As stated in its introductory paragraph, the Act's objectives 
include promoting financial stability, ending "too bi g to fail", ending bailout s, protecting taxpayers, 
and protecting consumers from a busive financial services practices.80  The Act does not introduce 
market access or national treatment limitations, but establishes a new and comprehensive regulatory 
framework and extends regulation over ne w markets, entities, and activities.   
73. In total, the Dodd-Frank Act mandates 398 rulemaking requirements by 20 regulatory 
agencies, a process that is still on-going.  As of  1 June 2012, 110 of th e rulemaking requirements 
(27.6%) have resulted in finalized rules;  rules ha ve been proposed, but not yet finalized for another 
144 (36.2%);  and rules have not yet been proposed for the remaining 144 (36.2%).81   
74. Section 173 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Access to United States financial market by foreign 
institutions) introduces modifications to sections 7(d )(3) and 7(e)(1) of the International Banking Act 
of 1978 and to section 15 of the Securities Exch ange Act of 1934.  The amended International 
Banking Act now explicitly requires the Board of G overnors of the Federal Reserve System, when 
considering an application for establishment of a U.S.  office of a foreign bank that presents a risk to 
the stability of the United States financial system, to  consider whether the home country of the foreign 
bank has adopted, or is making demonstrable progr ess toward adopting, an appropriate system of 
financial regulation for the financial system of such home country to mitigate such risk.82  The new 
amendments also allow the Board to order the term ination of the activities of U.S. offices of such 
foreign banks in the absence of these criteria.  Sim ilarly, the SEC is now required, when considering 
an application for establishment of a foreign broker or dealer that presents a risk to consider the same 
criteria regarding home country regulation.  The SEC is also explicitly authorized to rescind the authorization of such foreign brokers or dealers if  the home country authority has not taken the steps 
required. 
75. Section 604(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act amends section 3(c) of the Bank Holding Company 
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)), making it mandato ry for the Federal Reserve Board, when 
considering a proposed acquisition, merger or consolid ation, to "take into consideration the extent to 
which a proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidatio n would result in greater or more concentrated 
risks to the stability of the United States banking or financial system".
83   
76. The Dodd-Frank Act introduces important chang es in the U.S. financial services regulatory 
structure.  It eliminates the Office of Thrift Superv ision, whose functions have been transferred to the 
Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insuran ce Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the 
                                                                                                                                                                     
"Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012, Ta ble 1397:  U.S. and Foreign Stock Markets-Market 
Capitalization and Value of Shares Traded:  2002 to 2010".  Viewed at:  http://www.census.gov/ 
compendia/statab/). 
79 Library of Congress online information, "THOMAS Home:  Bills, Resolutions:  Bill Summary & 
Status :  111th Congress (2009-2010):  H.R.4173:  All Inform ation".  Viewed at  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR04173:@@@L&summ2=m&#major%20actions.  
80 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (undated). 
81 Davis Polk Dodd-Frank (2012).  
82 To see the other criteria applied to approve applications, see "International Banking Act of 1978", 
available at the FDIC website (http ://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules /8000-4800.html) and the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934, available at the SEC webs ite (http://www.sec.gov/abo ut/laws.shtml#secexact1934). 
83 For an example of the application of this provision, see FRB Order No. 2012-4 (9 May 2012). United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 123 
 
 
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).84  The Act also establishes a Financial Stability Oversight 
Council (FSOC), which is aimed primarily at co mprehensive macro-pruden tial oversight of the 
U.S. financial system, and which has therefore been mandated with monitoring, identifying, and 
addressing systemic risks posed by financial firms, products, and activities.85  The FSOC, a type of 
"umbrella" regulatory agency, may make recommenda tions within its remit, but has no immediate 
enforcement powers. 
77. The Act establishes several offices, committees , and bureaus within existing regulatory 
agencies:  the Consumer Financial Protection Bure au (CFPB) (an independent bureau of the Federal 
Reserve System that includes an Office of Fina ncial Education, Office of Fair Lending and Equal 
Opportunity, and Office of Financial Protection of Older Americans);  the Office of the Investor 
Advocate (OIA);  Office of Credit Ratings (OCR);  and Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) (all within the Securities and Exchange Commission), and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and Office 
of Financial Research (OFR), both within the Treasury Department. 
78. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is mandated to regulate the offering and provision 
of consumer financial products and services under federal consumer fi nancial protection laws.  In so 
doing, the Bureau will, inter alia , supervise covered entities (i.e. in sured depository institutions and 
credit unions with assets greater than US$10 billion) for compliance with federal consumer financial 
protection laws and regulations, a nd take appropriate enforcement action to address violations, and 
issue new rules, orders, and guidance implementi ng federal consumer fina ncial protection laws.
86   
79. The new Federal Insurance Office has been mandated to monitor much of the insurance 
industry, to recommend insurance regulation, and to  coordinate federal efforts with regard to 
international prudential insurance matters.  All lines of insurance will be under the purview of the new 
Office, except health insurance, certain l ong-term care insurance, and crop insurance. 
80. In the case of derivatives reform, the Dodd-Fr ank Act gives the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority to regulate over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, including the clear ing, reporting, and trading of certain products 
and the entities that buy and sell them.  Certain OT C derivatives will be required to be traded on 
regulated exchanges or trading platforms, and th e trades will have to be submitted to regulated 
clearinghouses.  Clearinghouses must submit proposals to regulators before accepting swaps or security-based swaps for clearing, and regulators will be required to evaluate which swaps and 
security-based swaps will be cleared centrally.  In  addition, regulators will have the authority to 
impose capital, margin, reporting, record-keepi ng, and conduct requirements on swap dealers, 
security-based swap dealers, major swap participan ts, and major security-based swap participants, to 
ensure, among other things, that they have adequate  financial resources to meet their responsibilities.  
Banks that are insured depositary institutions will be required to spin-off their riskiest derivatives 
trading operations into affiliates if the banks wish to remain eligible for federal assistance, although 
they will be allowed to keep operations for interest  rate swaps, foreign-exchange swaps, and gold and 
silver swaps. 
                                                      
84 The thrift charter is preserved, though. 
85 The FSOC, made up of ten voting members (nine federal financial regulatory agencies and an 
independent member with insurance expertise) and five non-voting members, is chaired by the Treasury 
Secretary.  For further details, see U.S. Department of the Treasury online information, "Financial Stability 
Oversight Council". Viewed at: http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Financial%20 Stability%20Oversight%20Council.pdf. 
86 The Bureau will be led by a Director who will be  appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate for a five-year term.  Although the Bureau will be  housed within the Federal Reserve, it is independent 
and the Federal Reserve Board may not interf ere with its functions or personnel.   WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 124 
  
81. As per Title IX, Subtitle C of the Dodd-Frank Act (Improvements to the regulation of credit 
rating agencies), credit rating agencies will be subjec t to additional regulatory oversight by the SEC.  
Nationally recognized statistical ratings organizatio ns (NRSROs) will be required to disclose their 
methodologies, their use of third parties for due dilig ence efforts, and their ratings track record.  The 
SEC may de-register a credit rating agency if regulatory requirements are not met over time.87  
(c) The "Volcker rule" 
82. The Volcker rule, as embodied in Section 61 9 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Prohibitions on 
proprietary trading and certain re lationships with hedge funds and private equity funds), generally 
contains two prohibitions.88  It prohibits "banking entities" (i nsured depository institutions, bank 
holding companies, and their subsidiaries or aff iliates) from engaging in short-term proprietary 
trading of any security, derivative, and certain othe r financial instruments for a banking entity's own 
account, subject to certain exemptions.  In additi on, it prohibits "banking entities" from acquiring or 
retaining any equity, partnership, or other owners hip interest in or from sponsoring a hedge fund or 
private equity fund, subject to certain exemptions .  The term "banking entities" includes foreign banks 
that maintain branches or agencies in the United Stat es or that own U.S. ba nks or commercial lending 
companies in the United States.  These banks, as we ll as their parent holding companies, are referred 
to in U.S. regulations as "foreign banking organizations".  
Ban on "proprietary trading" 
83. According to Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, investments made "for the trading account" 
of a covered banking entity would be deemed proprietary trading and therefore prohibited.89  
However, there are exemptions.  Section 619 specifically permits trading transactions (i) in 
government securities (e.g. securities issued by the U.S. government or a U.S. government agency, 
government-sponsored enterprises, and state and local governments); (ii) in connection with 
underwriting or market-making, on behalf of customers;   and (iii) by an insurance company solely for 
the general account of the company.  In addition,  the Act permits certain risk-mitigating hedging, as 
well as proprietary trading occurring "solely outside of the United States" and conducted by a banking 
entity that is not directly or indirectly controlled by a banking entity that is organized under the laws 
of the United States or of one or more States.  However, the Act prohibits  covered banking entities 
from engaging in any of these exempted transactions  or activities if it would involve a material 
                                                      
87 See also "Proposed Rules for Na tionally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations", SEC, 17 CFR 
Parts 232, 240, and 249, and 249b Release No. 34-64514; File No. S7-18-11 RIN 3235-AL15. 
88 The implementing regulation has not been finalized at the time of writing.  See Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on "Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests In, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds", Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Press 
Release, 11 October 2011.  Viewed at:  http://www.f ederalreserve.gov/newsevents/ press/bcreg/20111011a.htm. 
89 According to the Dodd-Frank Act, the term "proprietary trading" means engaging as a principal for 
the trading account of the banking entity or nonbank financial company supervised by the Board in any 
transaction to purchase or sell, or otherwise acquire or dispose of, any security, any derivative, any contract of 
sale of a commodity for future delivery, any option on any such security, derivative, or contract, or any other 
security or financial instrument that the appropriate Federal banking agencies, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may determine in the implementing regulation.  The term "trading account" is defined by the Act as an y account used for acquiring or taking positions in the 
securities and instruments described in the definition of "proprietary trading", principally for the purpose of 
selling in the near term (or otherwise with the intent to resell in order to profit from short-term price movements), and any such other accounts as the Federal banking agencies, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may determine in the implementing regulation 
(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Viewed at:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ BILLS-111hr4173enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4173enr.pdf).   United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 125 
 
 
conflict of interest between the en tity and its clients, or result in a material exposure to high-risk 
assets or trading strategies, or pose a threat to th e safety and soundness of the banking entity or to the 
financial stability of the United States.  
Ban on investment in or sponsorship of a fund 
84. As noted, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits banking entities from acquiring or retaining any 
ownership interest in or from s ponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds.  The Act defines a 
"hedge fund" and a "private equity fund" to include any issuer that would be considered an investment 
company under the Investment Company Act of 19 40, except those under sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) 
of that Act.90  
85. However, the Dodd-Frank Act allows a banking entity to organize and offer a hedge fund or 
private equity fund if:  (i) it provides bona fide tr ust, fiduciary, or investment advisery services;  
(ii) the fund is organized and offered only in conn ection with such services and only to customers of 
such services of the banking entity;  (iii) it does not have an ownership interest in the fund except for 
a de minimis investment;  (iv) it does not guarant ee, assume, or otherwise insure obligations or 
performance of the fund;  (v) it does not share the same  or similar name as the fund;  (vi) no director 
or employee of the banking entity has an ownership interest in the fund;  and (vii) it discloses, in 
writing, to investors in the fund that any losses in th e fund are borne solely by the investors and not by 
the banking entity.  
86. Despite the general prohibition, a banking entity may make a "de minimis" investment in a 
fund it advises, for the purpose of providing the fund sufficient initial equity to attract unaffiliated 
investors.  This investment may not exceed 3% of to tal ownership interest of the fund within one year 
after the date of its establishment (the Board of  Governors of the Federal Reserve may extend the 
period for two years), and must be "immaterial" to the banking entity, and in no case may the aggregate of all of the interests of the banking entit y in all such funds exceed 3% of its Tier 1 capital. 
(d) New regime for private fund advisers 
87. Section 403 of the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated th e "private adviser exemption" contained in 
section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act of 1940.  Th e exemption allowed advisers with fewer than 
15 clients to avoid registration with the SEC, a nd allowed those advisers to count each fund as a 
client, as opposed to each investor in a fund.  In e liminating this exemption, the law generally extends 
registration requirements under the Advisers Act to al most all advisers to private funds (hedge funds 
and private equity funds).  The final rules implem enting this provision were released by the SEC on 
22 June 2011, and advisers subject to the rules were required to register with the SEC by 
30 March 2012.
91  Registration entails significant re gulatory and compliance obligations.  
88. The SEC's rules define three new exemptions from the Advisers Act registration requirements 
for (i) advisers solely to venture capital funds;  (ii) advisers solely to private funds with less than US$150 million in assets under management in the United States;  and (iii) certain foreign advisers 
without a place of business in the United States.  To qualify for the latter, the final rules require that 
an adviser must comply with the following require ments:  (a) have no place of business in the 
United States;  (b) have, in total, less than 15 clients in the United States and investors in the 
United States in private funds advised by the advi ser;  (c) have less than US$25 million in aggregate 
assets under management attributable to clients in th e United States and investors in the United States 
in private funds advised by the adviser; and (d) not hold itself out generally to the public in the 
                                                      
90 See Investment Company Act of 1940.  View ed at:  http://www.sec. gov/about/laws/ica40.pdf. 
91 Securities and Exchange Commission (2011). WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 126 
  
United States as an investment adviser.  Non-U.S. advisers may rely on the other two exemptions as 
well.  
89. All advisers must provide information regarding their advisory business, including the types 
of clients, their employees, and their advisory  activities, any business practices that may present 
significant conflicts of interest, their non-advisory activities, and their financ ial industry affiliations.  
Private fund advisers must provide additional information about each fund they advise.  
(e) Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) 
90. Under Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSO C may determine that a U.S. or a foreign 
non-bank financial company should be subject to supervision by the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System and to prudential standa rds with respect to financial activities if the 
company's material financial distress or the nature or mix of its activities could pose a threat to the 
financial stability of the United States.  Section 115 of the Act also subjects bank holding companies 
(U.S. and foreign) with more than US$50 billion in assets to enhanced supervision and prudential 
standards.  The FSOC shall (a) give due regard to the principle of national treatment and equality of 
competitive opportunity;  and (b) take into account th e extent to which the foreign or foreign-based 
company is subject on a consolidated basis to home  country standards that are comparable to those 
applied in the United States.  
91. The FSOC issued a final rule and interpreta tive guidance regarding the application of 
Section 113 requirements on 3 April 2012.92 
92. The FSOC must consider 11 factors in evaluating whether a non-bank financial company 
should be subject to enhanced supervision (Section 113(a)(2)).  It translated those factors into six 
categories:  size, interconnectedness, substitutability,  leverage, liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, 
and existing regulatory scrutiny.  The first three rela te to the potential impact of a company's financial 
distress on the broader economy;  and the others rela te to the vulnerability of a company to financial 
distress.  
93. Its determination process consists of three stages:  (i) narrowing the companies subject to 
review by applying thresholds related to size, in terconnectedness, leverage, and liquidity risk and 
maturity mismatch93; (ii) analysing the threat that each identified company could pose to 
U.S. financial stability based on information availa ble through existing public  and regulatory sources, 
using the six-category framework described above;  and (iii) identifying the companies that merit 
further review in the third stage.  Companies will receive notice that they are being considered for a 
proposed determination and an opportunity to subm it materials and further discuss with the FSOC.  
The FSOC will reconsider its designations annually. 
                                                      
92 "Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance on the Au thority to Require Supervision and Regulation of 
Certain Nonbank Financial Companies".  Viewed a t:  http://www.treas ury.gov/initiatives/f soc/Documents/ 
Nonbank%20Designations%20-%20Final%20Rule%20and%20Guidance.pdf. 
93 Thus, a company will be subject to additional review if it meets both the size threshold 
(US$50 billion in total consolidated assets) and any one of the other thresholds (US$30 billion in gross notional credit default swaps outstanding for which a company is  the reference entity;  US$3.5 billion of derivative 
liabilities; US$20 billion in total debt outstanding;  15 to 1 leverage ratio of total consolidated assets to total 
equity;  and 10% short-term debt ratio of total debt outsta nding with a maturity of less than 12 months to total 
consolidated assets. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 127 
 
 
(f) Swap market reforms 
94. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for swaps 
and securities-based swaps. It requires, inter alia , swap dealers to register with the CFTC and 
securities-based swap dealers to register with th e SEC, and swaps and security-based swaps to be 
traded on an exchange and cleared through a central c ounterparty to reduce systemic risk.  In addition, 
companies that use swaps will face new regulatory, business, and operational requirements as dealers, 
counterparties, and other swap market participan ts become subject to new clearing, margin and 
collateral requirements, record-keeping and reportin g duties, and new trade execution alternatives. 
95. Sections 722 and 772 under Title VII of the Do dd-Frank Act establish the territorial scope of 
CFTC and SEC jurisdiction over the swaps and security-based swaps market.  Section 722(d) 
provides that the CFTC's jurisdiction will apply to activities outside the United States if those 
activities have "a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the 
United States".  Section 772 provides that the SEC's regulations do not apply to any person insofar as 
such person transacts a business in se curity-based swaps outside the juri sdiction of the United States.  
Thus far, there has been little guidance from the CFTC and SEC on the cross-border application of 
swap market reforms, but the CFTC has indicated th at it expects to provide a proposed rule and some 
interpretative guidance on the provision c ontained in Section 722(d) of Act soon.94 
                                                      
94 U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission online information, "Remarks by CFTC's Chairman 
Gary Gensler on Derivatives and the Cross-Border Application of Dodd-Fra nk Swap Market Reforms", Institute 
of International Bankers' Membership Luncheon, 14 June 2012.  Viewed at:  http://www.cftc.gov/ 
PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagensler-116. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 129 
 
 
REFERENCES 
Andrews, A. and R. Pirog (2012), The Strategic Petroleum Reserve:  Authorization, Operation, and 
Drawdown Policy , CRS Report R42460, 25 April.  Viewed at:  http://fpc.state.gov/documents/ 
organization/189136.pdf. 
Census Bureau (2011), Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2010 , September. Viewed 
at:  http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/cffr-10.pdf. 
Census Bureau (2012), Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012 . Viewed at:  
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ [July 2012]. 
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (2010), Overview and Compilation of 
U.S. Trade Statutes , Part I of II, December.  Viewed at:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-
111WPRT63130/pdf/CPRT-111WPRT63130.pdf. 
Customs and Border Protection (2006), Importing into the United States, A Guide for Commercial 
Importers . Viewed at:  http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler /cgov/newsroom/publications/trade/iius.ctt/ 
iius.pdf. 
Customs and Border Protection (2012), Office of International Trade,  Textile and Quota Newsletter , 
January.  Viewed at:  http://www.cbp.gov/linkhan dler/cgov/trade/trade_outreach/trade_newsletter/ 
textile_jan.ctt/textile_jan.pdf. 
Davis Polk Dodd-Frank (2012), Dodd-Frank  Progress Report , June.  Viewed at:  
http://www.davispolk.com/files/Publication/86 7cc356-a624-49e9-b1fc-529d b6946e6e/Presentation/ 
PublicationAttachment/97a3eb90-7d31-41fe-a2 a7-815c28e874f5/Jun2012_Dodd.Frank.Progress. 
Report.pdf.  
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2011), Foreign Direct 
Investment in the United States , Issue Brief #02-11, June.  Viewed at:  http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/ 
default/files/reports/documents/fdiesaissuebriefno2061411final.pdf.  
Department of State (2012), 2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty .  Viewed at:  
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf. 
Department of Treasury (2012), Troubled Asset Relief Program (T ARP) Monthly Report to Congress:  
July 2012 , 10 August.  Viewed at:  http://www.treasu ry.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/ 
Documents/July%202012%20Monthly%20Report.pdf.  
Department of the Treasury, Office of Financial Stability (2011), Troubled Asset Relief Program:  
Three Year Anniversary Report , October.  Viewed at:  http://w ww.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-
stability/briefing-room/news/Documents/TARP %20Three%20Year%20Annive rsary%20Report.pdf. 
Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Policy (2011), Investing in U.S. Competitiveness:  The 
Benefits of Enhancing the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Tax Credit , 25 March.  Viewed at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-polic y/Documents/Investing-in-US-Competitiveness-
Benefits-of-RandE-Tax-Credit-3-2011.pdf [May 2012].   
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/ 
publications/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf [May 2012]. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 130 
  
Elwell, C.K. (2012), The Depreciating Dollar:  Economic Effects and Policy Response , CRS Report 
RL34582, 23 February.  Viewed at:  http://f pc.state.gov/documents/o rganization/185920.pdf. 
Ex-Im Bank (2011), 2011 Annual Report , November.  Viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/about/reports/ 
ar/2011/index.html [May 2012].   
FAO (2005), Fishery Country Profile, FID/CP/USA, February.  Viewed at:  ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/ 
DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_US.pdf [April 2012]. 
Frittelli, J. (2011), Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures , CRS Report R41042, 10 January.  
Viewed at:  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41042.pdf. 
Government Accountability Office (2008), Federal User Fees, Substantia l Reviews Needed to Align 
Port-Related Fees with the Programs they Support , February, Pub. GAO-08-321.  Viewed at:  
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08321.pdf.  
Government Accountability Office (2010), Export Controls:  Agency Actions and Proposed Reform 
Initiatives May Address Previously Identifie d Weaknesses, but Challenges Remain , GAO-11-135R 
Export Controls, November.  Viewed at :  http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97178.pdf. 
Government Accountability Office (2011), Federal Food Safety Oversight:  Food Safety Working 
Group Is a Positive First Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address Fragmentation , 
GAO-11-289, March.  Viewed at:  http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316742.pdf. 
Government Accountability Office (2012a), Consumer Product Safety Commission:  A More Active 
Role in Voluntary Standards Development Should Be Considered , GAO-12-582, May.  Viewed at:  
http://gao.gov/assets/600/590990.pdf. 
Government Accountability Office (2012b), Troubled Asset Relief Program:  As Treasury Continues 
to Exit Programs, Opportunities to Enhance Communication on Costs Exist , Report GAO-12-229, 
January.  Viewed at:  http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587555.pdf. 
Hornbeck, J.F. (2011), U.S. Trade Policy and the Caribbean:  From Trade Preferences to Free Trade 
Agreements ", CRS Report RL33951, 6 January.  View ed at:  http://fpc.state.gov/documents/ 
organization/155010.pdf. 
Hornbeck, J.F. and L.E. Rover (2011), Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and its Role in U.S. Trade 
Policy , CRS Report R41922, 2 November.  Viewed at:  http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/ 
178241.pdf. 
IMF (2012a), International Monetary and Financial Committ ee Twenty-Fifth Meeting:  Statement by 
Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury,  United States, On behalf of the United States , 
21 April.  Viewed at:  http://www.imf.org/Exte rnal/spring/2012/imfc/statement/eng/usa.pdf.   
IMF (2012b), World Economic Outlook Update , April.  Viewed at:  http://www.imf.org/external/ 
pubs/ft/weo/2012/update/02/pdf/0712.pdf. 
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (2012), Digital Music Report 2012 .  Viewed at:  
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2012.pdf.   
Jackson, J. (2010), Foreign Investment, CFIUS, and Homeland Security:  An Overview , CRS Report 
RS22863, 4 February.   Viewed at:  http://fpc.s tate.gov/documents/organization/138597.pdf.   United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 131 
 
 
Jackson, J.K. (2012), U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices , CRS Report 
RS22204, 13 April.  Viewed at:  http://fpc .state.gov/documents/organization/188174.pdf. 
Joint Committee on Taxation (2011), Present Law And Background Info rmation On Federal Excise 
Taxes .  Viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg /CPRT-112JPRT63427/pdf/CPRT-112JPRT634 
27.pdf. 
Jones, V.C. and M.F. Martin (2012), International Trade:  Rules of Origin , CRS Report RL34524, 
5 January.  Viewed at:  http://fpc.sta te.gov/documents/organization/180678.pdf. 
Koncz-Bruner, J. and A. Flatness (2011), "Cross- Border Trade in 2010 and Services Supplied 
Through Affiliates in 2009", Survey of Current Business , Vol. 91, No. 10, Bureau of Economic 
Analysis October. Viewed at: http://www.b ea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/10%20October/1011_services%20 
text.pdf [May 2012]. 
Kosar, K. (2007), Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs):  An Institutional Overview , CRS 
Report RS21663, 23 April.  Viewed at:  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21663.pdf. 
Labonte, M. (2010), Is the U.S. Current Account Deficit Sustainable? , CRS Publication RL33186, 
2 April.  Viewed at:  http://fpc.sta te.gov/documents/organization/141590.pdf. 
Luckey, J.R. (2009), The Buy American Act:  Requiring Government Procurements to Come from 
Domestic Sources , CRS Report 97-765, 13 March.  Viewed  at:  http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/ 
CRS_Report_-_The_Buy_American_Act_3.13.09.pdf.   
Martini, R. (2012), Fuel Tax Concessions in  the Fisheries Sector , OECD Food, Agriculture and 
Fisheries Working Papers, No. 56, OECD Publis hing.  Viewed at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 
5k9bdccqft30-en [June 2012]. 
McKinsey Global Institute (2011), Mapping Global Capital Markets 2011 , August.  Viewed at:  
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/finan cial_markets/mapping_global_capital_markets_
2011. 
National Transportation Safety Board (2010), Commercial Fishing Vessel Count by State/Jurisdiction 
and Federally-Documented by the U.S. Coast Guard.   Viewed at:  http:// www.ntsb.gov/news/events/ 
2010/fishing_vessel/background/USCG%202008%20CF Vs%20Count%20vt%20S tate%20and%20Do
cumentation%20Type.pdf [March 2012]. 
Neelesh, N. (2012), U.S. Oil Imports and Exports , CRS Report R42465, 4 April.  Viewed at:  
http://fpc.state.gov/document s/organization/188187.pdf. 
NMFS (2009), Our living oceans:  Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources , 6th edition, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-8.  Viewed at:  
http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/olo6th-edition.htm.   
NMFS (2011a), Fisheries Economics of the United States 2009 , U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. 
Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-118, May.  Viewed at:  https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/ index.html [March 2012]. 
NMFS (2011b), Fisheries of the United States 2010, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current 
Fishery Statistics No. 2010, August.  Viewed at:  http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/publications.html.   WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 132 
  
NMFS (2011c), International Agreements Concerning Living  Marine Resources of Interest to NOAA 
Fisheries 2011, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Office of International Affairs.  
Viewed at:  http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/docs/ 2011/08/2011_internati onal_agreements.pdf. 
NMFS (2012), Status of Stocks:  2011 Report on the Status of U.S. Fisheries , U.S. Department of 
Commerce, NOAA, May.  Viewed at:  http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2011/07/docs/report.pdf.  
OECD (2007), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries Monitoring and Evaluation 2007 , Paris. 
OECD (2009a), Agriculture Policies in Emerging Economies 2009: Monitoring and Evaluation, 
Paris. 
OECD (2009b), Review of Fisheries in OECD Countries 2009:  Policies and Summary Statistics , 
Paris.   
OECD (2011), Agriculture Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2011:  OECD Countries and Emerging 
Economies,  21 September .  Viewed at:   http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2011-en. 
OECD (2012), Review of Fisheries 2011:  Policies and Summary Statistics , 22 June.  Viewed at:  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1 787/9789264129306-en. 
Recording Industry Association of America (2012), 2011 Year-End Shipment Statistics .  Viewed at:  
http://76.74.24.142/FA8A2072-6BF8 -D44D-B9C8-CE5F55BBC050.pdf.   
Securities and Exchange Commission (2011), Exemptions for Advisers to Venture Capital Funds, 
Private Fund Advisers With Less Than $150 Milli on in Assets Under Management, and Foreign 
Private Advisers , 17 CFR Part 275, Release No. IA-3222, File No. S7 37-10, RIN 3235-AK81, 
22 June.  Viewed at:  http://www. sec.gov/rules/final/2011/ia-3222.pdf. 
Seitzinger, M.V. (2009), Foreign Investment in the United States:  Major Federal Statutory 
Restrictions , CRS Report RL33103, 26 January.  Viewed at:  http://fpc.state.gov/documents/ 
organization/120608.pdf. 
Senate Committee on Banking, Housi ng, and Urban Affairs (undated), Brief Summary of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act .  Viewed at:  
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dod d_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_su
mmary_Final.pdf. 
Swiss Re (2012), World Insurance in 2011 , Sigma No. 3/2012.  Viewed at:  
http://media.swissre.com/documents/sigma_3_12_en.pdf. 
U.S. Copyright Office (2011a), Satellite Television Extension a nd Localism Act:  § 302 report , 
August.  Viewed at:  http://www.c opyright.gov/reports/section302-report.pdf. 
U.S. Copyright Office (2011b), Legal Issues in Mass Digitization:  A Preliminary Analysis and 
Discussion Document , October.  Viewed at:  http://www. copyright.gov/docs/massdigitization/ 
USCOMassDigitization_October2011.pdf. 
UNCTAD (2011), World Investment Report 2011 .  Viewed at:  http://www.unctad-docs.org/files/ 
UNCTAD-WIR2011-Full-en.pdf.   United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 133 
 
 
USAID (2010), From Aid to Trade:  Delivering Results .  A Cross-Country Evaluation of USAID 
Trade Capacity Building , 24 November.  Viewed at:  http ://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACR202.pdf. 
USDA (2009), 2007 Census of Agriculture .  Viewed at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 
Publications/index.php [July 2012]. 
USDA (2012), FY 2012:  Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan .  Viewed at:  
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf. 
USDA ERS (2011), Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook, AIS-91, December.  Viewed at:  
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/us da/current/AIS/AIS-12-14-2011.pdf. 
USDA FSA (2012), Commodity Estimates Book and Repor ts:  FY 2013 President's Budget .  Viewed 
at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=about &subject=landing&topic=bap-bu-ce [July 2012]. 
USITC (1996), Country-of-Origin Marking:  Review of Laws, Regulations, and Practices , 
Investigation No. 332-366, Publication 2975, July.  Viewed at:  http://www.usitc.gov/publications/ 
332/pub2975.pdf. 
USITC (2010), Import Injury Investigations Case Statistics (FY 1980-2008) , February.  Viewed at:  
http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/docum ents/historical_case_stats.pdf.  
USTR (2011), Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets , 20 December.  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports -and-publications/2011/out-cycle-review-notorious-
markets. 
USTR (2012a), 2012 Special 301 Report , April.  Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/ 
2012%20Special%20301%20Report_0.pdf [May 2012]. 
USTR (2012b), 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report , March.  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-offi ce/reports-and-pub lications/2012-0. 
USTR (2012c), U.S. Technical Barriers to Trade Report , March.  Viewed at:  http://www.ustr.gov/ 
webfm_send/3323 [July 2012]. 
Varney, C.A. (2011), "The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines:  Evolution, Not Revolution", 
Antitrust Law Journal , No. 77, Issue 2, American Bar Association.  Viewed at:  
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/articles/274663.pdf. 
White House (2010), 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement,  June.  Viewed 
at:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fil es/omb/assets/intellectualproperty/intellectual 
property_strategic_plan.pdf. 
White House (2012a), 2012 U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcemen t Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan:  
Two Year Anniversary , June.  Viewed at:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/ 
ipec_two-year_anniversary_report.pdf. 
White House (2012b), Economic Report of the President Tr ansmitted to the Congress Together with 
the Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisors , February.  Viewed at:  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ERP_2012_Complete.pdf. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 134 
  
White House and Department of the Treasury (2012), The President's Framework For Business Tax 
Reform , February.  Viewed at:  http://www.treasury .gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-
Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf. 
White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy (2011), Innovation, Education, and 
Infrastructure:  Science, Tec hnology, STEM Education, and 21st Century , 14 February. Viewed at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/mi crosites/ostp/FY12-rd-fs.pdf [May 2012]. 
World Bank (2011), Doing Business 2012:  Doing busi ness in a more transparent world .  Viewed at: 
http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomie s/united-states/#trading-across-borders 
[May 2012]. 
World Customs Organization (2011a), Annual Survey to Determine the Percentage of National 
Revenue Represented by Customs Duties , Doc. NC1658E1a, 27 July.  Viewed at:  
http://www.wcoomd.org/home_hsoverviewboxes.htm.  
World Customs Organization (2011b), International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity 
Description and Coding System (Brussels, 14 Ju ne 1983):  Amendments to the Nomenclature 
Appended as an Annex to the Convention, accepted pursuant to the recommendation of 26 June 2009 
of the Customs Co-operation Council , document NG0163B1.  Viewed at:  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ 
class/intercop/expertgr oup/2011/AC234-Bk4.PDF. 
WTO (2010), Trade Policy Review:  United States , Geneva. 
WTO (2011), World Trade Report 2011:  The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From 
co-existence to coherence , Geneva.