WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1
16 February 2015
(15-0929)  Page: 1/444
Trade Policy Review Body 
16 and 18 December 2014 Original: English/Spanish
anglais/espagnol
inglés/español
   
 
  TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
Addendum 
Chairperson: H.E. Mrs. Mariam MD Salleh (Malaysia) 
This document contains the advance writte n questions and additional questions by 
WTO Members, and replies provided by the United States of America.1 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
16 et 18 décembre 2014 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION 
Addendum 
Présidente: S.E. Mme. Mariam MD Salleh (Malaisie) 
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les 
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelle s, et les réponses fournies par États-Unis 
d'Amérique.1 
 
 Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
16 y 18 de diciembre de 2014 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
E
STADOS UNIDOS  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN 
Addendum 
Presidenta: Excma. Sra. Mariam MD Salleh (Malasia) 
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y 
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por Estados Unidos.
1 
                                               
1 In English and Spanish only./En  anglais et espagnol seulement./En inglés y español solamente. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  
 ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 
  
Contained in the Government report of the United States Trade policy Review 2014, under section 4, 
subheading (4.1) entitled "WTO Agreements and Initia tives" in particular paragraph 4.6, it is stated, 
"to ensure the enforcement of WTO Agreements, the United States has been one of the World's most 
frequent users of the WTO dispute settlement procedures………" further "that it has obtained 
favourable settlements and rulings in virtually all sectors, including manufacturing, intellectual 
property, agriculture and services".   
In light of the above, the Government of Antigua and Barbuda would like to draw the attention of the 
United States to the unresolved dispute entitled WT/DS 285: United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Serv ices, here after referred to as the "dispute" 
involving the aforementioned parties. 
 The Appellate body upheld the Panel's ruling conc erning the dispute on the following grounds: 
• that the United States' Schedule includes a commitment to grant full market access in gambling 
and betting services; and 
 
• The United States acts inconsistently with Article XVI:1 and sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of 
Article XVI:2 by maintaining certain limitations on market access not specified in its Schedule. 
 Further, the compliance panel in 2007 ruled that the United States had failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and in a binding verdict, the final arbitrator ruled that the 
annual level of nullification or impairments of benefits accruing to Antigua and Barbuda is US$21 million.  
To date, the United States has not complied with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in 
relation to the dispute and has not even compensated Antigua and Barbuda up to one year's worth of the value of the level of nullification or impairment s of benefits accruing to Antigua and Barbuda by 
the final arbitrator due to the U.S. non-compliance. 
 Juxtaposed to the above, please see the following  questions from the Government of Antigua and 
Barbuda to the United States:  
 Question 1: With remote, domestic gaming now fully legalised in one state within the jurisdiction of the United States (New Jersey) while in the states of Nevada and Delaware some remote gaming 
services have been legally approved and are now be ing offered, coupled with the fact that theU.S.is 
still acting in violation of its WTO GATS Commitment which ought to grant full market access to foreign suppliers in the gambling and betting services sector, Does the United States accept that this 
ongoing practise stated above, goes against two crit ical principles of the WTO that is, freer trade and 
trade without discrimination?  
RESPONSE:  The United States recognizes the ob ligation of WTO Members to act in a 
manner consistent with the WTO Agreements  and Members' schedules of commitments. 
Where the WTO Dispute Settlement Body dete rmines that a measure implemented by a 
Member is not in conformity with a WTO Agreement, including commitments scheduled 
thereunder, that Member should bring itself into conformity in  accordance with provisions 
of the DSU and other WTO Agreements. In the case of the dispute referenced above, the 
United States is working with the government of Antigua and Barbuda to resolve the 
dispute in a manner which allows the United Stat es to bring itself into conformity with its 
legal obligations.  
Question 2: How does the United States intend to resolve the legal conflict that now exists between 
its GATS Commitments relating to gambling and betting services and expanding remote gaming within the United States that excludes foreign companies?  
RESPONSE: The United States is working with the government of Antigua and Barbuda and 
on a multilateral basis to resolve this issue. Fi rst, the United States has put forth, pursuant 
to Article XXI of the GATS, a generous packag e of services concessions as compensation 
for removing internet gambling from the U.S.  schedule. Antigua and Barbuda is the sole 
WTO Member preventing the United States from completing this process. The United States 
remains committed to working with Antigua and Barbuda to resolve this issue. Second, the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  
 United States remains committed to working wi th Antigua and Barbuda on a bilateral basis 
to resolve the dispute referenced abov e in a mutually beneficial manner.  
 
Question 3: Does the United States recognise and accept the critical role the Dispute Settlement Pillar 
of the WTO plays and that all of the DSB rulin gs and recommendations ought to be promptly 
implemented?  
RESPONSE: Please see the U.S. response to question 1 above. 
 Question 4: Does the United States accept that  all the rulings and recommendations of the DSB 
specific to its actions forms a part of its international legal obligations under the ambit of the WTO? 
 RESPONSE: Where the WTO Dispute Settlement Body dete rmines that a measure implemented by a 
Member is not in conformity with a WTO Agreement, including commitments scheduled thereunder, 
that Member should bring itself into conformity in accordance with provisions of the DSU and other WTO Agreements.   
Question 5: Is it the intention of the United States to resolve its long standing dispute involving the 
small developing country economy of Antigua and Barbuda?  
RESPONSE: Yes. Despite the difficulties we have had in the past – in 2008, for example, the 
United States and Antigua and Barbuda worked together for months and finally agreed on a 
settlement package, only to have Antigua and Barbuda subsequently repudiate that 
agreement – the United States remains committe d to working with Antigua and Barbuda to 
resolve this dispute.   Question 6: What are the domestic factors within the United States that have hindered the country's political will in engaging meaningfully with Antigua and Barbuda   in an effort to resolve the dispute in 
a manner that seriously considers the economic fallout that Antigua and Barbuda continues to experience due to your non- compliance? 
 RESPONSE: The United States disputes the prem ise of the question. The United States has 
been working with Antigua and Barbuda, in good  faith and on an ongoing basis, to resolve 
the referenced dispute in a mutually beneficial manner.  Question 7: When does the United States intend to formally respond to Antigua and Barbuda's 
proposal tabled in late August 2014 in an effort to resolve the dispute? 
 RESPONSE: The United States has met with th e Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda in 
September to discuss the issue with the ne w government. The United States remains 
committed to working with Antigua and Barbuda on  to reach a realistic, mutually beneficial 
resolution of the dispute. 
 
Question 8: Does the United States recognise the negative impact of non-compliance  in relation to 
the predictability of a rules based system such as the WTO?  
RESPONSE: Recognizing the obligation of WTO Members to bring themselves into 
conformity with their legal obligations under  the WTO agreements, the United States is 
committed to continuing to work with Antigua and Barbuda on an ongoing basis to resolve 
the referenced dispute in a mu tually beneficial manner withou t the need for further legal 
proceedings. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  
 ARGENTINA 
  
I. Informe de la Secretaría WT/TPR/S/307. 
Resumen del informe 1) En el párrafo 5 de la Sección titulada "Resumen", el reporte menciona que uno de los desarrollos más importantes de política comercial de los Estados Unidos durante el período de 
revisión ha sido la promulgación de la nueva ley agrícola el 7 de febrero de 2014. Asimismo, se 
menciona que la nueva ley representa un cambio considerable en la política agropecuaria para varios productos y este cambio está basado en la eliminación del sistema de pagos directos desacoplados 
hacia instrumentos de subsidios vinculados con los precios.  
Considerando que Estados Unidos es uno de los principales productores, exportadores e importadores de productos agropecuarios y que los subsidios vinculados a los precios son los más distorsivos de la 
producción y el comercio, ¿podrían los Estados Unidos esbozar cómo esta modificación de su política 
agropecuaria contribuye al objetivo de largo plazo acordado en el Acuerdo de Agricultura de la OMC de establecer un sistema de comercio agropecuario equitativo y orientado al mercado? Sección 1 de entorno económico 
 
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill emphasizes fa rmers' participation in crop insurance 
programs. Congress terminated the Direct and Countercyclical Payment program, as well 
as both market price support and export subsidies for dairy products.  
 The United States remains committed to its current WTO commitments and calls upon all 
Members to abide by their existing commitments  and obligations, including to transparency 
through the timely and consistent notification of all production- and trade-distorting measures. Abiding by existing rules and in creased transparency are fundamental for 
achieving the WTO's long-term objectives.  
 
2) Párrafos 1.3., 1.10 y 1.23.: En los dos primeros párrafos se indica que uno de los motores del crecimiento de la economía estadounidense en estos últimos años ha sido la demanda interna, 
habiendo aumentado el consumo privado (principal componente del PIB de los Estados Unidos) en 
forma continua gracias a la "mejora del mercado laboral, el incremento de los ingresos personales disponibles y el aumento de la riqueza de los hogares como consecuencia de la subida de los precios 
de las acciones y la vivienda". En el párrafo 2.5 del Informe del gobierno también se señala que "el 
gasto de los consumidores" ha sido uno de los factores que más ha contribuido al crecimiento de la economía de EEUU.  No obstante ello, en el Informe de la Secretaría (párrafos 1.10 y 1.23) se indica que mientras las 
exportaciones de mercancías de EEUU alcanzaron un nivel sin precedentes en 2013, las importaciones 
disminuyeron por primera vez en cinco años, atribuyéndose ello a una más débil demanda interna por importaciones.  
a) ¿Cómo se condice un alto consumo, uno de los motores principales del crecimiento económico 
estadounidense en los últimos tiempos según se menciona en los Informes, con una débil demanda interna por productos importados? 
b) ¿Se ha implementado una política de compre nacional? O  
c) ¿cuál sería el motivo por el cual ese alto consumo actual no se haya visto reflejado en un mayor incremento de las importaciones?  
RESPONSE: Since the recession, the growth in both U.S. goods and services exports and 
imports have trended downward. U.S. export growth was 17% in 2010, 15% in 2011, 4% in 2012, and 3% in 2013. U.S. import growth was 19% in 2010, 14% in 2011, 3% in 2012, 
and 0.1% in 2013. The lower growth rate in recent years is a product of higher growth in 
the earlier recovery period following the rece ssion, and slower world growth in the latter 
period. 
 
U.S. goods and services imports have also been affected by the declining demand for 
imported oil due to increased U.S. oil producti on, lower prices, and sluggish U.S. economic 
growth. Excluding oil, U.S. goods and services imports increased 4.6% in 2012 and 2.0% in 
2013. Thus far in 2014, total imports are up 3.3% and imports excluding oil is up 5%. 
There is no national purchasing policy.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  
 Sección 2. Régimen de co mercio y de inversión. 
 3) Párrafo 2.6: En este párrafo se indica que el Presidente de los EEUU ha destacado la 
importancia de obtener la autorización para nego ciar acuerdos comerciales (TPA), "EN VISTA DE LAS 
DOS PRINCIPALES NEGOCIACIONES REGIONALES  QUE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS TIENEN LA 
INTENCIÓN DE CONCLUIR O EN LAS QUE QUIEREN REALIZAR PROGRESOS SIGNIFICATIVOS": ¿Cuál 
es la perspectiva para la aprobación por parte del Congreso de los EE.UU. de una autorización para 
negociar acuerdos comerciales, en partic ular acuerdos multilaterales en la OMC? 
 RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass 
bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 4) En el párrafo 2.14 el informe menciona que otras de las prioridades de la política comercial 
para el periodo 2013-14 es la "lucha contra los obstáculos no arancelarios". Se solicita tener a bien 
indicar que medidas o iniciativas aplica Estados Unidos para encarar este tema y explicar si la política comercial también implica luchar contra todas las medidas que distorsionan el comercio y no solo las medidas en frontera. 
 
RESPONSE: Paragraph 2.14 notes that combatti ng non-tariff barriers is one of many 
priorities. We constantly engage our many trad ing partners to remove all types of barriers 
i n  a n  e f f o r t  t o  e x p a n d  t r a d e .  A d d i t i o n a l  i n f o r m a t i o n  c a n  b e  f o u n d  i n  t h e  2 0 1 3  a n d  2 0 1 4  
Trade Policy Agendas and 2012 and 2013 Annual Reports.   
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/file s/AnnualReport%20Final2013.pdf  
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/file s/2014%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda%20and%
202013%20Annual%20Report.pdf 
 
5) Párrafo 2.15: Aquí sí se hace referencia al Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo, indicando que, 
tras la reunión Ministerial de Bali, Estados Unidos busca "tomar la iniciativa", "marcar un nuevo rumbo y buscar nuevas formas de encarar otros aspectos de la Ronda". 
a) ¿A qué se refiere con estas expresiones, sobre todo con "marcar un nuevo rumbo y buscar 
nuevas formas de encarar otros aspectos de la Ronda"?. b) ¿A que "nuevo rumbo" y "nuevas formas" se refiere? 
 
RESPONSE: As the United States has previously noted, if we are to succeed in developing a post-Bali work program by July, as agreed by WTO Members, it will be imperative for us to 
go about this work in different ways than th ose that characterized our efforts in the first 
half of this year, or for that matter, in the pr ior half-decade. Members up to this point have 
made no progress in coming to terms with what a work program would look like, what 
levels of ambition it would entail, or what de grees of detail it would contain. Thus, from the 
perspective of the United States, it seems clear that, moving into the new year, our 
governments will need to approach the task of developing a post-Bali work program in very 
different ways from what came before.  
 
6) El párrafo 2.17 del reporte describe que EEUU desempeñó un papel activo en las negociaciones para llegar a un acuerdo sobre Facilitación de Comercio en el denominado "Paquete de Bali". Al respecto,  
a) ¿podría EEUU adelantar cuáles son sus expectativas y principales áreas de prioridad en el proceso 
del Programa de Trabajo Post-Bali?  b) ¿Podría EEUU comentar si ha tomado a la última versión de las Modalidades Agrícolas 
(TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4) como base de la nueva Ley Agrícola promulgada en febrero de 2014 y, en ese 
caso, podría identificar qué cambios ha introducido respecto al régimen anterior para hacerlo más compatible con dichas Modalidades? 
 
RESPONSE: Our government is currently fully engaged in evaluating the core areas of the Doha Round – agriculture, industrial good s and services – and we are committed to 
bringing forward our creativi ty and fresh thinking. In our view, a balance between 
ambition and doability will be key. Regardin g TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, the United States has 
been clear for years that we have fundamenta l and significant problems with that draft 
text. These problems prevented us from agre eing to the draft in 2008 and will prevent us 
from agreeing to it in 2015. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  
 7) El párrafo 2.19 informa que EEUU no presentó las últimas notificaciones agrícolas en materia de 
subvenciones a la exportación, ayuda interna y ut ilización de los contingentes arancelarios. ¿Podría 
explicar EEUU las causas de la demora en su presentación y cuándo estima que las mismas podrían 
ser presentadas? 
 RESPONSE: The United States submits each of  these annual notifications to the Committee 
on Agriculture regularly. The United States  recently submitted its domestic support 
notification for agriculture, G/AG/N/USA /100, dated December 8, 2014. Please see 
G/AG/N/USA/99, dated November 5, 2014, for the latest U.S. notification on export 
subsidies. On tariff quotas, please see G/AG /N/USA/94, dated February 5, 2014 for the 
latest MA:2 notification on quota fill.  
 8) En el párrafo 2.32 el informe indica que el Si stema Generalizado de Preferencias de los Estados 
Unidos, su principal programa mundial de preferencias para los países en desarrollo y los PMA, quedó 
sin efecto el 31 de julio de 2013. Por consiguiente, las importaciones amparadas por las disposiciones del SGP están sujetas a aranceles NMF desde el 1º de agosto de 2013. a) ¿Cuáles son las razones por las cuales este sistema ya no se encuentra vigente?  
 
RESPONSE: Legal authorization of the GSP program expired on July 31, 2013.   
b) ¿Es una situación temporal o definitiva?  
 RESPONSE: GSP authorization has expired on pr evious occasions. In every past instance, 
Congress ultimately acted to extend th e program. The Administration supports 
reauthorization of the GSP program by the U. S. Congress at the earliest opportunity.  
 c) ¿Qué medidas piensa tomar el gobierno al respecto?  
 
RESPONSE: See response to Question 8b.  
d) ¿Por qué razones estando suspendido el programa el gobierno continúa evaluando la condición 
de beneficiarios de algunos países, incluyendo la exigencia de requisitos en materia laboral y de inversiones?  
 
RESPONSE: The Administration has continued it s work on GSP country practice reviews, 
even during the program's susp ension, in anticipation that Congress will ultimately renew 
the GSP program. 
 
e) ¿Cómo se compatibiliza esta suspensión con uno de los objetivos de la política comercial de los Estados Unidos para el periodo 2013-2014 que es el de "promover el comercio y el desarrollo"? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States Government remains committed to promoting global economic growth and development through expanded trade and has undertaken a broad 
array of programs toward this end, includin g trade capacity building programs and other 
unilateral preference programs, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative.   
f) Algunos países fueron objeto de suspensión del SGP previos a esa fecha, por cuestiones 
consideradas ajenas al SGP:  (i) ¿Podría Estados Unidos, informar sobre las cuestiones que derivan en suspensión de un país del 
SGP?  
 RESPONSE: As the Secretariat report notes, country eligibility criteria for GSP include 
matters related to worker rights, child labo r, and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights and arbitral awards. The full list of stat utory country eligibility criteria for the GSP 
program are provided in 19 USC Sections 2661-2462, which can be found online at: http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3129. 
 
(ii) ¿Cómo estas cuestiones ajenas al SGP se vinculan con aspectos comerciales?  
RESPONSE: The GSP program is administered consistent the laws and regulations 
governing the program, which can be fo und online at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  
 topics/trade-development/preference-progra ms/generalized-system-preference-gsp/gsp-
program-inf.  
9) Párrafos 2.49, 2.50 y 2.51: En estos párrafos se hace referencia a dos programas de EEUU 
tendientes a atraer inversiones, como el programa  SelectUSA y el programa "Make it in America". 
a) ¿Podría Estados Unidos proporcionar mayor información sobre esos dos programas? b) ¿Han accedido empresas extranjeras a los fondos disponibles bajo este último programa? 
c) ¿Qué requisitos se exigen para poder acceder a los mismos?  
d) ¿Qué empresas son beneficiarias? e) ¿Qué beneficios se otorgan para atraer inversiones? 
f) ¿Se les otorgan a estas empresas otros beneficios además del monto inicial que se les concede? 
 RESPONSE: The Make it in America program was a one-time program, carried out in 2012, 
to identify innovative projects focused on increasing investment and employment. Further 
information is available at: www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2012/09/25/fact-
sheet-make-it-america-challenge . The winning projects are described at 
http://www.eda.gov/challenges/MakeItInAmeri ca/winners.htm. Information about the 
SelectUSA program is available at http://sel ectusa.commerce.gov. The SelectUSA websites 
contains a searchable database of over 70 diffe rent federal incentive programs designed to 
encourage business investment  across a range of sectors 
(http://selectusa.commerce.go v/investment-incentives). 
 10) En el párrafo 2.52 el informe menciona que el Comité de Inversiones Extranjeras de los Estados 
Unidos (CFIUS) examina las transacciones de invers ión extranjera "abarcadas"(comprendidas en su 
ámbito de competencia) para determinar si cons tituyen una amenaza para la seguridad nacional. 
¿Cuáles son los criterios utilizados para considerar que una inversión extranjera puede "amenazar la seguridad nacional"? 
 
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determining whether a transaction raises national security concerns, and a general description of the type s of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed 
and that have presented national security co nsiderations is available in the official 
g u i d a n c e  t h a t  T r e a s u r y  p u b l i s h e d  o n  D e c e m b e r  8 ,  2 0 0 8 ,  i n  t h e  Federal Register  (and 
available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-inves tment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in statutes, execut ive orders, regulations, and in the guidance 
document noted above, all of which ar e available at: www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
 
11) En el párrafo 2.56 el informe indica que subsisten algunas leyes o reglamentos que restringen 
las inversiones en determinados sectores, imponen prescripciones en materia de recopilación de información sobredichas inversiones o las dificultan de algún modo. ¿Cuáles son las razones por las 
cuáles se mantienen estas restricciones? 
 RESPONSE: As Paragraph 2.56 of the Secretariat's Report notes, the United States has an 
open investment regime with few formal barriers to FDI. The measures referred to in 
paragraph 2.56 and identified in Table 2.4 of th e Report include several that do not restrict 
foreign investment in the United States. These include, for example, laws relating to the 
collection of statistical data about servic es trade and foreign investment in the 
United States, as well as laws that on thei r face limit foreign participation in certain 
activities but do not prohibit foreign investors from participating in these activities through 
enterprises established in the United States. Further information on each of the statutes 
discussed in this section of the Report can be  found at the source cited in Table 2.4, and 
the statutes themselves are available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectio nUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE .  
 
Sección 3. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas. Subsección 3.1. sobre medidas que afecatan las importaciones. Subsección 3.1.1. sobre procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros. 
 
12) ¿Podría Estados Unidos desarrollar con más detalle el gráfico 3.1., que hace referencia al proceso de importación en los Estados Unidos? 
 
RESPONSE: The report correctly identifies the three main time frames that exist in the 
importation of goods process in the United St ates: pre-entry of goods, entry of the goods WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  
 into the customs territory of the United States, and post-entry. Further, information about 
basic importing and exporting from the United States can be found on the CBP website at 
http://www.cbp.gov/trad e/basic-import-export . 
 
13) En el párrafo 3.3 se indica que el artículo 2013 de la Ley de Seguridad Portuaria (SAFE) prevé la elaboración de un reglamento para exigir la presentación de datos adicionales con el fin de reforzar el procedimiento para determinar altos niveles de riesgo; se debe facilitar información apropiada en 
materia de seguridad antes de que las mercancías se carguen en buques cuyo destino sea los 
Estados Unidos. En ese sentido, se elaboró en 2009 la norma relativa a la declaración de seguridad del importador (ISF). ¿Exactamente qué tipo de in formación adicional se exige o se puede exigir en 
virtud de esta norma? 
 RESPONSE: Section 203 of the Security and A ccountability for Every Port Act (SAFE Port 
Act) and section 343(a) of the Trade Ac t of 2002, as amended by the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act of 2002, required CBP to promulgate regulations that required 
importers and vessel operating carriers to prov ide advance data for purposes of enhancing 
security. The Importer Security Filing re quirements were cr afted as a result. 
 
The requirements were published in the Federal Register on Nov 28, 2008 and have been in effect since January 26, 2009. A phased en forcement strategy we nt into effect on 
January 26, 2010. The regulations can be found at 19 CFR Part 149, and further 
information about the requirements, the regulations, and other FAQs, can be found here, http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-en try/cargo-security/importer-security-filing-
102.  
 
14) En el párrafo 3.3, el informe menciona que Estados Unidos desde 2003, los reglamentos del Servicio de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras (CBP) exigen la transmisión electrónica anticipada al 
CBP de información sobre la carga que llega o sale y prevén distintas fechas de entrada en vigor en 
función del modo de transporte. ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar dónde encontrar estos reglamentos y explicar cuáles son las fechas previstas según el medio de transporte?  
 
RESPONSE: The mandatory requirement for the advance electronic transmission of cargo 
information from all four modes of transpor tation has been in place for a decade. The 
timing for transmission is unique to the type of carrier and is found in the regulations in 
the parts pertinent to the carrier. Regulati ons implementing the advance electronic 
transmission of cargo data for vessels is fo und in 19 CFR Part 4; truck and rail is 19 CFR 
Part 123; and air cargo is Pa rt 122. Further information about the 2003 law and regulations 
including FAQs and other implementa tion information can be found at 
http://www.cbp.gov/border-sec urity/ports-entry/carriers . 
 
15) En el párrafo 3.4 se indica que las autoridades aduaneras de los Estados Unidos tienen previsto 
sustituir progresivamente el Sistema Automatizado de Comercio (ACS) por la Plataforma Comercial Autorizada (ACE)a fin de establecer un mecanismo de ventanilla única electrónica. Se solicita indicar 
el cronograma previsto para sustituir el ACS y las medidas nuevas que se prevén aplicar en virtud del 
ACE.  RESPONSE: CBP will complete the development of core trade processing capabilities in ACE 
and decommission corresponding capabilities in legacy systems by the end of 2016. As part 
of the plan to complete ACE by 2016, CBP ha s established three mandatory use dates:  
- May 1, 2015: mandatory use of ACE fo r all electronic manifest filings;  
- November 1, 2015: mandatory use of ACE fo r all electronic cargo release and entry 
summary filings; and  
- October 1, 2016- mandatory use of ACE for a ll remaining electronic portions of the 
cargo release process.  
 More detailed information about ACE includin g scheduled updates, outreach calendars, 
technical specifications, training and refere nce guides, frequently asked questions, and 
other resources can be found at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated .  
 
16) En el párrafo 3.6 el informe aclara que el Presidente de los Estados Unidos emitió 
recientemente la "Racionalización de los procesos de exportación e importación para las empresas 
estadounidenses" que requiere la puesta en marcha, antes de 2016, de un proyecto de ventanilla única denominado Sistema de Datos sobre el Comercio Internacional (ITDS).  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  
 a) ¿Cómo se complementa este sistema con la Plataforma Comercial Autorizada?  
b) ¿Implica una doble presentación de información para el operador comercial?  
RESPONSE: ACE is the name of the automate d system that will implement the ITDS. CBP 
will complete the developmen t of core trade processing  capabilities in ACE and 
decommission corresponding capabilities in lega cy systems by the end of 2016. At that 
time, ACE will become the Single Window for tr ade processing, the primary system through 
which the international trade community will submit import/export data and the 
Government will determine admissibility. Th rough ACE as the Single Window, manual 
processes will be streamlined and automated,  paper will be greatly reduced, and the 
international trade community w ill be able to more easily and efficiently comply with 
U.S. laws and regulations. There will not be  a double submission of information.  
 
17) En el párrafo 3.9 se indica que el Servicio de Aduanas y Protección de Frontera (CBP) admite 
las resoluciones anticipadas en las operaciones aduaneras, a través de las cuales los importadores pueden solicitar una decisión jurídica vinculante que les asegure cómo tratarán el producto las autoridades aduaneras cuando sea importado.  
a) ¿Sobre qué aspectos de la operatoria aduanera  se puede solicitar una resolución anticipada?  
 RESPONSE: An advance ruling may be requested regarding an official interpretation of a 
customs laws, regulation or proc edure in relation to a specific ally described transaction.  
 b) ¿Cómo se realiza el trámite y ante qué organismo?  
 
RESPONSE: Customs and Border Protection is the agency that issues advance rulings on 
customs matters. The specific regulations are found in 19 CFR Part 177. Here is a link to advance rulings on the CBP website, http://www.cbp.gov/trad e/nafta/guide-customs-
procedures/advance-ruling-procedures .  
 
c) ¿Qué plazos existen para la adopción de estas resoluciones? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. does not set forth deadlines for advance rulings. Nonetheless, the U.S endeavors to issue rulings within 90 days of  receipt of information necessary to issue a 
ruling and often issues classification rulings within 30 days of receipt. 
 18) En el párrafo 3.10, se explica que las resoluciones anticipadas vinculantes se publican en la Web, en el Sistema de búsqueda en línea de decisiones aduaneras (CROSS) o en el Boletín y 
decisiones del servicio de Aduanas, en un plazo de 90 días contados a partir de la fecha en que se 
adoptó la decisión, y tienen fuerza  obligatoria para el CBP. Sin embargo, no parece que existan plazos 
para la adopción de esas resoluciones.  
a) ¿Cuáles son los plazos omitidos en el informe?  
b) En caso de no existir tales plazos, ¿cuáles son las razones que explican esta falencia?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. does not plan to set a deadline for advance rulings as the issuance of a 
ruling depends on the submission of informatio n to CBP, which could come later than the 
initial ruling request. The U.S endeavors to issue rulings within 90 days of receipt of 
information necessary to issue a ruling and of ten issues classification rulings within 
30 days of receipt. 
 19) En el párrafo 3.11 el informe indica que, a finales de 2011, el CBP anunció un proyecto piloto 
simplificado de entrada para la tramitación acelerada de las importaciones que llegaran por vía aérea. 
¿En qué instancias se encuentra actualmente este programa y los resultados que se obtuvieron?  
RESPONSE: On November 9, 2011 CBP published a Federal Register Notice (76 FR 69755), 
announcing the Cargo Release/Simplified Entry p ilot for the air mode of transportation.  
  On June 4, 2012, CBP announced the delivery of Cargo Release/Simplified Entry with the 
first Simplified Entry filings at Indianapolis, Ch icago and Atlanta. CBP initially selected nine 
filers to participate in the pilot: AN De ringer, Expeditors, FedEx Trade Networks, FH 
Kaysing, Janel Group of New York, Kuehne & Na gel, Inc., Livingston International, Page & 
Jones, Inc and UPS. Based on the success of the initial pilot, CBP has expanded the Cargo 
Release/Simplified Entry pilot.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  
 On August 14, 2012, CBP published a Federal Register Notice (77 FR 48527), announcing 
the expansion of the pilot test of Cargo Releas e/Simplified Entry to additional participants. 
As a result, CBP has selected eleven new trade pilot participants: Alliance Customs 
Clearance Inc., Barthco International Inc. db a OHL International, CEVA Logistics, CSI 
Weiss-Rohlig USA Inc., Damco Customs Services, Inc., DHL Ex press, Inc. (USA), Future 
Forwarding Company, NEC Corporation of America, Scarbrough International, Ltd., 
Schenker, Inc., and UTC Overseas, Inc. 
 
In addition to the three initial pilot ports, CBP has expanded the pilot to ten additional airports: Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Miami, 
JFK, Newark and Boston. In early Novemb er CBP will further expand the pilot to 
three additional ports, Detroit, Memphis, and Anchorage.  
As of October 23, 2012, over 28,000 Simplif ied Entries have been filed for over 
580 importers of record.   CBP will continue to build upon the Simplifie d Entry Pilot with future deployments of 
additional functionality until Cargo Release is  fully available in ACE. For additional 
information on Simplified Entry/Cargo Release,  including the Frequently Asked Questions, 
please continue to check the CBP website. http://www.cbp.gov/trade/process-
improvement-initiatives/simp lified-entry/ac-se-expansion .  
 
 
20)  En el párrafo 3.13 el informe explica brevem ente ciertas características del programa C-TPAT 
(Asociación Aduanera y Comercial contra el Terrorismo). Se solicita explicar en detalle los requisitos que deben cumplir las empresas para acceder a cada uno de los tres tipos de niveles de certificaciones. 
 
RESPONSE: The application process for the C ‐TPAT program is done online. A company 
representative will fill out the application on  a secure website called the C-TPAT Portal 
(https://ctpat.cbp.dhs.gov/ ). There are two components to the application process: the 
Company Profile ( http://www.cbp.gov/border-securit y/ports-entry/cargo-security/c-
tpat-customs-trade-partnership-aga inst-terrorism/apply/company-profile ) and the 
Security Profile. The company profile section of the application will ask for information 
such as addresses, contact information. On ce the company profile is complete and the 
"Submit" button is clicked, an account is created in the C ‐TPAT Portal. When this account 
has been created, the company representative will then enter information into the Security 
Profile. The Security Profile se ction of the website contains questions of a more detailed 
nature that the Supply Chain Security Specia list (SCSS) who reviews the file will use to 
determine the company's ability to meet C ‐TPAT minimum security requirements. 
 
Once the security profile is reviewed and a ccepted, the company will be accepted into the 
C‐TPAT program and will start receiving some bene fits. At this time, the SCSS assigned to 
your account will contact the company in order to set up a site visit to observe security 
practices at your location(s). When the SC SS reviews the company's operations and has 
found them to meet C ‐TPAT requirements, the company will become validated as a Tier II 
company, and will begin receiving the full benefi ts of the C-TPAT Program. It should be 
noted that only C-TPAT importer s receive a Tier level; Tier 1 for Certified companies, Tier 2 
for certified validated companies and Tier 3 for certified exceeding ("exceeding" means 
that the company is going above and beyond the minimum security requirements for the 
program). More information on the C-TPAT mi nimum security requirements can be found 
here, http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/port s-entry/cargo-security/c-tpat-customs-
trade-partnership-against-terrorism/apply/security-criteria .  
 
21) En el párrafo 3.14, el informe indica que el CBP ha firmado acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo con siete administraciones aduaneras. Estos acuerdos establecen un vínculo entre los distintos 
programas internacionales de asociación industrial que permite reconocer y validar las constataciones 
de los participantes. Se basan en cuestiones relacionadas con la seguridad; no tratan de aspectos relacionados con la observancia. Al mes de juni o de 2014, la C-TPAT había suscrito acuerdos de 
reconocimiento mutuo con el Canadá, la UE, el Japón, Jordania, la República de Corea, Nueva 
Zelandia y el Taipei Chino. Todos menos el de Jordania se están aplicando en la actualidad.  
a) ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar cuáles son los requisitos que debe cumplir un país para acceder a este tipo de acuerdos? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  
 b) ¿Podrían indicar en qué consisten estos acuerdos y que requisitos solicita el CBP para la firma 
de los mismos?  c) ¿Existen negociaciones en marcha para firmar más acuerdos de este tipo? 
 
RESPONSE: The essential concept of MR is that C-TPAT and the foreign program are 
compatible so that one program may recogniz e the validation findings of the other 
program. Mutual Recognition as a concept is reflected in the World Customs Organization's 
Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitat e Global Trade, a strategy designed with 
the support of the United States which enable s Customs Administrations to work together 
to improve their capability in detecting hi gh-risk consignments and expediting the 
movement of legitimate cargo.  
 The C-TPAT MR process involves four phases: 
1. A side-by-side comparison of the progra m requirements and an overview of the 
implemented Authorized Economic Operator  (AEO) program. This is designed to 
determine if the programs align on basic pr inciples and to determine if there is a 
security aspect in the AEO program. 
2. A pilot program of joint validation and ob servation visits. This is designed to 
determine if the programs align in basic practice. 
3. The signing of a Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). 
4. The development of MR operational proc edures, primarily those associated with 
information sharing. This is also referr ed to as the implementation phase. 
 
Before CBP engages a foreign Customs Administ rations towards Mutual Recognition, four 
prerequisites must be met: 
5. The foreign Customs Administration mu st have a full fledged operational 
program in place –i.e. not a program in development or a pilot program. 
6. The foreign partnership program must have  a strong validation process built into 
its program. 
7. The foreign partnership program must have a strong security component built 
into its program. 
8. The foreign Customs Administration must  have a Customs Mutual Assistance 
Agreement (CMAA) in place with the US. 
 
CBP intends to initiate MRA talks with other countries in Central America, South America, 
the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia over the next few years. CBP is currently in MRA 
negotiations with China and Switzerland. 
 
22) En el párrafo 3.15 se informa la existencia de "Programa de Autoevaluación de los Importadores", que aparentemente se aplica en el marco del C-TPAT.  
a) ¿En qué consiste exactamente este programa? 
b) ¿Qué relación tiene con el C-TPAT?  c) ¿Cuáles son exactamente los beneficios para los importadores? 
 
RESPONSE: To participate in the ISA program, an importer must be C-TPAT certified and a U.S. or Canada resident impo rter with at least 2 years of importing history with CBP. 
Applicants are required to submit a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which 
the importer agrees to comply with the requirements of the program, documented policies 
and procedures for the company's import process, and an ISA Questionnaire and self-testing plan. 
 
Some of the incentives of IS A membership include expedited cargo release, Importer Trade 
Activity (ITRAC) Data free of charge, remova l from Regulatory Audi t's audit pool, and the 
assignment of a National Account Manager. 
 23) Según el párrafo 3.18, Estados Unidos anunció que sometería a prueba el Programa de Comerciantes de Confianza a fin de reforzar la seguridad, identificar las actividades comerciales de 
bajo riesgo y mejorar la eficiencia del comercio. ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar en qué consiste esta 
evaluación?  
RESPONSE: As was stated in the Secretariat's report the test phase for the Trusted Trader 
program will be for 18 months and will have 10  participants. The evaluation will be based WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  
 on the participant's feedback in conjunction with the feedback of the agencies involved, 
the costs, benefits, and areas of improvem ent based on that 18-month test period.  
 
24) Se solicita explicar cuáles son los beneficios de la implementación de la Plataforma Comercial 
Autorizada (ACE), además de los descriptos en el informe y si existe algún mecanismo de consulta (página web, etc.) a través del cual las em presas puedan plantear sus inquietudes. 
 
RESPONSE: Through ACE as the Single Window,  manual processes will be streamlined and 
automated, paper will be eliminated, and the in ternational trade communi ty will be able to 
more easily and efficiently comply with U.S. laws and regulations. U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) has been conducting outrea ch with local ports and trade communities 
since 2013 and will continue to do so through on going outreach activities such as on-site 
visits, association-specific conferences, and webinars, well in advance of the mandatory 
dates. This outreach will ensure that th e trade community has sufficient advice and 
advance notice to allow for a smooth tran sition to the new system. More detailed 
information about ACE including scheduled updates, outreach calendars, technical 
specifications, training and reference guid es, frequently asked questions, and other 
resources can be found at: www.cbp.gov/trade/ace . 
 
25) En el párrafo 3.23 el informe explica que en 2012, el Consejo de Zonas Francas, que se ocupa 
de supervisar y vigilar el sistema de zonas francas de los Estados Unidos, aprobó nuevos reglamentos 
para esas zonas en los que se abordan distintas cuestiones pero cuya finalidad principal es simplificar el procedimiento de solicitud y reducir el tiempo necesario para establecer una zona o iniciar 
actividades manufactureras en ella. Además, los trámites burocráticos requieren ahora menos 
documentación.  a) ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar cuáles son las cuestiones que se abordan para simplificar el proceso de solicitud y reducir los tiempos?  
b) ¿En qué consisten los nuevos reglamentos y en qué cambiaron la operatoria de estas zonas 
francas hasta 2012? Subsección 3.1.3. sobre normas de origen. 
 
RESPONSE: The primary change in the 2012 re gulations decreased the time required to 
review a company's request for production auth ority within a FTZ. In the prior regulations 
this type of application required a 12-mo nth review, which has been reduced to a 
120-day process for most requests. In addition, through both the regulations and previous changes adopted by the FTZ Board, the proce ssing time needed for a company's site to 
receive FTZ designation has been significantly reduced from 10 months to as little as 30 
days. The processing time reductions were  accomplished through a full reassessment of 
the procedures needed and information required  for each type of request, with previous 
requirements eliminated or reduced wherever possible. E ssentially, the reductions in 
processing time for production within a FTZ re sulted in a vastly simplified review for the 
majority of cases, while allowing for a more detailed review where warranted by the circumstances.  
 
The FTZ Board's reassessment of its procedures  i n  2 0 1 2  w a s  i n t e n d e d  i n  p a r t  t o  b e t t e r  
meet the needs of business in the United States. Statistics from 2012 and 2013, with 
record numbers of cases reviewed by the FTZ Board, indicate that there was a demand 
from the business community for simplified a ccess to the FTZ program. However, due to 
the range of factors that enter into companies' lo cation decisions, it is not practicable to try 
to assess the degree to which access to FTZs co ntributes to individual companies' location 
decisions. 
 26) En el párrafo 3.29 se menciona que las normas estadounidenses sobre la marca del país de 
origen son distintas e independientes de las decisiones en materia de admisibilidad a efectos 
aduaneros. Cabe la posibilidad de que en el momento de su importación un artículo sea declarado como procedente de un país y sin embargo lleve una etiqueta que indique otro país como lugar de fabricación a efectos del marcado. ¿Podrían explicar con mayor nivel de detalle esta aparente 
contradicción? 
 RESPONSE: United States marking requirements (19 USC 1304) require that, unless 
excepted, all foreign origin goods be marked so as to inform the ultimate purchaser in the 
United States of its country of origin.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  
 The U.S. non-preferential rules of origin empl oy the "substantial transformation" criterion 
for goods that consist in whole or in part of  materials from more than one country. Such 
requirements are not inconsistent with labe ling requirements and are compliant with the 
United States' WTO obligations. 
 There may be rare circumstances in which a good may be eligible for preferential 
treatment in those preference programs that do not utilize the substantial transformation 
test for customs duty purposes, but for thos e programs that do apply the substantial 
transformation test, the marking would be the same country.  
27) En el párrafo 3.30 el informe menciona que para justificar una solicitud de trato preferencial, 
los importadores deben conservar los documentos que deben presentar al CBP previa solicitud. ¿Podría Estados Unidos enumerar cuales son lo s documentos que se deben presentar al CBP? 
 
RESPONSE: Businesses must keep records (refer red to as the "(a)(1)(A) list") that they 
have to prepare for the entry of merchandise. Th is list is in Treasury Directive 96-1, as well 
as in the customs regulations under 19 CFR 163, Appendix A. Others required are those 
business, financial, and accounting records or dinarily maintained for normal business 
transactions. Further information about recordkeeping requirements can be found at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade-co mmunity/outreach-programs/entry-
summary/recordkeeping . 
 
Subsección 3.1.4. sobre aranceles. 
 
28) En el párrafo 3.32 el informe explica que otros cambios propuestos han consistido en rectificar la designación o descripción incorrecta de determinados productos químicos. ¿Cuáles son exactamente esos productos químicos? 
 
RESPONSE: The products referred to in the report are primarily photographic film products in Chapter 37. Pursuant to section 1205 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, the U.S. International Trade Commissi on conducted an investigation and sought 
public comment on the proposed changes. No requests for changes to the Commission's recommendation were received. The required Congressional layover period has been 
completed. The omitted HTS provisions are expe cted to be proclaimed by the President by 
the end of 2014, and it is expected that the effective date of these modifications will be 
February 3, 2012, the date on which the other 2012 changes to the Harmonized System were reflected in the HTS by Presidential Pr oclamation 8771. No change in duty treatment 
would result upon the implementation of the omitted provisions. 
 29) El párrafo 3.40 indica que los compromisos arancelarios de Estados Unidos en la OMC se 
actualizaron por última vez en 2011, tras la aprobación de los cambios de nomenclatura del SA 
2002.Sin embargo, algunas de las modificaciones introducidas en el Arancel de Aduanas Armonizado (HTSUS) aún no se han notificado a la OMC, entre ellas las revisiones tercera y cuarta de la lista de 
productos farmacéuticos abarcados, las notas de capítulo y las negociaciones sobre el tabaco con 
arreglo al artículo XXVIII.  a) ¿Por qué razones aún no se han notificado a la OMC estos cambios?  b) ¿Piensa el gobierno cumplir prontamente con este compromiso asumido en el marco de la 
OMC? 
 RESPONSE: The United States will be noti fying the Committee on Market Access of 
modifications to Schedule XX of the United St ates to reflect changes to the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States as s oon as possible. For further reference, the 
nomenclature changes from la te 2011 will be included in the certification of 2012 
nomenclature changes. The changes are show n in theU.S.International Trade Commission 
website section on HTS modifications:  http://www.usitc.go v/tariff_affairs/ 
modifications_hts.htm, specifically: http:/ /www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/hts_documents/ 
PP8742.pdf is the full text of the Presidenti al Proclamation regarding the changes, as 
published in the Federal Register. 
 30) El párrafo 3.41 menciona que dos líneas arancelarias relativas al petróleo crudo siguen sin 
consolidarse en el marco de la OMC. ¿Por qué razones aún no se han consolidado estas dos líneas 
arancelarias relativas al petróleo?   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: These two tariff lines (2709.00.10 and 2709.00.20) were not bound as part of 
the Uruguay Round and in prior GATT negotiatio ns for reasons of national security. They 
are currently applied at 5.25 cents per barr el and 10.5 cents per barrel respectively. 
 
Subsección 3.1.5. sobre otras cargas que afectan a las importaciones.  31) El párrafo 3.43 indica la existencia de un "gravamen por tramitación de mercancías (MPF)" que 
se aplica a todas las importaciones formales e informales y se emplea para compensar el costo de las 
operaciones comerciales del CBP.  a) ¿Qué diferencia existe, de acuerdo a la legislación de los Estados Unidos, entre una importación 
"formal" y una "informal"?  
b) ¿Bajo qué criterios se determinan los gravámenes aplicables en virtud de este impuesto?  
RESPONSE: Formal entries are commercial shipments of goods valued over US$2500, while 
informal entries of merchandise are those commercial shipment valued below US$2500 or 
consisting of personal shipments. The inform al entry amount was increased in 2012, by a 
notice in the Federal register at 77 FR 72720 (December 6, 2012), and those regulations 
are found at 19 CFR Part 143.21. Formal entr y regulations are found in 19 CFR Part 141. 
 The Merchandise Processing fee for formal entries is an ad valorem  fee of 0.3464%. The 
fee is based on the value of the merchandise being imported, not including duty, freight, 
and insurance charges. The maximum amount of  the fee shall not exceed US$485 and shall 
not be less than US$25. For informal entries: US$2 if the entry is automated and not 
prepared by CBP personnel, US$6 if the entry is manual and not prepared by CBP 
personnel, and US$9 whether automated or manual, prepared by CBP personnel.  
 32) En el párrafo 3.51, el informe menciona durante el período examinado se revisaron los tipos del 
impuesto especial que grava el transporte aéreo y se modificaron las normas y reglamentos internos 
relativos a los dispositivos médicos, los servicios de bronceado y las instituciones financieras extranjeras.  
a) ¿Cuáles fueron las razones de estas modificaciones?  
b) ¿Podría especificar estas modificaciones?  
RESPONSE: Generally, the nominal amount of th e tax on the use of international travel 
facilities is adjusted annually with inflation. For further information, refer to the following 
online sites: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p510--2012.pdf ; 
http://www.faa.gov/about/offic e_org/headquarters_offices /apl/aatf/media/14.1.17Exci
seTaxStructureCalendar2014.pdf .  
 
With respect to the medical device excise tax,  the IRS and the Treasury Department issued 
Notice 2012-77 on Dec. 5, 2012, ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-77.pdf ) to 
provide interim guidance on certain issues rela ted to the medical device excise tax. This 
Notice solicited comments from taxpayers about these rules an d no final determination has 
been made yet on these issues.  Tanning services excise tax final regula tions were published on June 11, 2013 
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2013-06-11/pdf/2013-13876.pdf ). These are final 
regulations and reflect comments received on preliminary regulations. One of the 
clarification in the final regulations is th at prepaid monthly membership and enrollment 
fees are subject to the tax even if the member does not use the tanning services for the 
period which the fees are related.  
Final regulations for information reporting by foreign financial institutions and withholding 
on certain payments to these institutions were release April 8, 2013 (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2013-15_IRB/ar16.html ). Many comments were received and 
the comments and the regulatory responses are listed in the section, "Summary of 
Comments and Explanations of Revisions." This guidance is part of the guidance provided 
as a result of FATCA. ( http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Co rporations/FATCA-Regulations-
and-Other-Guidance ) 
 
33) El párrafo 3.52 indica que, además de los impuestos especiales federales, se aplican impuestos especiales estatales a los cigarrillos, otros productos del tabaco, combustibles para motores, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  
 aguardientes destilados, vino y cerveza. Los tipos varían considerablemente de un Estado a otro. Se 
aplican asimismo algunos impuestos especiales de consumo a nivel local o municipal. Se solicita tener a bien brindar detalles exactos sobre los tipos de impuestos aplicables a estos productos. 
 
RESPONSE: Tax rates at the local or municipal level are not readily available in one place. 
State tax rates can be found but may aggreg ate across products. For example, tobacco 
taxes for products other than cigarettes may be combined. Getting excise tax rates for 
specific products and localities would require extensive research and contacting each local 
government.  
However, there is some data available primar ily on state excise tax rates. Data on 
tobacco taxes at the state and local government level can be found at the Tax Burden on 
Tobacco, Historical Compila tion, Volume 48, 2013 
(http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/tobacco/papers/tax_burden_2013.pdf ). State excise tax 
rates are available for motor fuels, distilled spir its, wine, and beer at the Federation of Tax 
Administrators (FTA) website, http://www.taxadmin.org/f ta/rate/tax_stru.html . The FTA 
also notes whether State retail sales taxes are applied on top of the excise tax rates. 
 
Subsección 3.1.6. sobre prohibiciones, restricciones y licencias de importación.  
34) El párrafo 3.57 indica que los Estados Unidos exigen licencias de importación (que pueden ser 
automáticas o no automáticas) para importar determinadas categorías de productos. Seis departamentos del Gobierno están facultados para establecer prescripciones en materia de 
licencias, en virtud de diversas leyes y por varios motivos. ¿Cuáles son los motivos por los cuales el 
gobierno de los Estados Unidos puede exigir licencias de importación?  RESPONSE: Please see our notification under Article 7.3 of the Agreement of Import 
Licensing Procedures (G/LIC/N/3/USA/11).  
 35) En la nota al pié N° 50, el informe indica que, en su notificación a la OMC, los Estados Unidos 
no hicieron ninguna distinción entre licencias automáticas y no automáticas. No obstante, la nota al 
pié aclara que es evidente que varias de las licencias no son automáticas. ¿Podrían explicar esta situación? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see our notification under Article 7.3 of the Agreement of Import Licensing Procedures (G/LIC/N/3/USA/11).  
36) En el párrafo 3.58 se indica se indica que, en febrero de 2013 el Departamento de Agricultura 
propuso una norma para modificar determinados aspectos del Programa de licencias de importación para los productos lácteos, incluido el método de expedición de licencias. Se solicita tener a bien 
indicar en qué instancia se encuentra esta propuesta de norma y las modificaciones introduce en el 
sistema de expedición de licencias. Subsección 3.1.7 sobre medidas antidúmpin g, compensatorias y de salvaguardias. 
 
RESPONSE: USDA is in the process of rulema king regarding the dairy import licensing 
program at this time, and further notices will be forthcoming.  
37) El párrafo 3.63 indica que se introdujeron algunos cambios y actualizaciones en los 
reglamentos internos relativos a las investigaciones sobre derechos antidumping y derechos compensatorios, tales como prórroga de los plazos de presentación, modificación de la definición de 
"información fáctica" y los plazos para presentarla, modificación de los requisitos de certificación de la 
información fáctica presentada durante el procedimiento y la incorporación de una disposición que refuerza la rendición de cuentas de los representantes, abogados y no abogados, que comparecen en 
las actuaciones. Al parecer, estos cambios afectan al procedimiento de investigación, haciéndolo más 
complejo. ¿Podría explicar las razones de estas reformas?  RESPONSE: All of the changes to regulations mentioned above were notified to both the 
WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practice s and the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures. The basis for each ch ange is explained in more detail in the 
relevant notifications. 
 
38) En el párrafo 3.64 se indica que, en lo que se refiere a la práctica con respecto a economías no de mercado en el marco de los procedimientos antidumping, el Departamento de Comercio dejará de WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  
 considerar a esas economías como "exportadoras condicionalmente". ¿Podrían explicar con mayor 
nivel de detalle en qué consiste este cambio?  
RESPONSE: The change referenced in the question identifies a published change in practice 
by the United States involving the disconti nuation of the conditional review of the 
nonmarket economy entity in antidumping nonmarket economy cases. Now, if an 
interested party wants the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)  to conduct such a 
review, it must request such a review of the entity in accordance with Commerce's 
regulations.   
More detailed information regarding this change in practice can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-11-04/html /2013-26266.htm . 
 
39) En el párrafo 3.66 el informe mencio na que en 2013 las medidas antidumping y 
compensatorias se incrementaron un 18% con respecto a 2010 y que hubo un considerable aumento de las medidas aplicadas a los "mercados emergentes", mientras que el número de medidas aplicadas a los países desarrollados disminuyó. Asimismo, en 2013 se iniciaron 39 investigaciones, mientras 
que la media de los años anteriores era de 9 investigaciones por año. ¿A qué atribuye el gobierno de 
los Estados Unidos este incremento en el número de medidas e inicio de investigaciones durante el periodo bajo examen y el cambio en la composición de  los países objeto de ellas, tanto las referentes 
a antidumping como las referidas a derechos compensatorios? 
 RESPONSE: The United States administers it s trade remedy laws in accordance with 
applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to a peti tion filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual de termination of whether dumping exists and 
whether dumped imports have caused, or threaten  to cause, material injury to a domestic 
industry. The decision to impose a counter vailing duty measure is based on a factual 
determination of whether countervailable subs idies exists and whether such subsidized 
imports have caused, or threaten to cause, ma terial injury to a domestic industry. Where 
dumped/subsidized imports, and material injury  caused by such imports have been found, 
the United States will impose an antidump ing or countervailing duty measure, as 
applicable.  
 
40) Respecto a las revisión por extinción de las medidas antidumping, en los últimos años ha existido una tendencia a disminuir la revocaciones. El 90% de las revisiones condujeron al mantenimiento de las órdenes. ¿Podría EEUU dar mayor información sobre los factores que conducen 
al mantenimiento de las órdenes antidumping? 
 RESPONSE: In determining whether revocation  of a countervailing duty order or an 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to co ntinuation or recurrence of material injury 
within a reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) 
considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). In determining whether 
revocation of a countervailing duty order or an tidumping duty order would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of a count ervailable subsidy or sales of the subject 
merchandise at less than fair value, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), respectively.  
 
The determinations in each sunset review  conducted by the USITC or Commerce are 
case-specific. The results for all sunset re views can be found on the USITC's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). From this website, Members can obtain, on a 
case-by-case basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation or 
termination of a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty order.  
 
Subsección 3.1.8 sobre reglamentos y normas técnicas. 41) En el párrafo 3.75 el informe indica Estados Unidos actualmente está examinando las prácticas reglamentarias relacionadas con la participación de los organismos de reglamentación federales en la 
elaboración y aplicación de normas y en las acti vidades de evaluación de la conformidad.  
a) ¿En qué consiste el examen?   
RESPONSE: A description of the process to co nsider revisions to Circular A-119 can be 
found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-11/pdf/2014-02891.pdf . 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  
 b) ¿Se están considerando reformas a estas prácticas?  
 RESPONSE: Please see the answer to question (a). 
 
c) De ser así, ¿qué tipo de reformas se están considerando? 
 RESPONSE:  Please see the answer to question (a). 
 
42) En el párrafo 3.77 se indica que, según la revisión propuesta de la Circular A-11966, se mantiene una "marcada preferencia" por la utilización de normas consensuales voluntarias en el 
ámbito de la reglamentación y las actividades de contratación del Gobierno Federal, pero reconoce 
que en el mercado (y particularmente, en el campo de la tecnología de la información) se aplican también normas no elaboradas sobre la base del consenso que pueden ser pertinentes o necesarias a 
los efectos de la reglamentación. Por favor indicar cuáles son y en qué casos se aplican estas normas 
no elaboradas.  RESPONSE: The proposed revisions to A-119 in dicate that in cases where no suitable 
voluntary consensus standards exists, an agency may use suitable voluntary standards 
that are not developed by voluntary consensus bodies. When the use of existing voluntary 
consensus standards would be inconsistent with  applicable law or otherwise impractical, 
agencies have the discretion under section 12( d) of the NTTAA to use voluntary standards 
that are not developed by voluntary consensus bodies.   
43) En el párrafo 3.78 el informe indica, en materia de reglamentación técnica, la Oficina de 
Información y Cuestiones de Reglamentación (OIRA) debe revisar, antes de su publicación, todas las medidas reglamentarias "importantes" adoptadas por los organismos federales, para lo cual estos deben remitir a la OIRA los proyectos de medidas reglamentarias junto con, entre otras cosas, una 
evaluación de sus costos y beneficios potenciales. ¿A qué se considera una medida reglamentaria 
"importante"?  
RESPONSE:  Section 2(f) of Executive Order 12866,  "Regulatory Planning and Review," 
define "significant regulatory action" as any re gulatory action that is likely to result in a 
rule that may: 
 
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of US$100 million or more or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public heal th or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities; 
 (2) Create a serious inconsistency or othe rwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency; 
 (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of  entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligat ions of recipients thereof; or 
 (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues aris ing out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order. 
 
The full text of Executive Order 12866 can be found here: http://www.reginfo.gov/ 
public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf . 
 
44) En el párrafo 3.80 el informe indica que, en 2013, Estados Unidos notificó 269 obstáculos al comercio a la OMC, cifra superior a la de años  anteriores. ¿A qué se debe este incremento? 
 
RESPONSE:  There are numerous conceivable factors that may affect the increase in 
notifications, and therefore the United States does not have an explanation for the change. 
 
45) En el párrafo 3.82 el informe menciona que, en 2012, el Gobierno anunció la puesta en marcha, 
en colaboración con el ANSI, de un nuevo mecanismo de financiación cuyo objetivo es ayudar a los países en desarrollo a cumplir los compromisos contraídos en el marco del Acuerdo OTC. Se solicita 
indicar en qué instancia se encuentra este proyecto  así como también información sobre sus aspectos 
normativos y operativos.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE:  The USAID-ANSI Standards Alliance a ssistance facility, launched in 2012, 
provides resources and expertise to enable de veloping countries to effectively implement 
the TBT Agreement. The focus of these efforts in  developing countries includes efforts: to 
improve practices related to notification of technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures to the WTO; to strength en domestic practices related to adopting 
relevant international standards; and to cl arify and streamline regulatory processes for 
products. Under the Standards Alliance,  ANSI is working with ten partner 
countries/regions according to work plans tailored to individual country needs, some of 
which include activities focused on standards development. Quarterly reports for the last 
year can be found here: http://standardsalliance.ansi.org/ . 
 
46) En el párrafo 3.83 se explica que, dependiendo del sector, los Estados Unidos utilizan una amplia gama de mecanismos para evaluar la conformidad (declaración de conformidad del proveedor, 
prueba o certificación por terceros, etc.). ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar las características de estos 
mecanismos?  RESPONSE: As the Secretariat report notes, "The United States relies on a broad range of 
approaches to conformity assessment, dependin g on the sector (supplier's declaration of 
conformity, third-party testing or certific ation, etc.). Accreditation programmes are 
operated by all levels of government and the private sector, and frequently rely on 
private-sector conformity assessment bodies ." In other words, the procedures for 
accreditation of conformity assessment bodies will vary, de pending on the particular 
standard or technical regulation. 
 
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), under the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Ac t, is responsible for working with 
U.S. government agencies to coordinate conformity assessm ent activities, with private 
sector conformity assessmen t activities, with the goal  of eliminating unnecessary 
duplication and complexity. OMB Circular A-119 Federal Participation in the Development 
and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities  
provides additional guidance to agencies regarding conformity assessment, including 
directing the Secretary of Commerce to issues guidance to the agencies to improve coordination on conformity assessment. . NIST has published Guidance on Federal 
Conformity Assessment Activiti es, which can be found here: http://www.gpo. 
gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-08-10/pdf/00-20262.pdf . 
 
Subsección 3.1.9 - Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias 
47) En el párrafo 3.88 el informe menciona que la FDA ha anunciado que antes de promulgar las 
normas definitivas publicará revisiones de varias de las propuestas de reglamento previamente publicadas y dará a las partes interesadas la oportunidad de formular observaciones. ¿Cuáles son y 
cómo funcionan los mecanismos que permiten a las partes interesadas formular observaciones a las 
normas mencionadas?  
RESPONSE:  FDA issues rules by means of notice and comment rulemaking conducted 
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a U.S. statute. Under the procedures 
for notice and comment rulemaking, any intere sted party may submit comments to provide 
its views on a proposed regulation. Proposed rules are published in the Federal Register 
(FR) (which is accessible online)  so that the public may familia rize itself with the proposal 
and become aware of the opportunity for comment. The proposed rule and supporting documents are also filed in FDA's official docket on http://www.regulations.gov. In 
addition to following the requirements of the APA, FDA, as appropriate, notifies proposed 
rules to the WTO SPS Committee so that our tr ading partners can review them and be 
aware of the opportunity to provide written comments. 
  
FDA considers comments on the proposed rule received during the comment period, and 
considers revising the rule in light of those comments. When it issues a final rule, in the 
preamble, FDA discusses the significant comment s received on the proposed rule. The final 
rule is also published in the FR and on FDA's official docket on: 
http://www.regulations.gov.  
48) En el párrafo 3.89 se indica que la legislación estadounidense exige que los importadores 
remitan un aviso de los envíos de determinados prod uctos alimenticios. Se solicita explicar en detalle WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  
 en las formalidades y requisitos que debe cumplir el operador comercial para cumplir con este aviso 
previo.  
RESPONSE: Federal law requires that FDA re ceive prior notice when human and animal 
food (unless exempt) is imported or offered for import into the United States. The Food 
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) updated th is requirement, providing that a person 
submitting a prior notice must report the name  of any country to which the article of food 
has been refused entry. The final Prior Notice of  Imported Food regulation is found in Title 
21 of theU.S.Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),  Part 1, Subpart I. Operators may file a 
prior notice thro ugh FDA's website 
(www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/Im portsExports/Importing/ucm2006836.htm ), 
or may enlist the help of others, including cust oms brokers, to assist with this process. 
 
49) El párrafo 3.90 indica que la Ley 111-353 autoriza a la FDA a aplicar un gravamen a 
determinadas instalaciones nacionales y extranjeras y a la reinspección de los importadores, cuando anteriormente era la FDA quien asumía los costos de estas actividades.  a) ¿Cuáles son las razones de este cambio? 
b) ¿Cómo se determina el gravamen? 
 RESPONSE: FSMA authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees for certain reinspections of 
domestic and foreign facilities, and for certain importer reinspections, that result from a 
previous inspection where FDA has determined  that noncompliance was materially related 
to food safety requirements of the Food, Dr ug & Cosmetic Act. The fee charged by FDA 
would be based on the number of direct ho urs spent on such reinspections. More 
information can be found on FDA's website at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ 
GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm257982.htm .  
FDA has not assessed or collected any of  these reinspection fees to date. 
 
50) Los párrafos 3.87 a 3.90 describen diferentes aspectos de la Ley de Modernización de la Inocuidad de los Alimentos. Dicha Ley es una significativa reforma en el control de la inocuidad de los 
alimentos, tanto nacionales como importados. La misma entró en vigencia el 4 de enero de 2011 y la 
Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés) publicó siete propuestas de norma para su implementación entre 2013 y 2014.  
Cabe destacar que la Ley de Modernización de la Inocuidad de los Alimentos exige un significativo 
incremento en el control de los alimentos importados y obligó a la FDA a inspeccionar 600 establecimientos extranjeros en 2011 y a duplicar esta cantidad anualmente durante los próximos 5 años (alcanzarían 19.200 inspecciones en 2016). Antes de la promulgación de la ley, la 
FDA inspeccionaba menos de un tercio de los es tablecimientos extranjeros que exportaban sus 
alimentos a los Estados Unidos. En tal sentido, ¿podría EEUU especificar si ha contemplado establecer un sistema de control para los alimentos importados basado en la determinación de equivalencia 
entre los organismos de control de los países y el Servicio de Inspección de la Inocuidad de Alimentos 
del Departamento de Agricultura (FSIS/USDA, por sus siglas en inglés), de acuerdo con el artículo 4 del Acuerdo MSF, la Decisión 19 del Comité MSF y los Principios para la Inspección y Certificación de 
Importaciones y Exportaciones de Alimentos del CODEX, en lugar de un sistema de control basado en 
la inspección individual de las empresas exportadoras?  RESPONSE: FSIS and FDA regulate the safety of different products. The Food Safety 
Modernization Act (FSMA) applies to the food safe ty activities of FDA. It does not apply to 
the activities of USDA's FSIS. An FSIS determination to recognize a trading partner's inspection system with respect to a meat or poultry product does not imply the safety of 
FDA-regulated products from  that trading partner. 
 Subsección 3.2. Medidas que afectan exportaciones 
Subsección 3.2.1. de procedimientos y requisitos de exportación. 
51) En el párrafo 3.99 se indica que, por lo general se exige que las exportaciones se clasifiquen utilizando la nomenclatura de la Lista B de clasificación de las exportaciones, elaborada por la Oficina del Censo de los Estados Unidos (que sigue la nomenclatura del SA, pero se diferencia del Arancel de 
Aduana de los Estados Unidos (HTSUS)), y no se ac tualiza con la misma frecuencia. Pero en algunos 
casos, los exportadores pueden utilizar la clasificación del HTSUS al presentar la documentación a través del AES. Se solicita tener a bien:  
a) indicar específicamente en qué casos se exige a los exportadores que utilicen la clasificación de 
la Lista B; y  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, Annotated for Statistical 
Purposes (HTSUSA) can be used for reportin g exports except where the level of detail 
collected for exports is greater than that co llected for imports. Here's a link to the HTS 
codes that are not valid for AES . http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/aes/documentlibrary/index.html <#concordance. 
 
b) en qué casos se les permite utilizar la clasificación HTSUS. 
 
RESPONSE: Except for HTSUSA codes listed in th e link above, HTSUSA codes may be used in 
filing exports declarations . 
 
Subsección 3.2.3. sobre prohibiciones, re stricciones y licencias de exportación. 
52) El párrafo 3.104 indica que los Estados Unidos aplican restricciones, regímenes de licencias, 
controles adicionales y prohibiciones de exportar diversos productos por razones de seguridad 
nacional o de política exterior. Asimismo, el cuadro 3.9 indica que se aplican restricciones a las exportaciones de productos agropecuarios de "mucho valor" o "valor añadido".  a) ¿Cuáles son exactamente las razones por las cuales Estados Unidos puede aplicar restricciones 
a las exportaciones bajo los criterios de "seguridad nacional" o de "política exterior"? 
 RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat's report the main items subject to export licenses 
are munitions, certain military items and dual  use items. Others pertain to trade in 
endangered species, food and drug safety  and controlled substances. We believe the 
reason to restrict exports of thes e items should be well understood.  
 
b) ¿En el caso específico de los productos agrope cuarios, que significan exactamente los criterios 
de "mucho valor" o "valor añadido"?  
RESPONSE: The table erroneously includes prog rams under the Department of Agriculture 
as export restrictions. All of these programs pertain to programs applicable to domestic producers as well as importers in the areas of food safety, organic certification, and 
marketing orders.  
 53) El párrafo 3.105 hace referencia a la existencia de una Lista de Control de Comercio (LCC) para 
las exportaciones. ¿En qué consiste esta lista y qué criterios se utilizan para su conformación? 
 RESPONSE: The Commerce Control List is reprod uced in Table 3.10 of the Secretariat's 
Report and is also viewable at the Depart ment of Commerce website provided with 
Table 3.10. As noted in paragraph 3.105, the Ex port Administration Regulations govern this 
Commerce Control List.   
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains the CCL 
which includes "items" -- i.e., "commodities," "software," and "technology" -- subject to the authority of BIS. The CCL contains items that are strictly commercial, dual-use (i.e., 
those that have both commercial and military or  proliferation applications), and militarily 
less sensitive, upon which a license requir ement may be imposed. The list the items 
controlled on the CCL is largely based on  multilateral export control regimes. 
 
Subsección 3.2.4 sobre apoyo y promoción de las exportaciones. 
54) El párrafo 3.112. indica que el Comité de Coordinación para el Fomento del Comercio (TPCC) es el principal organismo interinstitucional del Gobierno que coordina las políticas de promoción de las 
exportaciones y que cada año establece su estrategia nacional de exportación, en la que determina 
un orden de prioridades. No obstante, desde 2012 no publica ningún documento al respecto.  a) ¿Por qué no se hacen más públicas estas estrategias?  
 
RESPONSE: All National Export Strategies are made public.  b) ¿Está prevista una publicación actualizada de este informe?  
 
RESPONSE: A revised National Export Strategy capturing the updated vision of the National 
Export Initiative, NEI/NEXT, will be pu blished within the next several months. 
 
c) ¿Bajo qué estrategias se viene trabajando dado que en los últimos 2 años no ha habido publicaciones al respecto? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: The strategies under which work is taking place are captured in the NEI/NEXT 
Strategic Framework, www.trade.gov/neinext/ neinext-strategic-framework.pdf, published 
by the TPCC Secretariat in May 2014. 
 
 55) En mayo de 2014, los Estados Unidos lanzaron una nueva iniciativa de exportación denominada NEI/NEXT, como continuación de la adoptada en 2010 (NEI). ¿Podría EEUU dar información detallada 
sobre los nuevos elementos incorporados o modificados en comparación con el marco vigente 
anterior?  
RESPONSE: Feedback from customer survey s on the NEI and focus groups across the 
country – reaching more than 6,000 clients an d partners – showed that U.S. companies are 
well-positioned to capitalize on growing op portunities around the world and offered 
suggestions on how to improve upon the NEI. NEI/NEXT is a new customer service-driven 
strategy with improved information resources th at will help American businesses capitalize 
on existing and new opportunities to sell Made-in-America goods and services abroad. 
NEI/NEXT is focused on improving data of use to exporters, providing information on 
specific export opportunities, working more  closely with financing organizations and 
service providers to expand access to export-rel ated resources, and partnering with states 
and communities to empower local export effo rts and make it easier for small businesses 
to understand where to go for help. 
 56) En el párrafo 3.116 el informe indica que el Presidente de los EE.UU. anunció, como parte de 
las iniciativas para revitalizar la economía después de la crisis económica de 2009, la Iniciativa NEI, 
un programa que abarcaría a todo el Gobierno y tendría por fin promover las exportaciones para duplicar su volumen en un plazo de cinco años. Su principal objetivo era reforzar las actividades de promoción y fomento del comercio, mejorar el acceso a la financiación, reducir los obstáculos a la 
actividad comercial y velar por el cumplimiento de las normas comerciales, poniendo especial 
atención en el desarrollo de programas de exportación para las PyMEs.  a) ¿En qué consiste la promoción de las exportaciones que llevarían a duplicar el volumen de las 
mismas?  
 RESPONSE: We did not reach the President's go al of doubling exports under the NEI – in 
part because of unexpectedly strong glob al economic headwinds and macroeconomic 
factors outside our control.   b) ¿En qué consisten los programas de exportación para las PyMEs al que refiere la iniciativa? 
 
RESPONSE: NEI/NEXT is focused on improvin g data of use to exporters, providing 
information on specific export opportuniti es, working more closely with financing 
organizations and service providers to expand  access to export-related resources, and 
partnering with states and communities to empo wer local export efforts and make it easier 
for small businesses to understand where to go for help. In addition to the Small Business 
Administration, the Export-Import Bank and th e Department of Commerce assist small and 
medium sized enterprises.   57) En el párrafo 3.117 el informe indica que, aunque las exportaciones han aumentado 
considerablemente (un 44% en 2013 en comparación con 2009) se ha reconocido que el programa 
NEI no cumplirá su objetivo de duplicar las exportaciones en cinco años. No obstante, desde que se lanzó la Iniciativa hay más empresas que exportan y el crecimiento de las exportaciones ha llegado a 
niveles nunca alcanzados. No obstante, solo un pequeño porcentaje de las empresas estadounidenses 
exporta y, la mayoría de las que lo hacen solo exporta a un mercado.  a) ¿En este aumento de las exportaciones (44% de 2009 a 2013), se han tomado en cuenta 
solamente las exportaciones de empresas de origen estadounidense o toda empresa exportadora 
localizada en dicho territorio?   RESPONSE: It includes all exporting ente rprises located in the United States.  
 
b) Si en el 44% no se hubiesen tomado en cuenta las empresas de capital extranjero, ¿Se tomo en cuenta en que proporción podría aumentar dicho porcentaje en total, siendo posible acercarse a la 
meta propuesta de duplicar las exportaciones? 
 RESPONSE: See answer to A. N/A WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  
 58) En el párrafo 3.118 el informe indica que, en mayo de 2014, se lanzó la Iniciativa NEI/NEXT 
como sucesora de la Iniciativa Nacional de Exportaciones (NEI), la cual tiene cinco objetivos principales: conectar más empresas estadounidenses con clientes mundiales, racionalizar los servicios 
y procedimientos de exportación de Estados Unidos, ampliar el acceso a la financiación, promover las 
exportaciones y la IED y ayudar a las economías en desarrollo a mejorar las condiciones para la actividad empresarial a fin de abrir nuevos mercados. Es un proyecto a largo plazo destinado a ayudar a las empresas estadounidenses a explotar al máximo su potencial exportador y crear puestos 
de trabajo en Estados Unidos y de sostenerlos.  
a) ¿En qué consiste la ayuda a las economías en desarrollo para mejorar las condiciones para la actividad empresarial a fin de abrir nuevos mercados?  
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. government helps developi ng countries improve their economic policy 
environment so that the private sector can spur growth. MCC programs are focus on 
economic growth and USAID has a long histor y partnering with count ries to improve the 
investment climate for small and medium ente rprises. Some recent examples include:  
 • USAID supported Mozambique's introduction  of a court-supervised reorganization 
procedure for resolving insolvency and strengthening creditors' rights.  
• In Kosovo, USAID worked with the governme nt to reduce construction permit fees 
and introduce phased inspections for construction, making it easier for companies to 
acquire construction permits. 
• In Jamaica, USAID supported the governme nt in establishing more predictable and 
consistent tax collection procedures for businesses 
• In Mexico, USAID trained judges & la wyers on best commercial and contract 
practices, role of mediation, and alte rnative dispute resolution mechanisms.  
• In Pakistan, USAID provided technical assi stance and equipment to enable real-time 
automated processing and reconciliation of  export and import documents, thereby 
increasing expediency. 
 USAID Press Releases: (specific examples of reforms we supported captured in the World 
Bank Doing Business reports) 
 www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-re leases/oct-29-2014-usaid-support-top-
reformers-highlighted-world-bank-group-doing 
www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releas es/oct-31-2013-usaid-supports-reforming-
governments-doing-business-2014 
 
MCC Information: http://www.mcc.gov/ 
 b) ¿Hay algún listado definido de cuales serían esas economías?  
 
RESPONSE: There is not a defined list of countries.   
c) ¿La Iniciativa solo está enfocada a empresas locales 100% o también podrían participar 
empresas establecidas en territorio estadounidense de capital extranjero?, teniendo en cuenta que parte de su recurso humano es nativo de dicho lugar.  
RESPONSE: No. Foreign-owned companies can an d do take advantage of Department of 
Commerce and other programs.  
59) El cuadro 3.12 describe brevemente una serie de programas de programas específicos para 
prestar apoyo a las exportaciones. Sin embargo, solo se menciona el Departamento gubernamental a cargo del programa, el nombre del programa y la actividad específica. Se solicita tener a bien dar 
más información sobre estos programas, tales como montos, plazos, tipos de ayuda, requisitos de 
acceso a la ayuda, etc.  RESPONSE: Please refer to the report referenc ed by the Secretariat as the source for the 
Table as well as the U.S. Government  websites cited in the CRS report. 
 Subsección 3.2.5. – Financiación, seguro y garantía de las exportación. 
60) El párrafo 3.122 describe el programa Ex-Im Bank, el cual proporciona préstamos directos, 
garantías y seguros para ayudar a financiar las exportaciones de bienes y servicios de los Estados Unidos.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  
 a) ¿Podría EEUU indicar qué porcentaje de dichas ayudas está destinada a productos agrícolas, y en 
dicho caso, a qué productos y qué destinos específicamente?   
RESPONSE: In FY2013, the Ex-Im Bank's direct  loans, guarantees, and insurance supported 
agricultural products totaling US$638 million. Th e agricultural products supported by the 
Ex-Im Bank vary widely, and for many of the transactions, the export destination varies. 
Mexico, Russia, El Salvador, Panama, and Ukra ine were the top identifiable markets for 
agricultural products supported by the Ex-Im Ba nk direct loans, guarantees, and insurance. 
 b) En virtud de su componente distorsivo para el comercio internacional, ¿dichas medidas están 
siendo notificadas a la OMC? 
 RESPONSE: All agricultural support is on  terms of one-year or less and bears a 
market-related fee which is meant to enco urage maximum use of private insurance. 
 61) En el párrafo 3.122 se indica que en 2012, el Congreso fijó en 100.000 millones de dólares el límite para la concesión de créditos del Banco de Exportación-Importación (Banco EX-IM), límite que 
en el ejercicio de 2014 se elevará a 140.000 millone s de dólares. Asimismo, se indica que cuando es 
necesario prestar apoyo financiero porque existe una situación de riesgo o de incertidumbre política, el Banco cubre el déficit de financiación de las exportaciones y ayuda a crear condiciones equitativas 
para los exportadores que compiten con otros que tienen el respaldo o reciben de ellos de gobiernos 
extranjeros una financiación similar. a) ¿Cuáles son las razones de haber incrementado casi en un 50% el volumen de dinero 
disponible para los créditos del Banco EX-IM?  
 RESPONSE: The lending authority is establishe d by Congress. The increase in the lending 
authority to US$140 billion was a result of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 
2012 (HR 2072 of the 112
th Congress). Of the increase in th e lending Authority, the report 
from the House of Representatives said this:   
Section 3 would allow the bank to contin ue providing new loans, guarantees, and 
insurance through 2015. Section 4 woul d increase Ex-Im's maximum allowable 
financial exposure to US$120 billion in 2012, US$140 billion in 2013, and 
US$160 billion each year ther eafter. CBO estimates that such an increase would 
allow Ex-Im to continue expanding at its recent rate of about 15% a year. 
 See: https://www.congress.gov/congressi onal-report/112th-congress/house-
report/201/1 .  
 
b) ¿A qué se considera una situación de riesgo o de incertidumbre política?  
 
RESPONSE: There are no set criteria; each situ ation is individually evaluated based on the 
particular circumstances. 
 
c) ¿Cuáles son los criterios que se utilizan para determinar si las condiciones para los exportadores que compiten con las empresas norteamericanas son "equitativas"?  
RESPONSE: Among other factors, the official fi nancing available to competing exporters in 
the market is considered. More generally, in considering and approving all transactions, the 
Ex-Im Bank complies with all OECD's "Arrangemen t on Officially Supported Export Credits." 
 
62) El principal objetivo del Banco EX-IM es ofrecer préstamos directos, garantías y seguros para ayudar a financiar las exportaciones estadounidenses de mercaderías y servicios. Hasta el momento 
del examen, aun no contaba con la reautorización para continuar operando en un nuevo periodo. 
¿Está prevista alguna estrategia o entidad que eventualmente suplante sus funciones? 
 RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank's charter was reauthorized by Congress in September 2014. 
The new date of expiration is June 30, 2015.  
 63) En el párrafo 3.126 se menciona la existencia de la Corporación de Inversiones Privadas en el 
Extranjero (OPIC), institución que facilita las inversiones de los Estados Unidos en países en 
desarrollo proporcionando a financiación, garantías, seguros contra riesgos políticos y apoyo a los fondos privados de inversión. Se solicita tener a bien brindar más detalles sobre las operaciones que WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  
 realiza la OPIC, tales como montos de financiamien to, apoyo o seguros, requisitos que deben cumplir 
los inversores, tipos de inversiones abarcadas así como también países de destino de las inversiones alcanzados por sus operaciones. 
Subsección 3.3 sobre medidas que afectan la producción y el comercio. 
Subsección 3.3.1. sobre incentivos.  RESPONSE: OPIC is able to consider projects in more than 150 developing and post-conflict 
countries. A full list of countries wh ere OPIC operates is available at 
http://www.opic.gov/doing-business-us/OPIC- policies/where-we-operate. As a general 
matter, OPIC activities are not limited to partic ular sectors. However, OPIC is categorically 
prohibited from supporting certain types of projects. These prohibitions are listed at: 
http://www.opic.gov/doing-business-us/a pplicant-screener/insurance-eligibility-
checklist#1 . 
 
64) El párrafo 3.131 describe la existencia de la "Ley de alivio de la carga impositiva de los contribuyentes" que prorroga la amortización adicional del 50% aplicable durante el primer año a los bienes que cumplan los requisitos y que se adquieran y comiencen a explotarse entre el 
1º de enero de 2013 y el 31 de diciembre de 2013. Se solicita tener a bien dar una explicación más 
detallada acerca de los requisitos que deben cumplir dichos bienes y los beneficiarios del alivio.  
RESPONSE: The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended the 50% additional first-
year depreciation deduction for one year through 2013 (through 2014 for certain longer-lived and transportation property). Under the provision, qualified property with a 
depreciation life of 7 years or less placed in service in 2013 is eligible. In general, eligible 
property is new equipment and prepackaged softw are. An example for five-year property is 
presented below comparing the regular deprecia tion schedule (MACRS) with the effect of 
modification of the 50% bonus deprecation. Bonus depreciation acce lerates depreciation 
deductions, but does not extend them beyond the assigned life of the property, or allow for 
depreciating more than the purchase price of the property.  While it applies to the 2002 to 2009 period, usin g tax return data, takeup rates relative to 
eligible investment generally were in the 50% to 60% range for subchapter C corporations 
and S corporations, and 33% to 43% for part nerships and sole proprietorships. (John 
Kitchen and Matthew Knittel, "Business Us e of Special Provisions for Accelerated 
Depreciation: Section 179 Expensing and Bonus Depreciation, 2002-09," November 2001.) 
Bonus depreciation was available to a broad ra nge of companies. Take up rates relative to 
the amount of eligible investment appears to be influenced by factors such as whether the 
business was in a loss position.  
 
Regular Depreciation and Bonus Depreciati on Schedules (%) for 5-year Property 
 
 Year 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Regular Depreciation 20.00 32.00 19.20 11.52 11.52 5.76 
With Bonus Depreciation 60.00 16.00 9.60 5.76 5.76 2.88 
 
65) El párrafo 3.131 describe también que la ley prevé la prórroga por un año de varias 
bonificaciones fiscales, entre ellas una bonificación para las instalaciones de carga de combustibles alternativos; bonificaciones sobre el consumo de combustibles alternativos; la prórroga modificación 
de las bonificaciones para los productores de biocombustibles derivados de la celulosa; incentivos 
para el biodiésel y el gasóleo de fuentes renovables; y una bonificación especial para las plantas de producción de biocombustibles derivados de la celulosa. ¿Podrían los EEUU describir en detalle los 
fondos, los beneficiarios, los programas y las implicaciones de dichos desembolsos? 
 RESPONSE: The American Taxpayer Relie f Act of 2012 was estimated to cost 
US$3,916 billion betw een 2011 and 2022 
(https://www.jct.gov/publicatio ns.html?func=startdown&id=4509 ). Most of this cost was 
for individual taxpayer relief in terms of lower tax rates and permanently adjusting the 
individual alternative minimum tax to not appl y to as many people. Business tax incentives 
accounted for roughly US$60 billion of this tota l. Extension and modification of credits for 
renewable energy were included costing a pproximately US$13 billio n over 2011 and 2022. 
Specific provisions that were temporarily ex tended through the end of calendar year 2013 
include the New Markets Tax Credit costing US $1,794 million over 201 1 to 2022, the credit 
for production of cellulosic biofuel with a maximum credit of US $1.01 per gallon costing WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  
 US$49 million over 2011 to 2022,  extension of credits for bi odiesel and renewable diesel 
costing US$2,181 million over 2011 to 2022, and th e credit for energy-efficient appliances 
costing US$659 million ov er 2011 to 2022. Many of these programs were included in the 
United States' most recent subsidy notification (see, G/SCM/N/253/USA). 
 66) El párrafo 3.133 indica que los Estados Unidos, con el objetivo de mejorar el marco nacional para las empresas fomentando la innovación del sector privado, la Ley de Incentivos para la Inversión 
en Tecnologías Innovadoras, de 2013, prevé bonificaciones por inversiones en capital de empresas de 
alta tecnología o de biotecnología que empleen a menos de 500 trabajadores. Se solicita indicar más información sobre el tipo de bonificación que beneficia a estas empresas.  
 
RESPONSE: The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentive Act of 2013 did not become law. The President in his FY2015 Budget ( http://www.treasury.gov /resource-center/tax-
policy/Documents/General- Explanations-FY2015.pdf ) proposed some incentives for 
investment and production of innovative te chnologies. These include a tax credit for 
investment in property used in advanced energy manufacturing, a tax credit for the 
production of advanced technology vehicles , a tax credit for medium- and heavy-duty 
alternative-fuel commercial vehicles, a tax credit  for cellulosic biofuels, and a tax credit for 
construction of energy-efficient new homes. Combined these proposals were estimated to 
cost approximately US$11 billion between  2015 and 2024. However, none of these 
proposals have become law. 
 67) En el párrafo 3.135 se menciona que se está debatiendo en Estados Unidos una reforma fiscal 
para simplificar el código de impuestos a las sociedades y rebajar el tipo máximo. Se solicita brindar 
más detalles sobre esta reforma, tales como en qué consisten exactamente todas las medidas de simplificación y en qué proporción se rebajaría el tipo máximo.  
RESPONSE: Business tax reform in particular co ntinues to be discussed though none of the 
proposals has been adopted into law. Represen tative Dave Camp has held many hearings 
and produced a comprehensive tax reform plan that has been released to the public in 
parts. ( http://waysandmeans.house.gov/taxreform/ ) Similarly, Senator Max Baucus 
released a series of discussion docu ments detailing a tax reform proposal. 
(http://www.finance.senate.gov/issue/ ?id=7D222262-D589-4D5E-A2AB-1504273E2E61 ) 
While, neither proposal was adopted into la w, discussions in Congress and with the 
President are ongoing.  68) En el párrafo 3.137 se menciona que la Administración de la Pequeña Empresa (SBA) ofrece 
asesoramiento y ayuda financiera a las pequeñas empresas mediante, entre otras cosas, garantías de 
préstamos y oportunidades de contratación pública con el Gobierno Federal. Dentro de este marco, la SBA tiene 32 programas permanentes, y en el ejercicio de 2013 aprobó 101.066 préstamos. Se 
agradecerá indicar cuáles son y en qué consisten los 32 programas que aplica la SBA, los sectores 
productivos abarcados y los tipos de ayuda (montos, plazos, tasas de interés, etc.).  
RESPONSE: SBA does not have 32 programs. SBA has 17 major programs, under the broad 
categories of Capital, Contracting, Counse ling/Technical Assistance, and Innovation:  
• Capital: 7(a) business loans; 504 (Certi fied Development Corporation) loans; 
Microloans; Disaster loans; Surety Bond s; Small Business Investment Companies 
• Contracting: Prime contracting; HUB Zones; 8(a) Business Development  
• Counseling/Technical Assistance: Internat ional Trade; Small Business Development 
Centers; Women Business Centers; Vete ran Business Centers; SCORE; 7(j) 
Management Assistance 
• Innovation: Small Business Innovation an d Research; Small Business Technology 
Transfer 
 
Each of these programs is describe d in full on the SBA website (see, 
https://www.sba.gov/ ). The primary program is the 7(a)  loan guaranty program. Under 
this program SBA provides a guaranty on a loan  when the lender certifies that it would not 
make the loan without a guaranty due to the perceived greater risk of the credit 
(borrower). Because of the perceived greater risk , the business is often left with the choice 
of not getting a business loan or obtaining a loan with an SBA guar anty. SBA charges to 
take that risk (guaranteed shares vary from 50% to 90% of the loan amount, depending on 
the loan size and program), which passes through to the borrower. The guaranty fee that SBA charges on the guaranteed  portion of the loan is tiered: 2% on loans up to WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  
 US$150,000, 3% on loans from 500,001 to 700,000, 3.5% on loans 700,001 to 
US$1 million, and 3.75% on guaranteed port ion over US$1 million. As a result, the 
borrower typically pays a higher total cost than it would if it were able to obtain financing 
without SBA support. SBA programs assist sma ll business in nearly every sector of the 
economy.  Subsección 3.3.2 sobre subvenciones y otros tipos de ayuda pública. 
69) En el párrafo 3.141 se indica que, aunque los Estados Unidos han ido reduciendo gradualmente 
sus medidas de estímulo fiscal, algunos programas siguen  en pie, los cuales se originaron a raíz de la 
crisis mundial de 2008-12 para restablecer la demanda, estabilizar los mercados financieros y 
promover la reincorporación a la fuerza de trabajo.  No obstante el informe indica en carios de sus 
tramos que existieron signos evidentes de recupera ción económica en el periodo examinado y que se 
prevén una mayor recuperación a futuro.  
a) ¿Piensa el gobierno de los Estados Unidos revisar la aplicación de estas medidas de estímulo a 
medida que la economía continúe recuperándose?  b) ¿Tales programas han sido notificados a la OMC? c) Si no fuera así ¿Cuáles son las razones para que EEUU no haya considerado necesario 
notificarlos? 
 RESPONSE: Most of the stimulus programs prov ided relief to individuals or to subnational 
governments. When analyzed for the 2009 though 2013 period, Recovery spending can be 
broken down into seven broad categories . (See Council of Economic Advisers, The 
Economic Impact of the American Recovery  and Investment Act Five Years Later, 
February 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites /default/files/docs/cea_arra_ 
report.pdf ) As shown below, most of the fiscal  support was for individuals (45%) and 
subnational governments and public outl ays (51%) with business tax incentives 
accounting for the rest. The focus of the bill was on helping families through a difficult 
economic period by encouraging the jobs. Appr oximately half of public investment focused 
infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and la bor, while the rest supported technology, such 
as scientific research and clea n energy. Possible trade effects of any of the provision have 
not been assessed as far as we know. 
 
Table 1  
  Functional Category 2009 through 2013 
1. Individual Tax Cuts 181.7 
2. Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Relief 69.0 
3. Aid to Directly Impacted Individuals 111.5 
4. State Fiscal Relief 143.0 
5. Public Investment Outlays 270.5 
6. Business Tax Incentives 28.8 
7. Total 804.6 
 
In general, stimulus from ARRA and subseq uent acts enacted in 2009 through 2012 has 
been tapering. Including the ARRA spendi ng with that through 2012, approximately 
US$1,479 billion of fiscal suppo rt was available between 2 009 and 2012, a four year 
period, while for 2009 through 2019, a ten year period, this support falls to US$709 billion. 
(See Table 4, Council of Economic Advisers , The Economic Impact of the American 
Recovery and Investment Act Five Years Later, February 2014, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def ault/files/docs/cea_arra_report.pdf ) Moreover, 
stimulus provisions were often frontl oaded to have more immediate impact. 
 
All of the programs that met the definiti on of a "subsidy" under the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures were noti fied to the WTO. Much of the stimulus 
"subsidy" spending provided fundin g for pre-existing programs (see, eg, 
G/SCM/N/253/USA, p. 19). Therefore, the U. S. subsidy notification does not have a 
specific heading for the ARRA.  
 70) El párrafo 3.143 menciona que Estados Unidos aplica un programa denominado "Asistencia 
para el Ajuste a la Liberalización del Comercio (TAA ), el cual ayuda a las empresas y los trabajadores 
a adaptarse a la liberalización del comercio. En 2011, el Presidente autorizó una prórroga de los programas en favor de los trabajadores, las empresas y los agricultores hasta el 31 de diciembre de 
2014. Se solicita tener a bien explicar en detalle en qué consiste la asistencia que brinda este 
programa. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program offers a variety of benefits 
and services to workers impacted by foreign trade, who have lost their jobs. Through the provision of a number of benefits and servic es, the TAA program provides trade-affected 
workers with opportunities to obtain the su pport, resources, skills, and credentials they 
need to return to the workforce in a good jo b. These include training, employment and case 
management services, job search allowances , relocation allowances, reemployment and 
alternative TAA wage subsides for older workers, and income support in the form of Trade 
Readjustment Allowances (TRA). Annual pub lic reports and detailed information on the 
operations and outcomes of the program can be  found on the U.S. Department of Labor's 
website for TAA ( http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/ ) .  A s  t o  a s s i s t a n c e  f o r  c o m p a n i e s ,  
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, prov ides financial assistance to manufacturers 
affected by import competition. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of  Commerce, this cost 
sharing federal assistance program pays for half the cost of consultants or 
industry-specific experts for projects that improve a manufacturer's competitiveness 
(http://www.taacenters.org/ ).  
 
71) En el párrafo 3.138 se señala que no existe un marco legal general que rija a los subsidios, sino 
que estos son objeto de programas particulares bajo la administración de distintas agencias a nivel 
federal. Recientemente, la NOAA ha publicado en el Federal Register un aviso para iniciar una revisión al Financing Fisheries Program (FFP) que habilitaría subsidios destinados a la construcción o el 
reemplazo de buqes pesqueros.  
¿Ha considerado EEUU que, aún teniendo en cuenta los mejores y más eficientes programas de administración pesquera, no siempre constituyen una garantía para eliminar los efectos adversos de 
los subsidios al medio ambiente o a la sobrepesca? 
 RESPONSE: The United States considers strong  fisheries management systems and subsidy 
disciplines can be complementary and mutua lly supportive. NOAA anticipates that the 
program will apply only in fisheries where total allowable catch is controlled through 
fisheries quotas and loans will not be provided  in fisheries that are deemed overfished or 
subject to overfishing. We note that the US $41 million increase in the program represents 
the additional amount of loans that can be provided under the program. The lending rate 
under this program is generally above the go vernment's cost of funds. The program has 
historically been self-financing.  
 
Subsección 3.3.3. de política de competencia 72) En el párrafo 3.148 el informe indica que, de conformidad con la legislación y la práctica de los Estados Unidos, los acuerdos entre competidores que limitan de forma no razonable el comercio 
interno interestatal y el comercio exterior, es decir, los que entrañan la fijación de precios, la 
manipulación de subastas, la distribución de clientes o territorios o la restricción de la producción, pueden ser objeto de investigaciones penales y de  demandas civiles. Estos acuerdos, considerados 
violaciones per se de las políticas y prácticas antimonopolio de los Estados Unidos, se consideran 
ilegales sin investigar el daño o la justificación mercantil de su utilización. Se solicita tener a bien explicar cómo funciona el procedimiento en estos casos. 
 
RESPONSE: We understand Argentina's question to ask the United States to identify and describe legal procedures that it uses to enfo rce U.S. antitrust laws against "per se" illegal 
agreements. Answers to this question can be found in the U.S. Department of Justice's 
Antitrust Division Manual, Chapters III .C.1, III.F., IV.F, and VII.A, found at 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/publ ic/divisionmanual/index.html . 
 
Subsección 3.3.4. sobre comercio de Estado y empresas comerciales del Estado. 
73) En el párrafo 3.161 se indica que, en lo que respecta a las empresas de propiedad estatal, siguen interviniendo en actividades comerciales, aunque en escala relativamente limitada, y que 
existe un porcentaje relativamente bajo de este tipo de empresas. Se solicita proporcionar un listado 
de las empresas de propiedad estatal o bien el sitio web en donde se publique esta información.  RESPONSE: There is no WTO definition of "state owned enterprises" in any of the existing 
WTO agreements; therefore, the United States is  not in a position to provide a list of such 
entities in the context of a WTO TPR. The repo rt referenced in the Secretariat's report is 
from the OECD, which itself does not have an established, agreed upon definition of state 
owned enterprises. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  
 74) Párrafo 3.162: ¿Qué diferencias existen, de acuerdo al criterio del gobierno de los 
Estados Unidos, entre una "empresa del estado" y una "empresa patrocinada por el Gobierno"?  
RESPONSE: Government corporations (e.g., Overseas  Private Investment Corporation) are 
revenue generating enterprises that are lega lly distinct but operated by the federal 
government.  
 
In comparison, government sponsored enterp rises (e.g., Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation – Freddie Mac) are privately held corporations with public purposes created by 
the U.S. Congress.  
 
75) En el párrafo 3.165 se indica que el Gobierno ha establecido una serie de instituciones financieras por motivos de política pública, entidades "cuasi gubernamentales", que se conocen como 
empresas "patrocinadas" por el Gobierno, que tienen facultades para conceder créditos en todo el 
país, y que gozan de privilegios especiales o reciben ayuda del Gobierno Federal. Se solicita tener a bien indicar: a) Las razones por las cuales se establece una empresa "patrocinada". 
b) Un listado completo de estas empresas. 
c) Los requisitos que debe cumplir una empresa para adquirir el carácter de "patrocinada". d) Cuáles son los "privilegios" y la ayuda de los que gozan este tipo de empresas. 
Subsección 3.3.5. sobre contratación pública. 
 
RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to the question above, government sponsored 
enterprises are privately held corporations with public purposes created by the 
U.S. Congress. Further information regarding these entities can be found at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fil es/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/gov.pdf or 
from the entity's specific website . 
 
76) En el párrafo 3.167 se indica que, a finales de 2010, Estados Unidos aprobó nuevas disposiciones para crear un impuesto federal de consumo aplicable a las entidades extranjeras que 
percibieran pagos por la compra de bienes y servicios, y que cuando la ley entre en vigor, se aplicará 
un gravamen del 2% a las entidades de países que no sean parte en un acuerdo internacional sobre contratación pública. Se solicita tener a bien indicar: 
a) Las causas que motivan la creación de una Ley que discrimina a empresas según su país de 
origen formen parte o no de un acuerdo internacional.  RESPONSE: The legislation was passed by the U.S. Congress and the legislative history 
does not indicate the policy intent be hind the 2% federal excise tax.  
 b) La fecha (o las condiciones que deberían darse) prevista para la entrada en vigor de la Ley. 
 
RESPONSE: The effective date of the st atute was the date of its enactment, 
January 2, 2011. The U.S. Internal Revenue Se rvice and the Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. 
 c) Los tipos de acuerdos sobre contratación pública abarcaría.  
RESPONSE : The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and th e U.S. Treasury Department are in the 
process of drafting regulations. The United St ates is unable to provide details about the 
administration or interpretation of the le gislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations. 
 d) Si esta Ley tendrá implicancias sobre otros instrumentos jurídicos en materia de contratación 
pública que también diferencian a los productos extranjeros con respecto a los nacionales, como la 
Ley de Promoción de Compra de Productos Estadounidenses (Buy American Act) y la Ley de Acuerdos Comerciales de 1979, que otorga exenciones del cumplimiento de las prescripciones discriminatorias en materia de compras respecto de las compras abarcadas por el Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública 
de la OMC y los acuerdos de libre comercio. 
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service an d the U.S. Treasury Department are in the 
process of drafting regulations. The United St ates is unable to provide details about the 
administration or interpretation of the le gislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  
 77) Con respecto a la Ley de Promoción de Comp ra de Productos Estadounidenses (Buy American 
Act) mencionada en el párrafo 3.168 se solicita indicar específicamente cuáles son los sectores abarcados por dicha Ley.  
 
RESPONSE: 100% of goods procured by the Federal government is subject to the Buy American Act. The Buy American Act is waived for eligible products in acquisitions covered 
by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and relevant free trade agreements 
(FTA). 
 78) En el párrafo 3.172 el informe indica que el Departamento de Defensa utiliza diversos métodos 
de contratación, incluidas las listas de la Administ ración de Servicios Generales (GSA). Por favor se 
solicita indicar cuáles son esos métodos.   
RESPONSE: The Department of Defense uses th e same procurement methods as other U.S. 
Federal Government agencies under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR provides for the use of open tendering, select ive tendering, and limited tendering, with a 
preference for open tendering. See FAR part 6. The FAR allows for procurements to be 
conducted using sealed bidding or negotiat ed procedures. See FAR parts 14 and 15. The 
reference to the use of GSA Schedules in para graph 3.172 is to the "GSA Multiple Award 
Schedules" described in paragraph 3.171. Th e Department of Defense may issue delivery 
orders for goods or task orders for services under these GSA contracts. 
 79) En el párrafo 3.177 el informe indica que, conforme a la parte 13 del FAR, se utiliza un 
"procedimiento de adquisición simplificado" para las compras de hasta 150.000 dólares que 
normalmente se reservan a las pequeñas empresas (contratos reservados) si hay expectativas razonables de que al menos dos puedan suministrar el producto o servicio en forma competitiva en términos de precios de mercado, calidad y distribución. La Ley de la Pequeña Empresa de 1953 
establece que las pequeñas empresas recibirán una "proporción equitativa" de contratos federales. El 
Congreso ha fijado como objetivo la adjudicación del 23% de los contratos a pequeñas empresas a todos los niveles del Gobierno." 
a) ¿En qué consiste el "Procedimiento de adquisición simplificado"? 
 RESPONSE: The simplified procurement procedur es streamline the procurement process to 
reduce administrative costs; to improve op portunities for small, small disadvantaged, 
women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, an d service-disabled veteran-owned small 
business concerns to obtain a fair proporti on of Government contracts; to promote 
efficiency and economy in contracting; and to avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and 
contractors. Simplified procurement procedur es include the solicitation of quotes and 
issuance of purchase orders, and the use of blanket purchase agreements for repetitive 
needs to negotiate in advance of an actual order a supplier's terms and pricing for those 
goods or services.  
 b) ¿Qué criterios se utilizan para determinar si una empresa es "competitiva en términos de 
precios de mercado, calidad y distribución"? 
 RESPONSE: FAR subpart 19.5 addresses the crit eria for setting aside procurements for 
small business. FAR section 19.502-2 provides that the procuring offi cial must determine 
that there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small businesses will 
submit offers and that the award will be made  at fair market prices. The small business 
also must be able to meet the procurin g entity's needs in terms of delivery. 
 
80) Párrafo 3.183. ¿Podrían indicar en qué casos concretos la ley estadounidense permite la contratación pública de proveedores extranjeros?  
 
RESPONSE: Under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Congress granted the President 
authority to waive discriminatory purchasing  requirements for elig ible products from 
designated countries (19 USC § 2511(a)). GP A members are designated countries under 
the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 2511(b), 2518). The President delegated this 
waiver authority to the U.S. Trade Representative (Executive Order No. 12,260, Dec. 31, 1980, as amended). The U.S. Trade Representative has waived the Buy American 
Act requirements consistent with U.S. obligatio ns under the GPA for e ligible products from 
GPA member economies.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  
 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
81) En el párrafo 3.197 se destaca que Estados Unidos introdujo discusiones en el Consejo ADPIC sobre PI e innovación, así como sobre el rol de la PI en el deporte, además de haber contribuido a las 
discusiones referidas a PI y tecnologías vinculadas con el clima. Respecto de esto último destacamos 
que entendemos de suma importancia la innovación, especialmente en materia de adaptación al Cambio Climático, pero consideramos que ésta por si sola no es suficiente sino que debe necesariamente ir acompañada de correspondientes acciones en pos de fomentar la transferencia de 
tales tecnologías. Por lo expuesto, agradeceríamos que EEUU detalle qué acciones ha desarrollado en 
materia de transferencia de tecnologías, especialme nte aquellas vinculadas al clima, considerando los 
compromisos asumidos en el marco del artículo 66.2 del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y el artículo 4.1.c 
de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático. 
 RESPONSE: The United States annual reports pu rsuant to Article 66.2 and Article 67 of the 
TRIPS Agreement to the WTO TRIPS Counc il provide detailed descriptions of 
U.S. technology transfer and technical cooper ation activities globally. The United States 
submitted reports most recently to the TRIPS Council on October 22 (IP/C/W/601/Add.6) and on October 23 (IP/C/W/602/Add.6). These reports are available to all WTO members. 
 
82) En el párrafo 3.204 se menciona que, en el período examinado, el Gobierno anunció una serie 
de iniciativas basadas en las reformas de la Le y Leahy-Smith sobre Invenc iones (AIA) destinadas a 
mejorar el sistema de patentes, fomentar la innovación y proteger a los innovadores de los 
denominados "litigios infundados". a) ¿Qué se entiende por "litigios infundados"?  
 
RESPONSE: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") created administrative trial 
proceedings to be conducted by the Patent  Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") as a 
cost-effective alternative to litigation. Consiste nt with statutory provisions and legislative 
intent of the AIA, strong public policy exists  to limit discovery in AIA proceedings. Thus, 
the scope of discovery in AIA trials before th e Board differs significantly from the scope of 
discovery generally available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in district court 
litigation. Benefits of limited discovery includ e lowering costs, minimizing complexity, and 
shortening periods required for dispute resolution. The PTAB also addresses these 
considerations in light of the one-year stat utory deadline (absent limited exceptions) for 
completing AIA trials. 
 b) ¿En qué instancias se encuentran estas iniciativas actualmente?  
RESPONSE: The status of current initiatives may be found on the Leahy-Smith American 
Invents Act Implementation page on the USPTO website. http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/   
 
83) En el párrafo 3.205 el informe indica que estaba prevista la renovación anual del Programa piloto "Patentes para la Humanidad", que promovía iniciativas para aprovechar tecnologías 
patentadas para hacer frente a necesidades humanitarias. Se solicita indicar en qué instancia se 
encuentra este proyecto actualmente.   RESPONSE: On April 3, 2014, the USPTO published a notice in the Federal Register titled 
"Patents for Humanity Program" (79 FR 18670)  announcing that Patents for Humanity is 
an annual awards competition.  
Sección 4 - Políticas comerciales por sector. 
Sección 4.1. – Agricultura Subsección 4.1.1 - Ley de Agricultura de 2014 
84) Uno de los desarrollos más importantes de política comercial de los Estados Unidos, durante el 
período de revisión, ha sido la promulgación de la nueva ley agrícola el 7 de febrero de 2014. La nueva ley representa un cambio considerable en la política agropecuaria para varios productos y este cambio está basado en la eliminación del sistema de pagos directos desacoplados hacia instrumentos 
de subsidios vinculados con los precios.  
 ¿Considerando que los Estados Unidos es uno de  los principales productores, exportadores e 
importadores de productos agropecuarios y que los subsidios vinculados a los precios son los más 
distorsivos de la producción y el comercio, podrían los Estados Unidos esbozar cómo esta modificación 
de su política agropecuaria contribuye al objetivo de largo plazo acordado en el Acuerdo de WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  
 Agricultura de la OMC de establecer un sistema de comercio agropecuario equitativo y orientado al 
mercado?   
RESPONSE: See response to Question 1. 
 85) En el párrafo 4.2, se menciona que el gasto proyectado de la nueva Ley Agrícola 2014 sería de US$489.000 millones durante los 5 años de duración de la ley. El informe indica que este gasto 
representaría un ahorro de US$5.000 millones con relación a la ley anterior (Ley Agrícola de 2008).  
La nueva Ley Agrícola vincula los desembolsos en materia de subsidios al precio de mercado del producto beneficiado por el régimen. Considerando el contexto actual de reducción de los precios 
internacionales de muchos productos básicos:  
a) ¿esperan los Estados Unidos que el gasto de la nueva Ley Agrícola 2014 se mantenga en el mismo nivel que el oportunamente estimado por la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO)? 
 
RESPONSE: The costs of new commodity and crop insuranc e programs will be finally 
determined by producer program choices, an d price and yield outcomes influenced by 
variable market and weather events. Because these factors are uncertain, estimates of 
future spending under the 2014 Farm Bill are also uncertain.  
 New estimates for expenditures under the PLC and ARC programs, as well as for other 
Farm Bill programs, will be available in Februa ry 2015 in conjunction with release of the 
USDA Baseline and the U.S. FY2016 Budget.   
b) ¿Han realizado nuevas estimaciones de gast o en función de las nuevas proyecciones de 
precios?   RESPONSE: See response to question a) above. 
 
c) ¿Cómo consideran los Estados Unidos que se modificará el nivel de apoyo a los productores como consecuencia de la estructura de subsidios de la nueva ley agrícola? 
 
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill includes language  requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to 
make adjustments in expenditures  if it is determined that payments in any reporting period 
may exceed allowable limits under the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 86) El párrafo 4.3 menciona que uno de los cambios más significativos que afectan la estructura de la política agropecuaria para los productos agropecuarios es la eliminación de los pagos directos 
desacoplados de la producción, piedra angular de la política norteamericana desde la Ronda Uruguay, 
y su reemplazo por dos nuevos programas, una Cobertura por Pérdida de Precio (PLC por sus siglas en inglés) y una Cobertura del Riesgo Agrícola (ARC por sus siglas en inglés): 
a) Se solicita tener a bien indicar bajo qué disposiciones del Acuerdo sobre Agricultura están 
amparados los nuevos programas.  
RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of WTO classification 
of any programs established in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States will notify the 
classification of these programs as part of  its official domestic support notification. 
 
b) Dado que los "precios de referencia" de los pr oductos agrícolas (por ej. soja, maíz, trigo, etc.) 
utilizados para el otorgamiento de los subsidios a los productores bajo el PLC y el ARC previstos en la nueva Ley 2014 han sido incrementados en un 50% en promedio respecto a los estipulados en la Ley 
2008, la probabilidad de que se activen (y por ende, se otorguen subsidios a los productores) es 
mucho más elevada que con la anterior Ley Agrícola. Dado que los precios de referencia de los productos agrícolas (por ej. soja, maíz, trigo, etc.) utilizados para el cálculo de los subsidios que 
recibirán los productores dentro de la nueva ley 2014 son superiores a los que existían en la 
ley 2008: (i) ¿Cuál consideran los Estados Unidos que será el potencial efecto de distorsión sobre la producción y el comercio de la nueva ley? 
 
RESPONSE: PLC and ARC payments are made on historical production without reference to 
current production removing the incentives that lead to surplus production. Because 
producers cannot increase their payments as a result of current planting decisions, 
plantings would be based on market incentives.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  
 (ii) ¿Podría explicar cómo la consistencia de esta evolución con el compromiso de reforma de la 
agricultura previsto en el Acuerdo sobre Agricultura y las negociaciones agrícolas de la Ronda de Doha?  
 
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill does not change  the U.S. position in the agricultural 
negotiation of the Doha Development Agenda. Th e United States is prepared to negotiate 
seriously about meaningful reforms, in part icular market access opening, and will be 
prepared to do its part. 
 c) Adicionalmente y teniendo en cuenta que en muchos de los productos beneficiados EEUU está 
dentro de los principales tres productores o exportadores mundiales, ¿podría mencionar si realizó 
algún estudio de cómo estos nuevos programas afectarán la producción y exportación en Países en Desarrollo y Menos Adelantados competidores? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States does not foresee any reduction in the competitiveness of foreign agricultural production or impo rted products, from any country, with 
U.S. agricultural products as a result of th ese changes in the 2014 Farm Bill. Although the 
new ARC and PLC programs make payments wh en prices or revenue decline, they are 
decoupled from actual farm production decisions. The 2014 Farm Bill eliminated both 
market price support and export subsidies for dairy products. The United States would also 
note that U.S. agricultural tariffs, both bo und and applied, continue to be amongst the 
lowest in the world, affording export oppo rtunities to all U.S. trading partners.  
 
87) Paragraph 4.4 
a) Can the USA please inform about farmer's reallocation of base acreage with the purpose of "more closely" aligning base acres with recent plantings?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill language give s producers a one-time opportunity to 
reallocate their base acreage to reflect more recent planting and yield history. The base 
acreage in effect on September 30, 2013, was first established under the 1996 Farm Bill by 
averaging planted and considered planted acre age for crop years 1991-95 for wheat, corn, 
grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, an d rice (note that upland cotton is not a 
covered commodity under the 2 014 Farm Bill). Base acreage was added for other oilseeds 
and peanuts under the 2002 Farm Bill base d on average plantings for crop years 
1998-2001 and for pulse crops under the 2008 Fa rm Bill based on average plantings for 
crop years 1998-2001. Under the 2014 Farm Bill,  producers may reallocate their farm's 
base acreage in proportion to the average of  planted acreage of the covered commodities 
on the farm for crop years 2009-12. The ba se acreage may not increase from the base 
acreage in effect on September 30, 2013. No new base acreage may be established for a 
farm. See the ARC/PLC fact sheet for more information at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases? area=newsroom&subject =landing&topic=pf
s&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&it em=pf_20140925_insup_en_arcplc.html .  
 
b) Wouldn't this reallocation impact on farmer's rational expectations on further base acre 
reallocation or updating in the next Farm Bill?  RESPONSE: Producers have no basis for the ex pectation of further reallocation of or 
updating of base acreage in the next Farm Bill as such updating and reallocation has 
occurred infrequently, as note d in the previous response. 
 
88) El párrafo 4.4 dispone "CON ARREGLO AL PROGRAMA PLC, SE OTORGAN PRIMAS DE 
COMPLEMENTO CUANDO LOS PRECIOS DE LOS PR ODUCTOS BÁSICOS CAEN POR DEBAJO DE LOS 
"PRECIOS DE REFERENCIA" REGLAMENTARIOS". Se  solicita tener a bien explicar cómo se 
establecieron estos "precios de referencia". 
 RESPONSE: The reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program were established in the 2014 Farm Bill.  
 
89) Paragraph 4.5: Does the USA agree that a program that insures revenue would be more trade distorting than one that only insures prices, as it would also cover production losses? 
 
RESPONSE: No. Both the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program and the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs are paid on historic al production without reference to current WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  
 production, removing the incentives that le ad to surplus production. Because producers 
cannot increase their payments as a result of  current planting decisions, plantings would 
be based on market incentives. 
 
90) En el párrafo 4.8, se menciona que algunos programas relativos a los productos lácteos han sido eliminados en la nueva Ley Agrícola 2014, sin embargo se han implementado dos instrumentos nuevos. 
a) Por favor, indique la manera en que los nuevos programas se aplican.  
 RESPONSE: The Dairy Margin Protection Prog ram (MPPprovides a guarantee of the margin 
between the national price of milk and nati onal feed costs paid on a percentage of 
historical production (25% to 90%) rather th an actual production. The program has a base 
level (a US$4 per hundredweight margin) that is available to all dairy producers for a set 
annual administrative fee; howe ver, a producer may purchase additional higher levels of 
margin coverage for an additional premium. Purchasing higher levels of coverage on 
historical production greater than 4 millio n pounds results in higher premiums for 
producers. Payments will only be made when the margin falls below the selected coverage 
level for an averaged specified consecut ive two-month period (January-February; 
March-April; May-June; July ‑August; September ‑October; November-December).  
 
The Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP)  provides dairy products to domestic 
low-income groups when dairy margins are exce ptionally low. The DPDP is triggered when 
the actual dairy production margin has been US$4.00 or less per hundredweight for each of 
the two preceding months. Once triggered, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will 
purchase dairy products at prevailing mark et prices until the programme is terminated. 
 
The DPDP is terminated under a variety of scen arios specified in legislation, such as but 
not limited to: i. after three consecutive months regardless of margin; and 
ii. when the margin has been greater than US$4.00 for the preceding month. 
 b) Además el párrafo menciona el cambio de orientación en las políticas orientadas a este sector, ¿podría Estados Unidos, explicar con mayo r detalle este cambio de orientación? 
 
RESPONSE: The new dairy programs are both de scribed above. The programs eliminated by 
the Farm Bill included the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) which was a direct payment 
program that made payments when milk prices fell below a trigger leve l that adjusted with 
feed cost changes, the Dairy Product Price Support Program that supported dairy product 
prices by providing a standing offer to purcha se bulk dairy products at fixed prices and 
store those products until market prices reco vered and a Dairy Export Incentive Program 
(DEIP) that provided bonuses to exporters to  close the gap between U.S. and world dairy 
product prices.   
91) Párrafo 4.9.: Al referirse a la nueva Ley Agrícola de los EEUU ("Farm Bill"), indica que "LA 
SUSTITUCIÓN DE LOS PAGOS DIRECTOS DESVINCULADOS POR INSTRUMENTOS TALES COMO LAS PRIMAS DE COMPLEMENTO VINCULADAS A LOS PRECIOS CORRIENTES PODRÍA CAUSAR MAYORES 
DISTORSIONES DEL COMERCIO Y LA PRODUCCIÓN" 
a) ¿Podría Estados Unidos aclarar esta afirmación?  
RESPONSE: Although the new ARC and PLC pr o g r a m s  m a k e  p a y m e n t s  w h e n  p r i c e s  o r  
revenue decline, they are decoupled from actual farm production decisions. The 
United States also notes that it has elimin ated both market price support and export 
subsidies for dairy products. 
 
b) ¿Qué opinión le merece a Estados Unidos lo allí mencionado por la Secretaría?   
RESPONSE: See response above. 
 92) The last sentences of Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.9 say: 
4.2. "[…]. THE 2014 FARM BILL CONTINUES A LONG-TERM POLICY SHIFT FROM THE TRADITIONAL 
COMMODITY, CONSERVATION, AND DISASTER PAYM ENTS TOWARDS SUBSIDIZED CROP INSURANCE 
(CHART 4.2)." WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  
 4.9. "[…].HOWEVER, THE MOVE FROM DECOUPL ED DIRECT PAYMENTS TO DEFICIENCY-PAYMENT 
TYPE INSTRUMENTS LINKED TO CURRENT PRICES COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE AN INCREASE IN 
TRADE AND PRODUCTION DISTORTIONS."  
Can the USA please explain how this policy shift reported by the Secretariat is consistent with the 
Doha Round agriculture mandate?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill provides an updated farm safety net for producers, 
emphasizing farmers' participation in crop insurance programs. Payments under the new 
programs continue to be decoupled from actu al farm production de cisions. The 2014 Farm 
Bill does not change the U.S. position in the agricultural negotiation of the 
Doha Development Agenda. The United States is prepared to negotiate seriously about 
meaningful reforms, in particular market a ccess opening, and will be  prepared to do its 
part. 
 
93) Circuit breaker in paragraph 4.10:  a) Does the so called "circuit breaker provision" apply to all subsidies programs?   
RESPONSE: The Secretary of Agriculture has th e authority to ensure the United States 
remains within its WTO commitments for domestic support through reduction in expenditures for programs authorized under Title I of the Farm Bill. 
 
b) Could you please describe how the circuit breaker would operate in practical terms.  
RESPONSE: The legislation states that if the Secretary determines that expenditures will 
exceed the United States' domestic support commitments, the Secretary is authorized to 
make adjustments to expenditures under Title I of the Farm Bill to ensure expenditures do 
not exceed the allowable levels. Prior to ma king such adjustments, the Secretary would 
notify Congress. 
 c) Could you specify how the circuit breaker provision applies on export credit, export guarantee 
or export insurance programs? 
 RESPONSE: The United States notes that expo rt credit, export guarantee, and export 
insurance programs are not domestic support  programs or subject to any limits on 
expenditures.   Subsección 4.1.1.2.2 - Cobertura de pérdidas relacionadas con los precios 
 
94) Paragraph 4.14: Could you inform of the eligible base acres for the 2014 Farm Bill?   
RESPONSE: The amount of estimated elig ible base acres is 257.5 million acres. 
 95) Could theU.S.inform which domestic support programs under the 2014 Farm Bill may benefit 
any agricultural producers of an agricultural base product?  
 RESPONSE: Agricultural Risk Coverage (Co unty and Individual), Price Loss Coverage, 
Cotton Transition Assistance Program, Market ing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency 
Payments, Payments in Lieu of Loan Deficiency Payments for Grazed Acreage, Recourse 
Loans, and Sugar Nonrecourse Loans.   
96) Does the 2014 Farm Bill provide for domestic support to agricultural products that are not 
agricultural base products?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill provides new "b uy-up" provisions under the Non-insured 
Crop Disaster Assistance Program (Sec. 123 05), introduces the new Margin Protection 
Program for Dairy (Sec. 1401-1410) and re-instates the livestock disaster programs and Tree Assistance Program (Sec. 1 501). Note that a larger list of covered commodities are 
eligible for marketing assistance lo ans than are eligible for ARC/PLC 
 97) Could the USA inform the values of production in 2013 of each of the crops that may benefit or 
are eligible in each of following domestic support programmes:  
a) Price Loss Coverage (PLC).  b) Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC). WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  
 c) Marketing Loan Programme (MLP). 
d) Federal Crop Insurance Programme (FCIP).  e) Suplemental Coverage Option Programme (SCO). 
 
RESPONSE: The United States notes that the PLC and ARC programs are based primarily on 
historical production. Furthe r, programs introduced under  the 2014 Farm Bill were not 
implemented in 2013. The following table provides the requested information for PLC, ARC, 
and the marketing loan program eligible co mmodities. Starting in 2015, SCO will be 
available for spring barley, corn, soybeans, wh eat, sorghum, cotton, and rice. Starting in 
2016, USDA Risk Management Agency (R MA) will begin expanding SCO to other 
commodities. Data on 2012 value of production can be found in the United States domestic 
support notification for FY2012.  
Table 2 Crop Value of Producti on for the United States, 2013 
(1,000 dollars) 
  Program 
Commodity Price Loss Coverage Agricultural  Risk Coverage Marketing Loan Program 
        
Barley 1,271,986 1,271,986 1,271,986 
Canola 440,419 440,419 440,419 
Chickpeas, Large 86,963 86,963 86,963 
Chickpeas, Small 17,290 17,290 17,290 
Corn 62,716,048 62,716,048 62,716,048 
Crambe N.A. N.A. N.A. 
Dry Peas 232,710 232,710 232,710 
Flaxseed 48,145 48,145 48,145 
Grain Sorghum 1,695,764 1,695,764 1,695,764 
Honey 1/ 1/ 317 
Lentils 104,387 104,387 104,387 
Mustard Seed 14,328 14,328 14,328 
Mohair 1/ 1/ 3,361 
Oats 239,326 239,326 239,326 
Peanuts 1,082,871 1,082,871 1,082,871 
Rapeseed 486 486 486 
Rice 3,025,992 3,025,992 3,025,992 
Safflower 58,107 58,107 58,107 
Sesame Seed N.A. N.A. N.A. 
Soybeans 41,837,286 41,837,286 41,837,286 
Sugar N.A. N.A. N.A. 
Sunflower 445,970 445,970 445,970 
All Cotton 1/ 1/ 5,198,750 
Wheat 14,404,734 14,404,734 14,404,734 
Wool    39,213 
N.A. = not available. 
Program does not apply to commodities with a blank entry. Sources: Crop Values 2013 (February 2014), NASS/USD A. Sheep and Goats, January 31, 2014, USDA/NASS. 
98) De acuerdo al párrafo 4.16, el programa de Pagos Contracíclicos (CCP) era notificado en la 
Medida Global de Ayuda de EEUU como "NO específico por producto", bajo el argumento de que 
dichos pagos no pueden atribuirse a un producto específico. Teniendo en cuenta que el PLC es un 
programa muy similar que reemplazará al CCP, y que los productos beneficiados serían los mismos, ¿podría EEUU aclarar si notificará también este pr ograma como "no específico por producto", o si 
podrá efectivamente contabilizar la asignación de estos pagos de manera individual a cada producto, 
de manera de poder notificarlo correctamente como "ayuda específica por producto"?  
Al responder esta pregunta se agradecerá tener en cuenta que el PLC (al igual que su predecesor CCP) tiene precios de referencia a nivel de producto. 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of WTO classification 
of any programs established in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States will notify the 
classification of this program as part of its official domestic support notification. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  
 99) El párrafo 4.17 establece que, como alternativa al programa PLC, los agricultores pueden 
acogerse al programa ARC, ya que cubre los mismos productos. ¿Pueden los agricultores recibir los beneficios de ambos programas? 
 
RESPONSE: No. Producers must choose betwee n ARC and PLC and may not be enrolled in 
both for a single commodity.  
100) ¿De qué manera Estados Unidos garantiza que los programas mencionados anteriormente no 
causen distorsión del comercio y a la producción? Subsección 4.1.1.2.3 - Cobertura de riesgos agrícolas 
 
RESPONSE: These programs are paid on historic al production without reference to current 
production removing the incentives that le ad to surplus production. Because producers 
cannot increase their payments as a result of  current planting decisions, plantings would 
be based on market incentives.  101) El párrafo 4.18 destaca que en la nueva Ley Agrícola, el programa Agricultural Risk Coverage 
(ARC) tiene como objetivo cubrir pérdidas de ingr esos de los agricultores en función de ingresos 
indicativos de referencia. De acuerdo a sus caracterís ticas, el programa cubre el 85% de las pérdidas 
de la superficie de base histórica si el productor elige la opción de ARC a  
nivel de Condado, y el 65% de las pérdidas de la su perficie de base histórica si el productor elige la 
opción de ARC a nivel individual. ¿Podría explicar a qué se debe esta diferencia en la cobertura? 
 
RESPONSE: The differential coverage levels  were mandated in the 2014 Farm Bill. 
 Subsección 4.1.1.2.6 Productos lácteos 102) En el párrafo 4.29 se describe el Programa de protección de los márgenes de utilidad de los 
fabricantes de productos lácteos (MPPDP).  
a) Teniendo en cuenta que este programa incluye el movimiento de dos variables (precio de la leche en explotación y costo de los piensos) para determinar el monto de ayuda al productor:¿Podría 
explicar cómo se determinan ambas variables? ¿Qué fuentes se utilizan? 
 RESPONSE: USDA will calculate the actual da iry production margin using the national 
"all-milk price" minus the national "average f eed cost," as those terms are specified in the 
2014 Farm Bill. If the actual dairy production  margin calculation produces a negative 
number, then the margin will be considered zero . The term "all-milk pric e" is defined in the 
2014 Farm Bill to mean the average price receiv ed, per cwt of milk, by dairy operations for 
all milk sold to plants and dealers in the United  States, and is published in the Agricultural 
Prices publication of the National Agricultur al Statistics Service (NASS), USDA. The term 
"average feed cost" is defined to mean the av erage cost of feed used by a dairy operation 
to produce a cwt of milk. The sum of: 
 
• 1.0728 times the price of corn per bushel; 
• 0.00735 times the price of soybean meal per ton; and 
• 0.0137 times the price of  alfalfa hay per ton. 
 
The price of corn is the full month price receiv ed by farmers during the month in the United 
States as reported in the monthly Agricultural  Prices report by USDA NASS; T he price of 
soybean-meal is the Central Illinois full mont h soybean meal price delivered by rail as 
reported in the USDA AMS Market News-Monthly ; and the price of alfalfa hay is the full 
month price received during the month by farm ers in the United States for alfalfa hay as 
reported in the monthly Agricultural Prices report by USDA NASS.  
b) El nuevo Programa de protección de los márgenes de utilidad de los fabricantes de productos 
lácteos comenzará a aplicarse a más tardar el 1º de septiembre de 2014. ¿Podrían confirmar si 
efectivamente el programa ya se encuentra en vigencia?   
RESPONSE: Yes the program is in force. Margins at this time are above the US$8 per cwt 
maximum coverage level so no payments will be made to enrolled producers for the 
September-October 2014 period. 
 
103) En el párrafo 4.31 se describe el Programa de Donación de Productos Lácteos (DPDP). Al respecto: WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  
 a) ¿Está previsto que los productos comprados bajo el programa se destinen a asistencia 
nutricional de individuos de bajos ingreso al exterior de EEUU, o únicamente al interior? Si fuese el segundo caso, ¿qué mecanismos están previstos para evitar que las organizaciones públicas y 
privadas lo exporten? 
 RESPONSE: Products purchased under the prog ram are domestic use only. Regulations for 
the existing USDA Food and Nu trition Service (FNS) programs will govern how the products 
will be distributed. Public or private nonpro fit organizations that receive Dairy Product 
Donation Program products may transfer those products to other nonprofits only if the transferee will likewise distribute to domestic low-income recipients without cost or waste, 
consistent with existing FNS regulations. FNS regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(d)(1) provide 
that donated foods "be distributed only to re cipient agencies and individual recipients 
eligible to receive them" un der applicable program regula tions. FNS regulations in 
7 CFR 250.13(a)(1)(ii) provide that donated f oods "not be sold, exchanged or otherwise 
disposed of without the approval of the Department."   b) ¿Está previsto algún límite, en volumen o presupuesto total, en la ejecución de este Programa?  
 
RESPONSE: No.  
c) ¿Qué ocurriría si después de la distribución al interior de EEUU, aún existieran excedentes de 
productos lácteos?  
RESPONSE: Purchases are made after consultati on with food assistance groups on their 
needs for donation. Only food required by th e agencies will be purchased. No excess dairy 
products will remain or  be stored by USDA. 
 
d) ¿Teniendo en cuenta la respuesta brindada por los EEUU en ocasión del 74 Comité de 
Agricultura de la OMC, cuándo estima EEUU que dispondrá de una lista con los productos comprendidos bajo este programa? 
 
RESPONSE: The list of products will be asse mbled in the months leading up to the 
anticipated beginning of purchases for the pr ogram. Margins are far above levels that 
would trigger purchases, so product lists are not being assembled at this time. 
 Subsección 4.1.1.4.1 - Ayuda alimentaria  
104) Párrafo 4.44 sobre la ayuda alimentaria internacional.  
a) ¿Podría EEUU indicar qué herramientas están previstas para que el sistema de monetización de la ayuda alimentaria se ajuste a las previsiones incluidas en el artículo 10.4 del Acuerdo sobre 
Agricultura, particularmente en lo relativo a su vinculación con las exportaciones comerciales y a los 
Principios FAO sobre colocación de excedentes?  
RESPONSE: The United States conducts a market analysis before each monetization that is 
entitled the "Market Analysis for Monetization" (MAM). Each MAM analyzes the supply and demand in the recipient country for the commo dity to be monetized to ensure donations 
from the United States do not displace lo cally produced or imported commodities.  
 
b) Could the USA explain the rationale for keeping a 15% minimum floor of monetized food aid?  
RESPONSE: The 15% minimum on the monetization of food aid applies only to the Office of 
Food for Peace's non-emergency development food aid programs, not to emergency food 
aid programs. In Fiscal Year 2014, USAID's O ffice of Food for Peace utilized monetization 
in just a one country, Bangladesh.  
 
c) Paragraph 4.44 says that providing cash to the organizations distributing food aid, would allow 
them to cover implementation costs and other ex penses. This would eliminate the need to use 
monetization to generate cash in many situations and allow USAID to reduce monetization to the 
15% floor, according to theU.S.authorities.  (i) Wouldn't it be better -both from the perspective of reduction of distortions and humanitarian 
considerations- to deliver non-emergency food aid in "cash only" or by buying food from local farmers 
in the recipient country?   (ii) Why does theU.S.not take the approach of "cash only" for non-emergency food aid? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: The United States embraces the use of  innovative modalities and flexibilities to 
deliver food assistance. In 2010, the Emerge ncy Food Assistance Program, through the 
International Disaster Assistance account, was created to provide cash for food assistance 
programs. Changes In the Agricultural Ac t of 2014 embrace new modalities as well, 
allowing a portion of Title II resources to be used for food vouchers, cash transfers, and 
local and regional procurement.   
105) En el párrafo 4.45 el informe describe el nuevo "programa de compras locales y regionales de 
ayuda alimentaria" que se estableció en la nueva Ley Agrícola.  a) ¿Podría EEUU explicar en qué consiste este  programa y como se va a implementar?  
 
RESPONSE: The Agricultural Act of 2014 converte d the pilot local and regional procurement 
program authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill into a permanent program intended to respond to 
crises and disasters and to support the use of locally-produced food in existing food 
assistance programs, including the McGovern -Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program.  
b) ¿Cuál es límite de financiación que podrá otorgar dicho programa?  
 RESPONSE: The Agricultural Act of 2014 did no t include mandatory funding for the program 
but authorized appropriations up to US$80 million per year.  
 c) ¿Bajo qué compartimiento pretende notificarlo a la OMC? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has notified this program under Table NF:1, as actions taken within the framework of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative 
Effects of the Reform Program on Least-De veloped and Net Food-Importing Developing 
Countries. 
 Subsección 4.1.1.4.2 - Garantías de crédito a la exportación 
 
106) El párrafo 4.46 describe el programa de Garantías de Crédito a la Exportación (GSM-102). Considerando que el informe del OSD (WT/DS267) concluyó que el programa GSM-102 otorgó una 
subvención a las exportaciones de determinados productos agropecuarios: 
 RESPONSE: The United States is not aware of an y finding that GSM-102, in its current form, 
is an export subsidy. 
 
a) ¿Son todos los productos agropecuarios elegibles para beneficiarse de este programa?  
RESPONSE: Please see our website at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export-credit-
guarantee-program-gsm-102 .  
 
b) En caso que no fuera así, ¿podría indicar qué productos no pueden beneficiarse de este 
programa?  RESPONSE: See answer a) above. 
 
c) ¿Podría EEUU indicar qué herramientas están previstas, a efectos de garantizar que dicho programa no resulte en una elusión de los compromisos asumidos en el Acuerdo sobre Agricultura en 
materia de subvenciones a las exportaciones?  
 RESPONSE: The Export Credit Guarantee Pr ogram complies with all WTO disciplines, 
including those on agricultural subsidies. 
 d) ¿Podría brindar alguna precisión respecto de cuando espera poner el régimen GMS-102 en conformidad con las reglas OMC?  
 
RESPONSE: See answer c) above.  
e) ¿Podría precisar cuál es la postura de EEUU acerca del compromiso de eliminación de todas las 
formas de subsidios a la exportación prevista en el Mandato de la Ronda Doha?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: The United States is fully committe d to the elimination of all direct export 
subsidies.  
f) ¿Cómo adecuaría este programa para dar cumplimiento a la eliminación de toda forma de 
subvenciones a la exportación?  RESPONSE: See answer c) above 
 
Subsección 4.1.1.4.3 - Promoción de las exportaciones 107) Con respecto a lo mencionado en el párrafo 4.48, ¿qué tipos de actividades de promoción de 
exportaciones están previstas en el Programa de Acceso a los Mercados (Ley Pública 113-79, artículo 
3102)?  
RESPONSE: Under the MAP, FAS provides cost-share assistance to eligible 
U.S. organizations for activities such as cons umer advertising, public relations, point-of-
sale demonstrations, participation in trad e fairs and exhibits, market research, and 
technical assistance. 
 
108) De acuerdo al párrafo 4.48, el Programa de Promoción de los Mercados Extranjeros (artículo 3103) facilita fondos de contraparte principalmente para la exportación de productos básicos 
genéricos y a granel (32,7 millones de dólares EE.UU. en el ejercicio de 2013). ¿Podría EEUU explicar 
cómo opera dicho Programa y en qué medida se acoge a las normas de la OMC para asegurar que dicho programa no se transforme en un subsidio distorsivo? 
Subsección 4.1.1.10.3 - Plan de protección comple mentaria de los ingresos de los productores de 
algodón americano (upland)  RESPONSE: Under the Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) Program, FAS 
enters into project agreements with eligible nonprofit U.S. trade organizations to share the 
costs of certain overseas mark eting and promotion activities that are intended to create, 
expand, or maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. These 
programs are widely available export promotion and advisory services.  
 109) En el párrafo 4.61 el informe describe el programa de Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX). 
Tomando en cuenta el Mandato de la Ronda de Doha sobre las subvenciones al algodón: 
a) ¿Cuál es el motivo por el cual EEUU considera que los productores de algodón necesitan de una protección complementaria adicional diferenciada del resto de los productores agrícolas de EEUU?  
 
RESPONSE: Cotton producers are not eligible  to enroll in the AR C and PLC programs 
afforded to other commodities und er Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill. 
 
b) ¿Podría EEUU indicar si ha calculado el impacto de estas medidas sobre las expectativas de los 
productores locales y sobre los productores de los países en desarrollo?   
RESPONSE: The United States has made no offici al determination as to impacts, if any, of 
these programs on cotton producers in developing countries.  Subsección 4.1.1.2.8 - Criterios de selección 
 
110) De acuerdo a la Public Law 113-79, Sección 1114(d), los productores agrícolas con menos de 10 acres "de base" están excluidos de los programas PLC y ARC, excepto si son socialmente 
desfavorecidos.  
a) ¿Podría EEUU indicar cuáles son los motivos para realizar dicha exclusión y qué parámetros tuvo en cuenta al fijar la base de 10 acres? 
 
RESPONSE: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Ac t of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) mandated 
that farms with 10 or fewer base acres were prohibited from receiving direct and countercyclical payments (DCP) or Averag e Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program 
payments (see Sections 1101(d) and 1302(d )). Farms owned by limited-resource and 
socially disadvantaged owners4 were exempt fr om this "base-10" provision. These same 
provisions are in the 2014 Farm Bill (see Se ction 1114(d) regarding the Agriculture Risk 
Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (P LC) programs. USDA's Economic Research 
Service conducted a study of the impacts of th e 2008 Farm Bill provisio n, and also provides WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  
 background information; it can be  found at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ 
media/116368/eib84.pdf.   
b) Con respecto a los programas PLC y ARC, ¿podría EEUU especificar si existen otros tipos de ayudas 
alternativas que estén a disposición de los productores con menos de 10 acres "de base"?   RESPONSE: The 10-acre base provision in the 2014 Farm Bill applies only to ARC and PLC. 
Producers with fewer than 10 ac res are eligible for programs such as the Non-insured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) and marketing assistance loans. Special provisions 
mandated in several programs apply to lim ited resource, socially disadvantaged, and 
beginning farmers, but are not defined relati ve to 10 acres (those producers must meet 
other criteria, but it is not based on acreage).   
 
Subsección 4.1.2 - Aranceles agrícolas y contingentes arancelarios 
 111) De acuerdo al párrafo 4.64, la utilización de las cuotas arancelarias varía por producto, pero la mayoría de las cuotas arancelarias no han sido llenadas o han tenido un nivel bajo de utilización 
durante el período bajo revisión, con la excepción de azúcar.  
a) ¿Podría indicar EEUU si recibió alguna preocupación específica o consulta de algún Miembro sobre llenado de cuotas en el Comité de Agricult ura, al amparo del "Entendimiento relativo a las 
disposiciones sobre la Administración de los contingentes arancelarios de los productos 
agropecuarios, según se definen en el artículo 2 del Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura" (WT/L/914), surgido de la 9° Conferencia Ministerial? 
 
RESPONSE: There has been no formal inquiry regarding U.S. tariff-rate quota fills under 
said understanding (WT/L/914). The United States continues to be forthcoming in 
outlining its tariff-rate quotas and their administration to all interested Members.   
 
b) ¿Han evaluado los Estados Unidos una simplificación en la administración de las cuotas arancelarias agrícolas con el objetivo de incrementar su utilización?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States ha s evaluated the utilization of its tariff-rate quotas and is 
confident the under fill is not due to the admini stration of its quotas. The United States is 
committed to bolster transparency in all ta riff-rate quota systems and encourages the 
implementation of the Bali Ministerial Unders tanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration.   
 c) ¿Podría señalar si podría simplificarse esta administración de cuotas arancelarias: 
(i) eliminando las licencias de importación para quesos; y 
 RESPONSE: The United States has no current pl ans to eliminate its dairy import licensing 
system. The current dairy import licensing re gulations contain several mechanisms that 
provide incentives to fill the quotas. Any impo rter who does not fill at least 85% of any 
license amount becomes ineligible for that same license (type of cheese and country) the 
following year. Thus there is a strong incentive to use a license, or surrender some or all of 
it. License amounts that are surrendered, or  for any reason not allocated, are made 
available for reallocation upon re quest by any eligible applicant. 
 
In addition, if a country falls short of it s allocated amount, importers can request to 
globalize the licenses and enter the remainin g balance or a portion thereof from any 
country during that quota year.   
 
(ii) cambiando en forma apropiada para los países exportadores las fechas de apertura para la cuota de maní? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has no current plans to modify the administration of the 
peanut tariff-rate quota. The peanut quota is administered on a first come, first-served 
basis.   
 
112) Párrafo 4.83. ¿A qué atribuye el gobierno de los Estados Unidos la baja utilización de los contingentes arancelarios? 
 
RESPONSE: The fill rates for tariff-rate quotas are driven by market conditions. This can 
lead to fill rates varying significantly from one tariff quota to another and from year to WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  
 year. Most of the tariff rate quotas with very low fill rates are administered on a first come, 
first-served basis. For a more detailed in dication of the allocation methods for 
U.S. tariff rate quotas, the United States  would direct Argentina's attention to 
G/AG/N/USA/2/add.3, dated October 5, 2001. 
 Subsección 4.1.3 - Nivel de ayuda  
113) De acuerdo al párrafo 4.68 la reducción en los niveles de apoyo al sector agropecuario por 
parte de los Estados Unidos debe ser atribuido al incremento en el precio de los productos en el mercado mundial y no a una reforma de su política. ¿Cómo considera Estados Unidos que se 
modificará el nivel de apoyo a los productores bajo la nueva ley agrícola en el contexto internacional 
actual y el previsto mientras la Ley Agrícola 2014 esté en vigor?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill emphasizes fa rmers' participation in crop insurance 
programs. Congress terminated the Direct and Countercyclical Payment program. New 
programs are paid on historical production  without reference to current production, 
removing the incentives that lead to su rplus production. Because producers cannot 
increase their payments as a result of current  planting decisions, plantings would be based 
on market incentives. Further,  there are some counterveiling fa ctors in certain U.S. farm 
programs, which will provide lower payments when commodity prices fall and remain low.  
 
114) ¿Podría EEUU especificar bajo qué categoría del documento G/AG/2 notificará cada uno de los siguientes programas: PLC, ARC, SCO, STAX, NAP, LIP, LFP, ELAP, TAP, GSM-102, MPPD y DPDP? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of WTO classification 
of any programs established in the 2014 Farm Bill . The United will noti fy the classification 
of these programs as part of its official do mestic support notification. The United States 
refers Argentina to its official domestic su pport notifications for how other programs are 
notified.  
 
115) The Secretariat's report, based on the OECD work, seems to conclude that the decline in 
support notified since 2002 was largely attributable to higher world market prices for agricultural commodities, rather than policy reform.  
 
RESPONSE: It is important to note that the OECD's classification and calculation methods for measuring domestic support differ from those used by the WTO. The United States remains confident that the pr ograms under the 2014 Farm Bill will conform with the 
United States' WTO commitments.  
 a) Does the USA agree with this conclusion that points to absence of policy reform? 
 
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm B ill will conform with the Unit ed States' WTO commitments. 
The United States initially proposed that it wo uld liberalize its agricultural policies as part 
o f  a  bro a de r r ef o rm i n  a  Do ha  c o nt ex t .  T hi s  ambition was not evident in proposals from 
other members, in particular those which focu sed on creating loop-holes to protect their 
sensitivities even as they requested concessi ons from their trading partners. If and when 
WTO members are prepared to negotiate seriousl y about meaningful reforms, in particular 
market access opening that has proven so difficult , the United States will be prepared to do 
its part.   
 
b) If not, what would be the elements in the 2014  Farm Bill that would drive trade and production 
distorting support to a substantial reduction?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill emphasizes fa rmers' participation in crop insurance 
programs. Congress terminated the Direct and Countercyclical Payment program. New 
programs are paid on historical production  without reference to current production 
removing the incentives that lead to su rplus production. Because producers cannot 
increase their payments as a result of current  planting decisions, plantings would be based 
on market incentives. Further,  there are some counter-veiling factors in certain U.S. farm 
programs, which will provide lower payments when  commodity prices fall and remain low.  
 
c) If reduction of support was driven mainly by hi gher international prices, does the USA agree that 
lower international prices would increase trade and production distorting support? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: See response to b) above. 
 d) Have the USA considered such lower price scenarios  when drafting the 2014 Farm Bill, in particular 
its impacts on developing countries and on the agriculture negotiations of the Doha Round? 
 RESPONSE: See response to b) above.  
The United States initially proposed that it wo uld liberalize its agricultural policies as part 
o f  a  bro a de r r ef o rm i n  a  Do ha  c o nt ex t .  T hi s  ambition was not evident in proposals from 
other members, in particular those which focu sed on creating loop-holes to protect their 
sensitivities even as they requested concessi ons from their trading partners. If and when 
WTO members are prepared to negotiate seriousl y about meaningful reforms, in particular 
market access opening that has proven so difficult , the United States will be prepared to do 
its part.   
 Sección 4.2. sobre servicios.  
116) En los párrafos 4.142 y 4.143 el informe indica que las leyes de preferencias en relación con la 
carga obligan a los expedidores a utilizar buques de pabellón estadounidense para el transporte marítimo de cargas destinadas al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, pero que existe la posibilidad de 
solicitar exenciones. En este sentido, el Departamento de Seguridad Interior solo concede "en interés 
de la defensa nacional", es decir, solo en casos excepcionales. Se solicita indicar en qué situaciones 
concretas se pueden solicitar exenciones y en qué casos (dando ejemplos concretos recientes) 
efectivamente se han concedido tales exenciones.  
 RESPONSE: A temporary waiver from the U.S.-fla g requirement may be obtained only if the 
Secretary of the Department of Defense or th e Department of Homeland Security makes a 
determination that such a waiver is "necessary  in the interest of national defense." This 
determination is subject to the discretion of the Secretary. Examples of situations where a 
waiver was granted include the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989 and Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita in 2005.  
 II. Informe del Gobierno de los EE.UU. / Re port by theU.S.Government (WT/TPR/G307). 
 
Question 117) Paragraph 1.1. a) Does theU.S.commitment "to an ambitious trad e and investment strategy" include substantial 
reduction or elimination of agricultural and fisheries subsidies? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to  making progress wherever possible on the 
Doha Development Agenda (DDA), based on common efforts. Now is the time to craft 
credible, innovative approaches to the WTO's work as an inst itution that liberalizes trade 
and creates and applies meaningful rules to trade based on active commitment and 
participation from all Members, both de veloped and developing. However, the DDA 
negotiations are not complete. Therefore, di scussion of possible DDA commitments would 
be premature at this point.  b) Does theU.S.agree that subsidies are contrary to market oriented trading system? 
 
RESPONSE: Absent any showing that subsidies ar e prohibited or causing adverse effects to 
the interests of another WTO Member under WTO rules, there is no basis to assert that 
subsidies are necessarily inconsistent with a market-oriented trading system or obligations 
under the WTO and the Agreement on Su bsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
 
Question 118) Paragraph 1.2. 
Being the WTO a bulwark against protectionism, does theU.S.agree that the protectionism and support are concentrated in the agricultural and fisheries sectors?  
RESPONSE: Absent any showing that agricultur al and fisheries sector supports are causing 
adverse trade effects, and if compliant wi th WTO obligations, there is no basis to 
characterize these supports as protectionist.  
 
Moreover, the United States is committed to the WTO and wants to make it work more 
effectively in the interests of all Members. This includes using the WTO Committee system WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  
 to raise issues that we consider to be impo rtant, such as trade-distorting measures. We 
want to encourage healthy debate and, wh ere possible, explore the potential for the 
negotiation of new trade opportunities. 
 
Question 119) Paragraph 1.4 - Free Trade Agreements The increasing amount of market access concessi ons by the USA under its Free Trade Agreements 
erode the value of the of market access concessi ons by the USA to be made under the Doha Round 
Mandate, since these multilateral market access concessions tend to be less ambitious that under free 
trade agreements.  a) Wouldn't this erosion of U.S. multilateral market access concessions limit the real multilateral 
contribution of the U.S. in the area of agricultur al and fisheries subsidies (untouched by free trade 
agreements)?  
RESPONSE: A core objective of U.S. trade policy is to open markets and to advance the rule 
of law through the multilateral trading system, as it has been since before the founding of 
the GATT. A strong and vital World Trade Organization (WTO) is central to that task. The United States also pursues bilateral and regi onal free trade agreements (FTAs) that are 
complementary to and compatible with adva ncing the goals of the multilateral trading 
system. U.S. FTAs, because of their breadth of commitments, produce significant benefits 
for its partners, and, through the economic growth this brings, for other trading partners 
as well. This also strengthens and expands the forces working towards global trade 
reforms. The liberalization undertaken by many  of our FTA partners has often led those 
Members to increase participation in  liberalizing efforts at the WTO. 
 
Question 120) Paragraph 2.4. The U.S. asserts that it maintains "one of the wo rld's most open trade regimes", but this does not 
seems to be applicable to market access for agricultural products and for market access in services.  
a) Would the U.S. undertake strong commitments for the liberalization of these two sectors?  
b) If so, what would be the main undertakings by the U.S. at the multilateral level under the DDA?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to  making progress wherever possible on the 
Doha Development Agenda (DDA), based on common efforts. Now is the time to craft credible, innovative approaches to the WTO's work as an inst itution that liberalizes trade 
and creates and applies meaningful rules to trade based on active commitment and 
participation from all Members, both developed and developing. However, the 
DDA negotiations are not complete. Therefor e, discussion of possible DDA commitments 
would be premature at this point. 
 
Question 121) Paragraph 3.4. This paragraph reports on activities of the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) administered by the USTR, includin g public hearings on trade policies issues.  
a) Could you comment on the omission of the Doha Round negotiations under the activities of the 
TPRG? b) Have any public hearings or similar activities on the Doha Round negotiations been carried out by 
the TPRG?  
c) If so, please inform which ones (with dates) with their available sources.  RESPONSE: Since the Doha Round's launch in 2001  and in the many years since, the United 
States has undertaken countless, extensive do mestic consultations with all relevant 
stakeholders, both through the TPRG, with our Congress, and with our many stakeholders. In fact it is these domestic consultations that drive our positions in the 
Round, including that any outcome be ambi tious and balanced, with all WTO Members 
contributing commensurate to their trading status.  
 
Question 122) Párrafos 5.14, 5.15 y 5.16 
En los mencionados párrafos se hace referencia a la asistencia que brinda EEUU, a través de diversos programas, al desarrollo del sector algodonero en varios países de África, entre ellos los denominados C-4. En el párrafo 5.14 se indica, por ejempl o, que "los Estados Unidos ha movilizado a sus 
organismos de desarrollo para que ayuden a Benin, Burkina Faso, el Chad, Malí y el Senegal, países 
de África Occidental, a superar los obstáculos a que se enfrentan en el sector algodonero." ¿No considera Estados Unidos que el principal obstáculo que enfrentan esos países son los subsidios a la 
exportación que se aplican a este sector en países desarrollados y que la mejor forma de asistencia 
sería cumplir con lo acordado en la Ministerial de Hong Kong, eliminando, por ejemplo, tales subsidios?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  
  
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to making progress in the Doha Development 
Agenda, to create new trade opportunities  for all Members, both developed and 
developing. The United States has stopped using agricultural export subsidies. The 
United States is happy that it has been ab le to work with the Members listed in the 
question in order to assist in the development of their cotton sectors. 
 
Question 123) Protocolo de enmienda del Acuerd o de la OMC para incorporar el Acuerdo de 
Facilitación de Comercio: La reciente aprobación por parte del Consejo General de la decisión sobre este tema no ha permitido que esta cuestión sea abordada en los informes del Gobierno y de la 
Secretaría.  
a) ¿Podría EEUU confirmar que el Poder Ejecutivo re mitirá al Congreso de EE.UU. el Protocolo de 
Enmienda con el Acuerdo sobre Facilitación de Comercio para que su aprobación? 
b) ¿Podría estimar el tiempo que llevaría este proceso de aprobación legislativa? 
 RESPONSE: The United States can accept the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement Protocol of 
Amendment by submission of a letter to the WTO as its instrument of acceptance. With 
submission of this letter, which USTR is alre ady preparing, the United States' acceptance 
will be complete.   
Comercio y medio ambiente / Trade and environment  
Subvenciones a la pesca / fisheries subsidies  
Question 124) Taking into consideration the TPR reports (WT/TPR/G/307 and S/307), especially 
on the importance that the USA assigns to tr ade and environment it springs to mind some 
contradiction in the U.S. Trade Policy of the US, regarding recent policy evolution in fisheries 
subsidies, the Fisheries Financing Program (FPP) on Construction of New Replacement Fishing 
Vessels.  
 Government support to the fishing industry can pr omote overfishing by increasing fishing effort 
artificially and making fishing more profitable than  it would be without subsidies. Yet, the specific 
details of how much some countries, including the United States, are subsidizing their fishing industries are still not known. 
 
a) Has the U.S. quantified the amount of government subsidies will be given to the U.S. fishing industry, on the proposed change to its Fisherie s Financing Program (FFP) to finance fishing vessel 
construction and refurbishment that would increase fishing capacity?  
 
RESPONSE: The FFP is still under review. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) at the Department of  Commerce solicited public comment on the 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking it issu ed in June 2014, and will again solicit public 
comment in connection with any Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking regarding the FFP. 
Information regarding the rulema king is available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docu mentDetail;D=NOAA -NMFS-2014-0062-0006 . NOAA 
anticipates that the program will apply only in fisheries where total allowable catch is 
controlled through fisheries quotas. Loans will no t be provided in fisheries that are deemed 
overfished or subject to overfishing. We note that the US$41 million increase in the 
program represents the additional amount of loans that can be provided under the 
program. The lending rate under this program is generally above the government's cost of 
funds. The program has historically been self-financing.  
 
b) Does the USA evaluate the contribution of thes e subsidies to overfishing, habitat disruption and 
conservation? 
 
RESPONSE: As noted in response to (a) ab ove, NOAA anticipates that the program will 
apply only in fisheries where total allowable catch is controlled through fisheries quotas. 
Loans will not be provided in fisheries th at are deemed overfished or subject to 
overfishing.  
 c) Could the USA inform about the comments received on the request of comments by the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: Information regarding the rulemaking and the public comments that have been 
submitted are available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!document 
Detail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0062-0006 .  
 
d) Could you inform about the public opinion reacti on in the USA about this increase of fisheries 
subsidies?  
RESPONSE: Information regarding the rulemaking and the public comments that have been 
submitted are available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!document 
Detail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0062-0006 .  
 
 Question 125) Last year there have been politically relevant declarations against fisheries 
subsidies. Members States of Friends of Fish , including the USA, issued a statement in Bali 
(December 2013) reiterating the commitment to agr eeing to ambitious and effective disciplines on 
fisheries subsidies, and pledging to refrain from in troducing new fisheries subsidies that contribute to 
overfishing or overcapacity or extend or enhance existing such subsidies.  
A standstill was reiterated by the APEC Ocean-Re lated Ministerial Meeting Joint Statement, the 
'Xiamen Declaration' (August 2014) . The outcome of Secretary of State John Kerry's Oceans Conference, "Our Ocean Action Plan", agreed to eliminate fisheries subsidies that contribute to 
overfishing and overcapacity of fishing fleets. Fu rthermore, and within a general pledge, the St. 
Petersburg Declaration in September 2013 also extended the standstill .  
a) Irrespective of the amount of fisheries subsidies to be provided, their increase is contrary to the 
political commitments by the USA in the Friends of Fish Declarations, the APEC Xiamen Declaration and the St. Petersburg Declaration. Could the USA please explain why it does no comply with these politically relevant commitments? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has long been committed to disciplining harmful fisheries 
subsidies. Our policy with respect to this i ssue has not changed, and the United States 
takes seriously the political commitments that it has made in various fora. The National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N O A A )  a t  t h e  D e p a r t m e n t  o f  C o m m e r c e  i s  
considering modifications to the FFP with this policy in mind. We look forward to 
continuing to work with Argentina and other Fri ends of Fish in the WTO and other fora to 
discipline harmful fisheries subsidies that co ntribute to overfish ing and overcapacity. 
 b) Are the USA concerned that such an extension of the FFP risks undermining the US' leadership 
role on global fisheries subsidies reform and wider oceans issues? 
 RESPONSE: The United States has long been a le ader and advocate in support of disciplines 
on harmful fisheries subsidies in the WTO an d in other fora. We are pursuing ambitious 
commitments on fisheries subsidies in free trade agreements under negotiation. The 
United States remains committed to securing an  ambitious result on fisheries subsidies and 
stands ready to continue this work in the WTO and other fora.  
 Question 126) The USA is reported to have an interest in environmental issues when pursuing trade agreements as informed by the Secretariat's Report (WT/TPR/G/307, section 6):  
 
"6.1. Since the last U.S. Trade Policy Review, the United States has achieved significant results on trade and environment matters in multiple fora, including through regional and bilateral trade 
initiatives. In the TPP negotiations, the United St ates continued to press for commitments to address 
environmental issues, including conservation challenges in the Asia Pacific region, such as combating wildlife trafficking and illegal logging and addressing marine fisheries issues, as well as commitments 
to liberalize trade in environmental goods and services. In the T-TIP negotiations, the Administration 
is seeking ambitious environmental commitments including those relating to the protection and conservation of wildlife, marine fisheries, and fore st resources. The Administration has also continued 
to prioritize implementation of the free trade agreements currently in force." 
 
In the Doha Round negotiations has prioritized market access in goods (agricultural and non-agricultural) and in services. Why do the USA no t have the same interest to comply with Doha 
Round mandate on fisheries subsidies, taking into account that this mandate has been reinforced by 
the Paragraph 173 of the Rio+20 Outcome Document?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: The United States has long been a le ader and advocate in support of disciplines 
on harmful fisheries subsidies in the WTO an d in other fora. The United States remains 
committed to securing an ambitious multilatera l result on fisheries subsidies and stands 
ready to continue this work in the WTO and other fora. The United States strongly supports 
enhanced transparency commitments for fisher ies subsidies as called for in Paragraph 173 
of the Rio+20 declaration. Our WTO subsidy notifications have consistently included 
detailed information regarding U.S. fisherie s programs, at the both the central and 
sub-central levels of government (see, e.g., G/SCM/N/253/USA). The United States has 
also devoted considerable time and resources to  uncover fisheries programs of others and 
bringing them to the attention of the Comm ittee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
Most recently, the United States made a subm ission under Article 25. 10 of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures identi fying over a dozen legal measures in China 
relating to fisheries assistance programs and providing access to full translations of each 
measure (see, G/SCM/Q2/CHN/51).  
 III. Otras Fuentes / Other sources  
A. OMC, Comité de Agricultura, sesión ordina ria / WTO, Committee on Agriculture, regular 
session.  
Question 127) At the 74th. Regular Session of the Committee on Agriculture (June 2014): 
The following questions were raised but the USA could not respond to them because the new Farm Bill had not been fully implemented at that time. Does the current state of implementation of the 
Farm Bill allow a response for the questions below?  
 a) If yes, please answer the following questions:  
(i) Commodity provisions: (G/AG/W/135, questions in 1.17.1(d)iii). 
 (i-a) Based on new target prices and USDA price projections, what is the Amber Box (Current Total Aggregate Measures of Support) estimated for the next five years? 
  
RESPONSE: We cannot say what the level of  AMS support will be under the new Farm 
Bill. Any effort to estimate support leve ls would depend on a number of critical 
assumptions. We do have a sense of the range of parameters and those suggest that the 
United States will be within its commitments. We are assisted by the fact that there are 
some countervailing factors in our programs. Fo r example, while lowe r commodity prices 
increase payments under some programs, they decrease the likelihood or size of other 
payments. 
  (ii-b) Is there a mechanism to foresee well in advance the possibility of AMS commitments 
being overstepped in a scenario of falling prices?   
 RESPONSE: The United States expects the 2014 Farm Bill to remain within its WTO 
commitments. Moreover, the 2014 Farm Bill, like previous Farm Bills, contains a "circuit 
breaker" that, in the unlikely scenario that payments are expected to exceed commitment 
levels, gives the Secretary of Ag riculture the authority to ensure the United States does not 
exceed those commitments. 
 
(ii) The newly established Margin Protection Program (MPP, Sections 1401-1410).   (ii-a) Has the USDA evaluated the impact on the rational expectations of dairy producers which 
could increase production as a result of their perception of less risk for dairy production? 
(G/AG/W/135, question in 1.17.1(c)(iii)).  
RESPONSE: USDA expects no net increases in milk production because of risk reduction 
provided by the MPP. Expected MPP outlays are offset by outlay reductions associated with 
the elimination of the Milk Income Loss Contra ct Program, the Dairy Product Price Support 
Program, and the Dairy Ex port Incentive Program. 
 
 (ii-b) Do the Farm Bill or USDA implementation regulations foresee any means to reduce the level of subsidies that MPP might add? (G/AG/W/135, question in 1.17.1(c)(iv)). 
 
RESPONSE: Payment rate calculations and premium rates for program participants are fixed in the Farm Bill for the life of the prog ram: September 1, 2014 through December 31, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  
 2018. USDA expects no net increases in milk pr oduction because of risk reduction provided 
by MPP. Expected MPP outlays are offset by outlay reductions associated with the 
elimination of the Milk Income Loss Contract  Program, the Dairy Product Price Support 
Program and the Dairy Export Incentive Program. 
 b) If the Farm Bill is still totally or partially pe nding implementation, please inform about the current 
status and the roadmap for its implementation, including legislative or administrative action plan. 
 
RESPONSE: Many of the Farm Bill regulations th at are needed before producers can sign up 
for programs have been published in the Federal Register, including regulations for 
ARC/PLC, the new dairy margin program, and others. These regulations can be found at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/fed eralNotices?area=home&subj ect=lare&topic=frd-ii.  
 
Producers have until December 19, 2014, to si gn up for the new dairy margin program for 
calendar years 2014 and 2015. Information on the dairy margin program can be found at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?ar ea=home&subject=dmpp&topic=landing .  
 
The timing of producer ARC/PL C decisions is as follows:  
 --Base Reallocation/Yield Updating —Landowners can update their yields and 
reallocate bases between September 29, 2014 and February 27, 2015. 
 --Program Election —Producers can choose among ARC-County, ARC-Individual, and 
 PLC between November 17, 2014 and March 31, 2015. This is a one-time election that 
will be in effect through the 2018 crop. 
 --Program Enrollment —Producers must enroll annually. The first enrollment period 
(for 2014 and 2015 crops) is mid-April 2015 through the summer (no exact dates yet).    The remaining farm bill regulations to be pub lished as of December 4, 2014, include: the 
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Progra m (disaster assistance for commodities not 
covered by crop insurance); marketing assist ance loans for 2015-18 crops; Biomass Crop 
Assistance Program; conservation complianc e linkage with crop insurance; and the 
Conservation Reserve Program.  
 Question 128) Regarding questions in the commodity provisions section on: 
 
a) Spending level the USA answered "[…] The 2014 Farm Bill reduced overall agricultural spending. 
Any differences among the programmes do not impact U.S. commitments […]". (G/AG/W/135, question in 1.17.1(b)).  
 
According to press information by Reuters, "US farmers set to get huge government payouts despite bumper harvest": 
- "The (farm) bill actually did little to rein in costs," said Republican Representative Tom Petri of 
Wisconsin, in an emailed statement. "What we're seeing is a program that still costs far more than it should and fails to include reforms that actually save taxpayer dollars." 
- "The farm bill's new programs were meant to cost the taxpayer less by replacing a nearly two-
decade-old scheme of direct cash payments to farmers, which were about US$5 billion a year and were made regardless of need. But the payouts for 2014 now look likely to far exceed that amount." Could the USA please: 
 
(i) Specify why the Farm Bill will spend more than initially expected? (ii) What is the current estimation of yearly spending in subsidies in commodity crops, dairy 
and sugar, including non-product specific programmes? 
 RESPONSE: The costs of new commodity and crop insuranc e programs will be finally 
determined by producer program choices, an d price and yield outcomes influenced by 
variable market and weather events. Because these factors are uncertain, estimates of 
future spending under the 2014 Farm Bill ar e also uncertain. Initial projections by the 
Congressional Budget Office used baseline assumptions about enrollment, prices, and 
revenue outcomes. More recent estimates ma ke different, and varied, assumptions.  
USDA has projected payments under the PLC and ARC programs based on an enrollment 
split of 24% PLC and 76% ARC and price declin es of at least 15% from 2014 prices. Under 
these assumptions, PLC and ARC payments ar e estimated to be US$28.6 billion for crop 
years 2014-18. USDA estimates th at payments for these 5 crop years will be spread across 
FY2016-20. Although USDA's current estimates exceed earlier Congressional Budget Office WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  
 projections, in the USDA proj ection, ARC payments account for 67% of total payments. If 
PLC enrollment is higher than the 24% assume d for the USDA estimates, total payments 
would show a smaller increase over earlier projections.  
 
New estimates for expenditures under the PLC and ARC programs, as well as for other Farm Bill programs, will be available in Februa ry 2015 in conjunction with release of the 
USDA Baseline and the U.S. FY2016 Budget.  
 
b) The rationale for increasing reference prices by more that 50% in crops covered by the Farm Bill 
Commodity provisions the USA gave the following answer (G/AG/W/135, question in 1.17.1(d)(i)):  
"The reference prices were determined by Congress and reflect a significant shift in market dynamics 
seen over the past several years. Given these new market dynamics and growing global demand, it is unlikely that prices will fall to the very low levels seen in the 1996-2005 period." 
 
Taking into the account the abrupt fall on internatio nal prices, does the USA still hold that prices will 
not reach the 1996-2005 levels?  
RESPONSE: The United States Department of Ag riculture forecasts that prices are unlikely 
to fall to levels that low.  
Question 129) Regarding two questions whether exportation of dairy products purchased under 
the Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP; (G/AG/W/ 135, questions in 1.17.1(d)  (iii) and (iv)), the 
USA answered as follows:  
 
"Products purchased under the programme will be distributed to public and private non-profit 
organizations for the purpose of nutritional assistance for low-income individuals, not purchases of bulk commodities. Organizations will be prohibited from selling products back into commercial 
markets, including commercial export markets. The programme has not yet been implemented, so it 
is premature to identify what specific mechanisms will be in place for purposes of implementing and 
administering the programme". 
 
a) Has the governmental provision that prohibits organizations from selling products back into commercial markets, including commercial export markets been established? 
  
RESPONSE: Yes. 
 b) If yes, please identify that provision informing if it is in force. 
 
RESPONSE: USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) regulations in 7 CFR 250.13.   
B. Impact of the Farm Bill in planted areas of each crop 
 Question 130) Can the USA confirm that the cotton base acres are being reallocated for use of 
other "covered" commodities under Section 1111(6) of the Farm Bill because those cotton base areas 
are not eligible for PLC payments or ARC payments, as established by Section 1114(b)1?  RESPONSE: No. The 2014 Farm Bill removed upla nd cotton as a covered commodity for the 
ARC/PLC programs and prior upland cotton base  acres cannot be reallocated (as described 
in section 1112) to the base acreage of an other covered commodity. Upland cotton base 
acres become generic base acres for use in ARC/PLC. Generic base acres are retained on 
the farm at the tract level and may: (a) not be reallocated; (b) be planted to any crop; 
(c) receive ARC or PLC payments for the ac res planted to a covered commodity; (d) be 
reduced for CRP participation; (e) be reduced wh en taken out of agricu ltural production; or 
(f) be reduced on farms having more base acres than available cropland.  
 Generic base acres planted to a covered comm odity are eligible for ARC/PLC payments and 
will be attributed to a covered commodity pursuant to rules established by USDA. 
Question 131) Can the USA inform which "covered" commodities have increased their planting 
areas since the 2012-2013 crop year to the 2013-2014 crop year?  
RESPONSE: See response to Question 132 below. 
 Question 132) Are there any estimations of this shift for the crop year 2014-15? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service provides planted area statistics 
that (except for crambe and sesame seed) can be downloaded using th e "Quick Stats" link 
on USDA's National Agricultural Statisti cs Service website, for 2012-13, 2013-14, and 
2014-15. The following table compares the planted acreages for the covered commodities 
for 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15:  
Table 3 Planted Acres of Covered Commodi ties: U.S. Totals, 2012/13-2014/15 (Acres)  
Covered Crop Year Change from Previous Year 
Commodity 2012 2013 2014 2013 2014 
   
Barley 3,660,000 3,528,000 2,975,000 (132,000) (553,000) 
Canola 1,754,400 1,348,000 1,711,500 (406,400) 363,500 
Chickpeas, Large 138,400 170,500 157,200 32,100 (13,300) 
Chickpeas, Small 69,500 45,200 66,900 (24,300) 21,700 
Corn 97,291,000 95,365,000 90,885,000 (1,926,000) (4,480,000) 
Crambe 1/ 3 28 32 25 4 
Dry Peas 2/ 668,500 878,000 958,000 209,500 80,000 
Flaxseed 349,000 181,000 332,000 (168,000) 151,000 
Grain Sorghum 6,259,000 8,061,000 7,213,000 1,802,000 (848,000) 
Lentils 463,000 362,000 280,000 (101,000) (82,000) 
Mustard Seed 51,100 45,000 36,000 (6,100) (9,000) 
Oats 2,700,000 2,980,000 2,723,000 280,000 (257,000) 
Peanuts 1,638,000 1,067,000 1,342,000 (571,000) 275,000 
Rapeseed 2,500.0 1,700.0 2,600.0 (800) 900 
Rice, Long Grain 1,994,000 1,781,000 2,201,000 (213,000) 420,000 
Rice, Medium/Short Grain 706,000 708,000 730,000 2,000 22,000 
Safflower 169,800 175,500 183,500 5,700 8,000 
Sesame Seed 1/ 47,754 107,876 98,667 60,122 (9,210) 
Soybeans 77,198,000 76,840,000 84,184,000 (358,000) 7,344,000 
Sunflower 1,658,000 1,279,000 1,186,000 (379,000) (93,000) 
Wheat 55,294,000 56,236,000 56,822,000 942,000 586,000 
US Total 252,111,957 251,159,804 254,087,399 (952,153) 2,927,595 
1/ Reported to FSA (No NASS data)     
 
Question 133) According to the new Farm Bill si gned by the President of the USA in February 
2014, potential payments for the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) 
programs are paid on the farm's bases associated with a covered commodity, such as wheat, oats, and barley, corn, grain sorghum, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans, other 
oilseeds, and peanuts, having cotton (which profits from the STAX program) been excluded from PLC 
or ARC programs.  
For a given crop year, the farmer's covered commodity base (e.g. peanuts in suitable regions) will be the sum of the current base assigned to that covered commodity plus any generic base (e.g., cotton) 
temporarily assigned. Payment acres for price loss cove rage (PLC) or agricultural risk coverage (ARC) 
with the county option will be 85% of the base acres for the covered commodity. Payment acres for 
agricultural risk coverage (ARC) with the individual option will be 65% of the base acres also for that 
same covered commodity.  
As a result, some USA producers have expressed their concern in the sense that moving the cotton base (now "generic base") to other program crops could overload their production in the coming years, as for instance in the case of peanuts. It has already become apparent that the peanut 
industry is planning for a major expansion in the next season, with new buying points and 
warehouses being planned.  
a) Could the USA explain how it intends to prevent peanut prices from dropping significantly 
due to oversupply? 
 RESPONSE: The domestic program for peanuts is market-oriented and relies upon market 
prices to provide peanut producers with signals to either contract or expand 
production. Both the future acreage and pric e of peanuts in the United States will be 
determined by the relative fu ture prices for peanuts and co mpeting crops—principally, corn 
and cotton. Generic base will be allocated a ccording to expected market returns from 
competing crops.  
 b) How do the USA expect to avoid the result ing distortion of competition among local and 
foreign suppliers? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  
 RESPONSE: See response to question 133a). 
 c) Have the USA considered the adverse effect  of the measure described above on peanut 
farmers in developing countries? 
 RESPONSE: Since the core of the new programs eschew input subsidies and administered price schemes, and decouple payments from production decisions and instead base them 
on historical production, producers have the in centive to plant based on their expectations 
of highest market return.   
C. Other sources of information or commitments: 
 Question 134) G-20 Standstill: How would the USA prevent increases of subsidies, in particular 
agricultural and fisheries subsidies, as regards the standstill in the St. Petersburg G-20 Declaration ? 
  
RESPONSE: In the 2014 Farm Bill, Members of  Congress decided to provide an updated 
farm safety net for producers, emphasizing farmers' participation in crop insurance 
programs. As part of this decision, Congress terminated the Direct and Countercyclical 
Payment program.   
Further, the United States ha s continued to promote policies that limit the trade- and 
production-distorting effects of its progra ms. New programs are paid on historical 
production without reference to current produc tion, removing the incentives that lead to 
surplus production. Because producers cannot increase their payments as a result of 
current planting decisions, plantings would be  based on market incentives. Further, there 
are some countervailing factors in certain U.S.  farm programs, which will provide lower 
payments when commodity prices fall and remain low. 
 
D. Trends in U.S. Domestic Support  
Question 135) The preceding charts "US Domestic Support (amber, de minimis, blue & green box 
direct payments)" and "Evolution of categories of U. S. subsidies (distorting and minimally distorting)" 
illustrate the permanent nature of agricultural subsid ies in the U.S. and it shows that there has been 
no legislation enacted since the Uruguay Round in fa vor of a reduction in the trend of U.S. domestic 
support (also see table below "Summary of Domestic Support USA 1995-2011").   RESPONSE: U.S. domestic support has seen ch anges with each successive farm bill. The 
2014 Farm Bill made a number of program change s. The United States eliminated market 
price support and export subsidies, which were  provided to dairy products. In addition, 
several commodity programs we re eliminated and new ones were introduced. The PLC and 
ARC programs are paid on historical producti on without reference to current production, 
removing the incentives that lead to su rplus production. Because producers cannot 
increase their payments as a result of current  planting decisions, plantings would be based 
on market incentives. 
 The only visible relevant changes in U.S. domestic support trend all along this long period two decades are those resulting from cyclical variations due to changes in international prices for 
agricultural products. Moreover, the U.S. agricultur al subsidy policy follows a counter-cyclical pattern 
that benefits U.S. farmers at the expense of farmers in the rest of the world, since these farmers have to absorb the adjustment in produced  quantities that U.S. will not undertake.  
In view of the 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014), does the U.S. think this new legislation will 
break this permanent pattern and promote reform  through reduction of subsidies even when 
international agricultural prices are low?  
 
RESPONSE: U.S. domestic support has seen ch anges with each successive farm bill. The 
2014 Farm Bill made a number of program change s. The United States eliminated market 
price support and export subsidies, which were  provided to dairy products. In addition, 
several commodity programs we re eliminated and new ones were introduced. The PLC and 
ARC programs are paid on historical producti on without reference to current production, 
removing the incentives that lead to su rplus production. Because producers cannot 
increase their payments as a result of current  planting decisions, plantings would be based 
on market incentives.  
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1
 
- 51 - SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT USA 1995-2011  
(US$ Millions) 
  1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
AMS 6.214 5.89 7 6.238 10.392 16.862 16.843 14.482 9.63 7 6.950 11.629 12.943 7.742 6.260 6.25 5 4.267 4.119 4.654 
De Minimis 1.646 1.153 1.077 4.741 7.434 7.341 7.052 6.690 3.237 6.458 5.979 3.601 2.260 9.382 7.857 5.880 9.714 
Blue Bo x 7.030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Green Box - Para.2,3,4 43.281 44.378 42.760 40.629 40.743 40.931 43.130 48.270 53.318 57.059 62.01 764.954 65.15 5 76.271 90.346 107.989 114.08 7 
Green Box - Direct 
Payments 2.752 7.43 7 8.489 9.191 9.006 9.126 7.542 10.051 10.744 10.366 10.311 11.071 11.00 7 9.947 10.433 10.969 11.030 
Total 60.923 58.86 5 58.564 64.953 74.04 574.241 72.206 74.649 74.249 85.512 91.250 87.368 84.681 101.854 112.903 128.958 139.48 5 
Total Direct 
Payments 
(A;B;G)+MPS 17.642 14.487 15.804 24.324 33.302 33.310 29.076 26.379 20.931 28.453 29.233 22.414 19.526 25.583 22.557 20.969 25.398 
          
Non Green Box 
Subsidies 14.890 7.050 7.31 5 15.133 24.296 24.184 21.534 16.328 10.187 18.087 18.922 11.343 8.519 15.636 12.124 10.000 14.368 
 
 
"2014 - Año de Homenaje al Almirante Guillermo Brown, en  el Bicentenario del Combate Naval de Montevideo." WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM ARGENTINA 
 
 Respuesta N° 5 
 
1. En su respuesta Estados Unidos manifiesta que, en 2015, los gobiernos de los países Miembros de la OMC tendrán que abordar la agenda de trabajo post-Bali de manera muy diferente 
a la que lo hicieron en 2014. ¿Podría explicar Estados Unidos de que manera piensa encarar esta 
agenda de trabajo, a la luz de los acuerdos alcanzados en la última reunión del Consejo General con respecto al Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio y las existencias públicas con fines de seguridad alimentaria? 
 
RESPONE: The United States is committed to  making progress wherever possible on the 
Doha Development Agenda (DDA), based on common efforts. Now is the time to craft 
credible, innovative approaches to the WTO' s work as an institution that liberalizes 
trade and creates and applies meaningful ru les to trade based on active commitment 
and participation from all Members,  both developed and developing.  
 
 Respuesta N° 8  
2. Con respecto al Sistema Generalizado de Preferencia (SGP), el cual quedó sin efecto el 
31/7/2013, se solicita conocer exactamente cuáles son las acciones concretas que piensa tomar el gobierno de Estados Unidos con miras a reinstaurar la vigencia de este sistema. 
 
RESPONSE: As noted in response to earlier questions, restoration of the GSP program 
requires action by the U.S. Congress. The Administration supports Congressional action 
to reauthorize the GSP program at the earliest  opportunity and continues to engage with 
Members of Congress to advance this objective.   
Respuesta N° 18 
 
3. ¿Por qué razones Estados Unidos no tiene un previsto establecer plazos para las resoluciones 
anticipadas? 
 RESPONSE: The advance ruling process in the United States is a program available to 
interested parties who choose to request a decision as to how their goods may be 
treated by Customs and Border Protection upon  entry in the United States. No person is 
required to request an advance ruling. As  demonstrated by the widespread use of 
rulings by traders, the United States issu es rulings in a time-sensitive manner that 
allows traders to use rulings for a wide range of issues. In addition, the time to issue a 
particular ruling may vary based on the comp lexity of the issue, and in some cases CBP 
invites the requester to use additional time to provide more information to ensure 
accuracy of the ruling. 
  
Respuesta N° 23 
 4. Se solicita explicar cuáles son los requisitos que debe cumplir una empresa extranjera para participar del Programa de Comerciantes de Confianza. 
 
RESPONSE: The Trusted Trader program is currently a pilot test program. A Federal Register Notice, reference 79 FR 34334, was posted to the public June 16, 2014, to 
solicit volunteer participants. Nine particip ant volunteers were selected for Phase I of 
the program. Selected applicants were notifi ed the week of October 6, 2014. The test 
period for the pilot will run for at least 18 months to adequately test the full process 
from beginning to end including applicatio n submission, vetting, validation and the 
annual review or notification process. This pe riod will be used to provide an evaluation 
assessment and apply experiences of the te st period. Additional volunteers will be 
sought in later phases as the program is further developed.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  Respuesta N° 32 
 5. El informe de la Secretaría menciona que durante el período examinado se revisaron los tipos del impuesto especial que grava el transporte aéreo y se modificaron las normas y 
reglamentos internos relativos a los dispositivos médicos, los servicios de bronceado y las 
instituciones financieras extranjeras. ¿Podrían explicar específicamente cuáles fueron las razones de estas modificaciones?  
 
RESPONSE: Generally, the nominal amount of th e tax on the use of international travel 
facilities is adjusted annually with inflat ion. For further information, refer to the 
following online sites: 
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p510--2012.pdf ; 
http://www.faa.gov/about/off ice_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/14.1.17E
xciseTaxStructureCalendar2014.pdf .  
 
With respect to the medical device excise tax, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued Notice 2012-77 on Dec. 5, 2012, ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-77.pdf ) 
to provide interim guidance on certain issues  related to the medica l device excise tax. 
This Notice solicited comments from ta xpayers about these rules and no final 
determination has been made yet on these issues.  
Tanning services excise tax final regula tions were published on June 11, 2013 
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2013-06-11/pdf/2013-13876.pdf ). These are final 
regulations and reflect comments received on preliminary regulations. One of the 
clarification in the final regulations is th at prepaid monthly membership and enrollment 
fees are subject to the tax even if the member does not use the tanning services for the period which the fees are related. 
 
Final regulations for information reporting by foreign financial institutions and withholding on certain payments to these institutions were release April 8, 2013 (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2013-15_IRB/ar16.html ). Many comments were received and 
the comments and the regulatory responses are listed in the section, "Summary of 
Comments and Explanations of Revisions." Th is guidance is part of the guidance 
provided as a result of FATCA. ( http://www.irs.gov/Busine sses/Corporations/FATCA-
Regulations-and-Other-Guidance ) 
 
 
Respuesta N° 44 
 6. Se solicita brindar una explicación acerca de las razones por las cuáles se incrementó, con respecto a otros años, el número de notificaciones de obstáculos técnicos al comercio durante el 
año 2013. 
 RESPONSE: The number of TBT notifications in  a given year depends on the number of 
proposed technical regulations and conformi ty assessment procedures developed. The 
number of proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures 
developed will inevitably vary from year to year, as regulatory needs and priorities and 
other factors fluctuate. 
 Respuesta N° 54  
7. El informe de la Secretaría indica que el Comité de Coordinación para el Fomento del 
Comercio (TPCC) es el principal organismo interinstitucional del Gobierno que coordina las políticas de promoción de las exportaciones y que cada año establece su estrategia nacional de exportación, 
en la que determina un orden de prioridades. No obstante, el informe indica que desde 2012 no 
publica ningún documento al respecto. Sin embarg o en su respuesta Estados Unidos manifiesta 
que todos estos informes son públicos. ¿Podrían explicar esta contradicción entre el informe y la 
respuesta de los Estados Unidos? ¿Dónde se publican estos informes?  
 RESPONSE: In November 2013, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker announced that federal agencies would take a fresh look at  the National Export Initiative (NEI) and 
propose a new strategy to help broaden and d eepen the base of U.S. exporters. In May WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  2014, Secretary Pritzker launched this export strategy, outlining how the Administration 
would build on progress made through the NEI with a successor in itiative, NEI/NEXT. 
The TPCC Secretariat published the NEI/NE XT strategic framework (published at 
www.trade.gov/neinext/neinex t-strategic-framework.pdf ) in May 2014. The TPCC 
Secretariat anticipates reporting out on past  year's efforts and upcoming priorities 
under NEI/NEXT in a National Export St rategy during the first half of 2015. 
 
Respuesta N° 56 
 8. Si bien entendemos del informe que no se llego a cumplir la meta de duplicar las exportaciones, la pregunta hacía hincapié acerca de cuáles eran las estrategias planteadas para 
poder alcanzar dicha meta, independientemente de no haber podido llegar al objetivo. ¿Podrían 
brindar una explicación al respecto?  
RESPONSE: The National Export Initiative launched in 2010 had five main components, 
or strategies. First, the Administration impr oved advocacy and trade promotion efforts. 
Second, the Administration increased access to export financing. Third, agencies 
reinforced their efforts to remove barriers to  trade so that as many markets as possible 
are open to U.S. products and services. Fourth , the United States robustly enforced trade 
rules, ensuring America's trade partners live up to their obligations. Fifth, the Administration pursued policies at the global  level to promote strong, sustainable, and 
balanced growth. 
  
9. ¿Podrían explicar con mayor detalle en qué consisten los beneficios otorgados a las PyMEs 
en el marco del programa NEI/NEXT?  
RESPONSE: Direct benefits are not "granted" to SMEs under NEI/NEXT, rather this 
initiative is about aligning federal programs  and priorities to better meet the export-
related needs of SMEs. For example, NEI/NEXT objectives include: 
- Streamlining the export paperwor k filing and reporting process; 
- Making it easier for SMEs to access federal export-related assistance and 
financing; 
- Providing more industry-specific informatio n on export opportunities and providing 
international trade counselors tools on an industry-specialized basis; 
- Working closely with regional and state-ba sed entities who provide export-related 
services to provide SMEs with a coordina ted export assistance environment; and 
- Reflecting the export-related needs of  SMEs in national policies and trade 
agreements. 
 Respuesta N° 58 
  
10. Con respecto a la Iniciativa NEI/NEXT, se solicita conocer cuál es el listado de las economías en desarrollo potencialmente beneficiarias de la ayuda que brinda este mecanismo, o bien explicar 
los criterios que debe cumplir un país para acceder a él. 
 RESPONSE: One priority in the NEI/NEXT initia tive is to provide technical assistance to 
developing and developed economies to su pport transparent business climates and a 
level playing field. This effort prioritize s coordination among several U.S. agencies 
leading efforts to build trade capacity, including assuring intellectual property 
protections, addressing corruption and lack of transparency, and harmonizing 
regulations and standards. Countries can work  with the appropriate U.S. agencies to 
apply for assistance with any of these is sues under a number of existing technical 
assistance programs. 
 
Respuesta N° 74  
11. Se solicita explicar en detalle qué diferencias existen entre una "empresa del estado" y una 
"empresa patrocinada por el Gobierno", así como también las razones por las cuales se establece una empresa "patrocinada", brindar un listado completo de estas empresas y explicar cuáles son los "privilegios" y la ayuda a la que acceden estas empresas. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Secretariat's report addresses both g overnment corporations and 
government-sponsored enterprises, not stat e enterprises. As stated in the initial 
response, government corporations are revenue-generating enterprises that are legally 
distinct but operated by the federal government, whereas government-sponsored 
enterprises are privately held corporations with public purposes created by the U.S. 
Congress. 
 
Further information regarding these entities can be found at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default /files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/gov.pdf  
and each entity's specific website. 
 
Respuesta N° 112 
 12. Se solicita explicar de manera más clara a que atribuye el gobierno de los Estados Unidos la 
baja tasa de utilización de los contingentes arancelarios en el periodo bajo examen. 
  
RESPONSE: Fill rates for tariff quotas are driven  by market conditions. This can lead to 
fill rates varying significantly from one ta riff quota to another and from year to 
year. With regard to period under review, most of the tariff rate quotas with very low fill rates are administered on a first come, first- served basis. For a more detailed indication 
of the allocation methods for U.S. tariff rate quotas, the United States would direct 
Argentina's attention to G/AG/N/USA /2/add.3, dated October 5, 2001. 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  ASEAN 
  Report by USA  
1) Pg. 10, Paragraph(s) 3.10 - 3.13  
 To ensure that United States trade policy and tr ade negotiating objectives reflect U.S. public and 
private sector interests, the U.S. has in place the Trade Advisory Committee System which has 
been arranged in three tiers. Under Tier III: The Technical and Sectoral Advisory Committee, representatives are jointly appointed by the USTR and the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Commerce.  
 
Seeing that not all private sector entities can be represented under the Committee, are there conferences or outreach activities, if any, that the U.S. has undertaken to ensure that all private 
sector interests have been sufficiently attended to? 
 RESPONSE: USTR welcomes all U.S. stakeh olders to apply to the Trade Advisory 
Committee System. Committees are continuously evaluated to ensure balance and that a 
wide range of views are represented.  In addition, USTR engages with stakeholders  outside the committee system, both in the 
private and public sectors. For example, al ongside each of the T-TIP rounds, USTR and 
the EU have hosted stakeholder consultation se ssions. During each of the rounds held in 
the U.S., negotiators met with and listened to over 50 presentations from 
representatives of a wide array of intere sts, including industry, small business, 
academia, labor unions, environmental groups , and consumer advocacy organizations. 
The stakeholder presentations and briefings consistently draw approximately 300 global 
stakeholders.  
   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  AUSTRALIA 
  Report by the Secretariat - WT/TPR/S/307 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.3.2.2.2 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 
Page 35, Paragraph 2.32 
Australia notes the GSP Program expired on 31 July 2013 and has not been renewed. The GSP 
plays an important role in supporting economic growth in developing countries. It provides preferential access to the U.S. for more than fift y developing countries, including all Pacific Island 
developing countries.  
  Question 1: Does the USA intend to renew its GSP program? If so, when? 
 
RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U. S. Congress at the earliest opportunity. 
  Question 2: In the event it is renewed, is consideration being given to making the program permanent? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Congress sets the term le ngth for GSP authorization and, over the 
last 20 years, has generally renewed the prog ram for periods of one to five years. The 
most recent legislation to renew GSP, introduced in July 2013, would have extended the 
program through September 2015. Any prospective longer term or permanent renewal of GSP would have to take into account impl ications on the federal budget because U.S. 
law requires that foregone tariff revenue under GSP be offset by corresponding revenue 
increases or spending reductions.  2.3.1 Regional and Preferential Trade Agreements 
Page 31, paragraph 2.24 
Australia welcomes the US' ongoing commitment to the transparency mechanism and factual 
presentation process in the CRTA.  
 
 Question 3: When will the U.S. table its FTA wi th Colombia (the US's third largest FTA trading 
partner) for consideration in the CRTA? 
 
RESPONSE: We are concluding our review of the U.S.-Colombia draft Factual Presentation and expect to provide comment s to Colombia and the Secretariat soon. The 
United States looks forward to the transpar ency reviews of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, the 
Dominican Republic-Central America-Un ited States FTA (CAFTA-DR) and the 
U.S.-Bahrain FTA as soon as mutually possible for our FTA partners in 2015.   
2.4.2 Investment promotion 
Page 39, paragraph 2.51 Question 4: Australia requests the United States provide more information on the Make it in 
America program 'to accelerate insourcing'. In part icular, could the U.S. explain how it ensures the 
program is consistent with international trade obligations, including the WTO Agreements on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)? 
 
RESPONSE: The Make it in America program was a one-time program, carried out in 
2012, to identify innovative projects focuse d on increasing investment and employment. 
Further information is available at www.commerce.gov/news/fact-
sheets/2012/09/25/fact-sheet-m ake-it-america-challenge . The winning projects are 
described at 
http://www.eda.gov/challenges/MakeItInAmeri ca/winners.htm. Information about the 
SelectUSA program is available at http:/ /selectusa.commerce.gov. The SelectUSA 
websites contains a searchable database of over 70 different federal incentive programs 
designed to encourage business inve stment across a range of sectors 
(http://selectusa.commerce.gov/investment-incentives ).  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  2.4.3.3 Other investment laws or restrictions 
Page 40, Table 2.4, Paragraph 4.87 Australia notes the reference to the ongoing restri ction on foreign investment for U.S. registered 
ships. 
 
Question 5: Can the United States outline whether any liberalisation or easing of restrictions might be considered in the future? 
 
RESPONSE: No proposed legislation is currently pending before the U.S. Congress that would significantly revise measures govern ing foreign investment  in US-registered 
ships. 
 
Australia also notes the reference to the ongoing restriction on foreign investment for U.S. registered aircraft. 
Question 6: Can the United States outline whether any liberalisation or easing of restrictions might 
be considered in the future?  
RESPONSE: No proposed legislation is currently pending before the U.S. Congress that 
would significantly revise measures govern ing foreign investment  in US-registered 
aircraft.   
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1.1.1.1 Single window Page 43, Paragraph 3.5 
We note the United States will be requiring all trade manifest data to be submitted through the 
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as of 1 May 2015.  
Question 7: Can the United States confirm that  they will provide sufficient advice and advance 
notice to importers so as to allow a smooth transition to the new system and minimal disruption to the flow of trade?  
RESPONSE: U.S. Customs and Border Protecti on (CBP) has been conducting outreach 
with local ports and trade communities since 2013 and will continue to do so through ongoing outreach activities such as on-site visits, association-specific conferences, and 
webinars, well in advance of the mandatory da tes. This outreach will ensure that the 
trade community has sufficient advice an d advance notice to allow for a smooth 
transition to the new system. More detaile d information about ACE including scheduled 
updates, outreach calendars, technical spec ifications, training and reference guides, 
frequently asked questions, and other resources can be found at www.cbp.gov/trade/ace .  
 
3.1.1.1.2 Border Interagenc y Executive Council (BIEC) 
Page 43, Paragraph 3.8 Question 8: Can the United States provide an update on the BIEC's development of common 
risk-management principles and methods and the li kely timeframe, as well as whether the results 
will be published?  
RESPONSE: Much of the early work of the BIEC necessarily focused on establishing 
organizational frameworks and processes that  allow the BIEC to accomplish its functions 
in an efficient and effective manner. These early efforts include establishing a BIEC 
Charter and forming three committees: Risk  Management; Process Coordination; and 
External Engagement. These Committees are working towards accomplishing the seven 
goals of the BIEC as outlined by Executive Order 13659. Among other things, the BIEC is 
considering issues such as how agencies can further streamline data requirements, 
collaborate on risk management activiti es, and coordinate messages to filers.  
 The BIEC is considering severa l metrics to assess the impact  of improvements to supply 
chain processes and the identification of illicit and non-compliant shipments. Among 
other things, agencies will track changes in processing times for exports and imports, 
the accuracy and efficiency of their en forcement and compliance efforts, and the 
satisfaction of trade community users with th e single window. Results of the BIEC risk WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  management principles and methods have b een completed, but a determination has not 
been made of whether they will be pu blished for external distribution.  
 3.1.1.1.3 Advance rulings 
Page 44, Paragraph 3.9 
In relation to the US' Advanced Rulings scheme the report states that "At present, rulings related 
to valuation or carriers must be submitted by letter" 
Question 9: Could the U.S. provide clarification as to why such rulings must be submitted by letter, 
and whether there are any plans to expand the eRulings template to encompass rulings related to valuation or carrier?  
RESPONSE: U.S. regulations (19 CFR 177.2a) provide that a request for a ruling should 
be in the form of a letter. CBP is consid ering expanding the eRulings template for 
submission of the requests, but in the mean time, requests for rulings may be submitted 
electronically via email.  
 Page 44, Paragraph 3.10 
The report states that "there appear to be no  set deadlines with respect to issuing a ruling." 
Question 10: Could the U.S. confirm what timefr ame they work to in order to issue Advanced 
Rulings, noting the Agreement on Rules of Origin Article 3(f) requires rulings related to origin to be made within 150 days of application, and the Trad e Facilitation Agreement will require rulings to 
be made in a "reasonable, time-bound manner"? 
 RESPONSE: CBP endeavors to issue rulings wi thin 90 days of receipt of information 
necessary to issue a ruling and often issues classification rulings within 30 days of 
receipt.  
3.1.1.1.5 Trusted Trader Programs  
3.1.1.1.5.2 Importer Self-Assessment Program (ISA) Page 45, Paragraph 3.16 The report notes that C-TPAT certified organisations are eligible to participate in the Import 
Self-Assessment (ISA) Program provided they are a resident importer of the United States or a 
Canadian importer. Question 11: Will the United States be extending eligibility to the ISA to traders from other 
countries, including those with whom the United States has a C-TPAT Mutual Recognition 
Agreement?  
RESPONSE: At this time, there are no plans for CBP to extend eligibility to the ISA to 
traders from other countries.  Page 46, Paragraph 3.18 
Regarding the Trusted Trader Program Test, Australia notes that the test phase is expected to last 
18 months and will be limited to fewer than ten participants.  
Question 12: Why was the timeframe for the test decided to be 18 months? 
 RESPONSE: The test period will run for at least 18 months to adequately test the full 
process from beginning to end including a pplication submission, vetting, validation and 
the annual review or notification process. Such  a period is considered necessary in order 
provide an evaluation assessment and a pply experiences of the test period. 
 
Question 13: Will participation be by specific invita tion only or will a general invitation be offered 
for any party wishing to participate?  
RESPONSE: A Federal Register Notice (refer ence 79 FR 34334) was posted to the public 
to solicit volunteer participants.  
Question 14: Why has the Program been limited to ten participants? 
 RESPONSE: The Program is limited to less th an ten participants due to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act which requires all government programs satisfy requirements that would WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  not mandate unnecessary or burdensome collecti on of information or data from trade 
entities.  Question 15: Can the United States provide info rmation on when the Trusted Trader Program is 
anticipated to fully replace the ISA and C-TPAT programs? 
 RESPONE: The Trusted Trader Program will re place ISA, but an exact date has not yet 
been determined for the replacement. The Trusted Trader will not replace the C-TPAT 
program as there are entities in C-TPAT that would continue to benefit from its Trade Compliance incentives. The Trusted Trade Pr ogram will however continue to require 
C-TPAT as a pre-requisite to Trusted Trader. 
 
3.1.3.3 Country-of-origin marking Page 49, Paragraph 3.29  
Australia notes that this paragraph suggests that go ods imported in to the U.S. must be marked in 
one way in accordance with the Tariff Act, but ma y be required to be marked in a different way 
under other federal and state laws.  
Question 16: Can the U.S. confirm if this is the case? If so, please explain how such an 
arrangement is consistent with the GATT 1947 Article III National Treatment provisions, the WTO TBT Agreement, and with Part II of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin relating to non-
preferential rules of origin disciplines during transition? 
 
RESPONSE: United States marking requirements (19 USC 1304) require that, unless excepted, all foreign origin goods be marked so as to inform the ultimate purchaser in 
the United States of its country of origin . Federal and state laws may have different 
labelling requirements for diffe rent purposes. Such requirements are not inconsistent 
with one another and are compliant with  the United States' WTO obligations.  
 
3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.2 Applied rates Page 51, Paragraph 3.39. 
The report notes that in 2010 the United States passed legislation providing temporary duty 
suspensions on several hundred products that would lower the manufacturing costs for many U.S. companies. These provisions expired on 31 December 2012.  
Question 17: Does the United States intend to re-enact these duty suspensions or undertake any 
other unilateral tariff reductions in the future?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Manufacturing Enhanc ement Act was passed by Congress in 2010. 
The United States is not in a position to  speculate on whether Congress might take 
action in the future to provide new or extended temporary duty relief through new 
legislation. 
 
Page 51, Table 3.2 Australia notes that almost 8% of all U.S. tariffs are defined as "nuisance tariffs", even though 
they are defined as those tariffs which are less th an 2%. Other definitions of such tariffs apply a 
significantly higher threshold, and can be as high as 5%.  Question 18: In the interests of simplifying the U. S.' tariff structure and administrative efficiency, 
has the U.S. considered eliminating such duties? Does the revenue collected on these duties cover 
the cost of their administration?  RESPONSE: The United States is not considering eliminating these duties at this 
time. The United States remains committed to  multilateral trade liberalization and to 
considering the treatment of these duties in those negotiations.  
3.1.5.1.3 Harbor Maintenance Tax 
Page 53, Paragraph 3.47 Question 19: Can the U.S. confirm that the Harb or Maintenance Tax applies only to imported 
goods and cruise ship passengers, and is not applie d to domestic goods arriving to port by ship, 
despite funds from the tax being applied to maintain navigation channels to the benefit of all port users.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Harbor Maintenance Tax is  generally assessed on commercial cargo 
loaded or unloaded on commercial vessels at certain enumerated ports of entry in the 
United States, without reference to whether the cargo is domestic or foreign merchandise. The HMT is not applicable to non-commercial vessels, nor is it applicable 
to a vessel that is either not load ing or unloading commercial cargo. 
 Australia also notes that the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund maintains significant surpluses, as 
only about half of the fees collected are appropriat ed for works. (The fee wo uld appear to be above 
the approximate cost of the services rendered, as required under GATT Article VIII). Question 20: Can the U.S. please explain how the fee is set, and why it remains unchanged when it is clearly raising more revenue than is required for its stated purpose?  
 
RESPONSE: The amount of the Harbor Main tenance Tax (HMT), also called the Harbor 
Maintenance Fee, is set by statute (26 U.S.C. § 4461 and 4462). Time may pass between 
collection of the fee and expenditure of the re levant sums because, after each project is 
vetted, the funds must be appropriated by Co ngress in order for any project to begin. A 
considerable amount of recordkeeping and ac counting help ensure that funds that are 
collected are used for projects that are appr opriate under the provisions of the HMT fund 
and that they are used in a manner that is  in compliance with the United States' WTO 
obligations.  
3.1.8 Technical Regulations and Standards 
Pages 66-67, Paragraphs 3.75, 3.76, 3.77 Australia notes that the United States is reviewing its TBT regulatory practices and proposed 
amendments to Federal legislation to promote a strong preference for the use of "voluntary 
consensus standards". Question 21: To what degree does the principle of voluntary consensus standards include an 
assessment to comply with relevant international standards and conformity assessments?  
 RESPONSE: OMB Circular A-119 (1998) establishes policies on Federal use and development of voluntary consensus standard s and on conformity assessment activities. 
Circular A-119 defines voluntary consensu s standards as standards developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodi es, both domestic and international. In 
turn, the following attributes define bodies that develop voluntary consensus standards: 
openness, balance of interests, due process,  an appeals process, and consensus. These 
attributes mirror the characteristics of standa rdizing bodies reflected in the Decision of 
the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Tr ade on Principles for the Development of 
International Standards (G/TBT/1/Rev.10, 9 June 2011). The United States considers 
that any standard that is developed in acco rdance with the princi ples set out in the 
Committee Decision should be treated as an international standard.  
Question 22: What proportion of U.S. standards are compatible with the relevant international 
standard?   
RESPONSE: The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) does 
not define the term "international standard ." Under the Decision of the WTO Committee 
on Technical Barriers to Trade on Principl es for the Development of International 
Standards (G/TBT/1/Rev.10, 9 June 2011) , however, any body that follows the 
principles of openness, transparency, impa rtiality, consensus, coherence, and the 
development dimension can develop intern ational standards. The United States 
considers that any standard that is develope d in accordance with the principles set out 
in the Committee Decision should be tr eated as an international standard. 
U.S. law and policy directs federal agencies to rely on voluntary consensus standards 
and relevant international standards, where a ppropriate. Section 6.a of the OMB Circular 
A-119 (1998) states: "All federal agencies must use voluntary consensus standards in 
lieu of government-unique standards in thei r procurement and regulatory activities, 
except where inconsistent with law or ot herwise impractical." (See also the National 
Technology Transfer Advancement Act). Sect ion 6.f of the Circular notes that U.S. 
agencies "must use voluntary consensus standards, both domestic and international, in its regulatory and procurement activities in lieu of government-unique standards, unless 
use of such standards would be inconsis tent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical." In addition, with respect to use by federal agencies, U.S. law requires WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  federal agencies to consider and where appropriate base standards on relevant 
international standards (see 19 U.S.C. 2532) The National Institute of Standards and Te chnology (NIST) – which is part of the 
U.S. Department of Commerce – provides a free, Internet accessible database of the 
9,000 references to standards that are incorp orated by reference in the U.S. Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). The database is se archable by Federal ag ency, by CFR title, 
by SDO, or even by keyword. See: 
http://standards.gov/sibr/query/index.cfm?fuseaction= rsibr.regulatory_sibr . 
 
Question 23: How do these proportions vary by industry segment?  
RESPONSE: We do not have such information compiled. Please see response to previous 
question.  
Page 67, paragraph 3.77 
Australia supports revision of Circular A-119 to encourage Members to consider, as a matter of priority, private voluntary consensus-driven in ternational standards and conformity assessment 
procedures instead of separate government imposed standards, and to review existing standards 
and conformity assessment procedures to ensure  they are up to date and do not impose 
unwarranted regulatory burdens on business. This  approach is consistent with the Australian 
Government's policy recently announced in the In dustry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, 
as well as the WTO TBT Agreement. 
 Question 24: Is the U.S. interested in exchanging ideas in the WTO on efficient and effective 
mechanisms for reviewing standards referenced in legislation? 
 RESPONSE: The United States would appreciate  a written submission that explained the 
proposal in greater detail. 
 Page 68, Paragraphs 3.82, 3.83 Australia notes that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredits organizations 
whose standards meet ANSI requirements of due process and consensus.  
Question 25: What are the specific criteria that ANSI utilises to assess accreditation for an organisation? What are the implications and responsibilities of an organization if it becomes an 
accredited organisation? How are accredited organisations encouraged to utilise international 
standards and conformity assessment activities?  
RESPONSE: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a membership-based 
private sector organization that represents many standards and conformity assessment 
interests of a range of public and private se ctor U.S.-based organizations. ANSI is the 
U.S. member body to the International Orga nization for Standardization (ISO) and the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).  
 ANSI has accepted the TBT Code of Good Pr actice on behalf of its membership of 
225 accredited standards development organiza tions. Additional details regarding the 
implications and responsibilities of ac credited organizations and how those 
organizations utilize international standa rds can be found on the ANSI website 
(www.ansi.org ). 
 
For the criteria ANSI utilizes to assess accred itation for an organization, please see the 
document, "ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American 
National Standards," which is available at www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements.  
 3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Healt h Inspection Service (APHIS) 
Page 70, Paragraph 3.93 
 Question 26: How many BSE risk assessments has APHIS conducted (in addition to recognising the 
OIE classifications in line with US's WTO rights); how many have been finalised; how many are 
continuing; and for which countries?  RESPONSE: The BSE comprehensive rule went in to effect in March 2014. This rule laid 
out the process by which either APHIS could concur with OIE designations of BSE risk WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  status or conduct a separate risk assessmen t if requested by a country. To date, no 
country has requested a separate risk assessment, therefore none have been 
completed. APHIS has concurred with all of the OIE designations as adopted during the May 2013 General Session, and is evaluating the OIE designations adopted during the 
May 2014 General Session. 
 3.3.5 Government procurement 
Page 85, Paragraph 3.167,  
Australia notes that the United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for purchases of goods and services, with the regulatory changes to implement the law yet to be finalised. 
Question 27: Australia requests the United States provide an update on the progress of regulatory 
changes to implement Public Law 111-347 and seeks further details on the definition of 'international procurement agreement'. 
 
RESPONSE: The effective date of the st atute was the date of its enactment, 
January 2, 2011. The U.S. Internal Revenue Se rvice and the Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. 
 3.3.6 Intellectual property rights; 3.3.6.1 Trade context  
Page 91, Paragraph 3.194 
Australia notes the reported difficulty of measuring international digital trade, and industry and researchers desire for better information. 
Question 28: Does the United States have any plans or strategies underway to address 
improvements in measuring data on digital transactions and their value in trade?  
RESPONSE: The United States measures and ev aluates trade data in a variety of ways, 
including with respect to digital transactions. As part of that process, the United States is continuously exploring possible improvemen ts. One recent study that includes trade 
data on digital transactions was conducted by the United States International Trade 
Commission and presented on August 2014 in a report entitled Digital Trade in the U.S. 
and Global Economies, Part 2, which is available at: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4485.pdf .  
 
3.3.6.1 Trade context  Page 92, paragraph 3.196 
Australia notes with interest the WIPO study report that highlights the fact on public sector 
patenting, U.S. universities accounted for 10 of the 11 highest users of the patent system. Question 29: What would the United States describe as their most compelling incentives for U.S. universities to become such high users of th e patent system? Could the history of such use be 
explained? 
 RESPONSE: The incentives for United States un iversities are the same as with any other 
person or institution. Since United States un iversities engage in cutting edge research 
and development, such institutions also seek protection for the innovations they create. 
3.3.6.2 Participation in WTO and international initiatives, 
Page 92, Paragraph 3.198  
The report indicates significant efforts in TRIPS Agreement-related technical assistance in various areas including IP protection and management, border enforcement, pharmaceutical counterfeiting, and public education and consumer awareness. 
Question 30: How does the United States evaluate the success of these activities? Are there any 
information gathering mechanisms or processes built into these activities to help determine their effectiveness, and if so, what quantitative or qua litative measures do these use? In evaluating the 
effectiveness of technical assistance on public education and consumer awareness, does the 
United States undertake any evaluation in cooperation with recipient parties?  
RESPONSE: The USPTO Global Intellectual Prop erty Academy uses a strategy of linking 
means to ends in order to bring foreign government officials to the United States to learn, discuss, and strategize about glob al IPR protection and enforcement. PTO 
developed a theory of change with a defini te set of measureable steps (intermediate 
objectives) toward the end-outcome goals. Th e theory is that exposure to new ideas, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  concepts, values, or information will result in enhanced knowledge, skills, and expertise 
about IP. With this enhanced knowledge , skills, and expertise in IP, program 
participants are likely to change their on-t he-job behavior or take action with the 
knowledge gained. In turn, the participants will improve IP protection and enforcement 
in their countries. 
 The USPTO designed a database that regist ers the participants and allows them to 
answer an Alumni survey six months following  their attendance at a capacity training 
program. The database collects all the data  from each participant and organizes the 
capacity training program by date and program title. Once all the data is collected, the PTO uses an outside resource to evaluate and create a written report on the results. 
Other written surveys used at USPTO are used  as a resource to analyze the speakers and 
their effectiveness. The USPTO also frequently  receives oral feedback on its programs 
from both participants and the hosting organizations. 
 
3.3.6.3 The patent system Page 94, Paragraph 3.200  
Australia is interested in the Department of Commerce Strategic Plan for 2014-18 goals, 
particularly the role identified for the USPTO in  helping build the capacity of U.S. regional 
economies to accelerate the production of value- added goods and services, strengthen the digital 
economy, and accelerate growth of innovation-intensive economic sectors. 
 Question 31: Are there any particular measures the United States, or the USPTO in particular, 
plans to take in achieving these goals?  
RESPONSE: Per the 2014-2018 USPTO Strategic Plan, the USPTO's third strategic goal is 
to "Provide Domestic and Global Leadership  to Improve Intellect ual Property Policy, 
Protection, and Enforcement Worldwide." In this regard, the USPTO aims to provide 
leadership and education on IP Policy and awar eness. A set of initiatives to meet this 
goal are: A. Provide policy formulation and guid ance on key IP issues in all fields of IP 
protection and enforcement; B. Engage ot her U.S. Government agencies and Congress 
on legislation that improves the IP system; C. Lead domestic and international copyright 
initiatives and policy development for the admi nistration; D. Provide domestic education 
outreach at all levels, including through di stance learning, knowledge enhancement, and 
capacity building; E. Leverage technology  to increase domestic and international 
education, training and outreach at all leve ls; and F. Expand knowledge of the domestic 
and international IP landscape and public  impacts. Furthermore, the USPTO was 
instrumental in the development of the DOC 's green paper on copyright, Copyright 
Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy. 
 3.3.6.7 IP Enforcement,  Page 99, Paragraph 3.219 
The figures on improved enforcement outcomes are interesting, for example the reported 71% 
increase in new cases, 308% increase in pending Federal Bureau of Investigation health and safety-focused investigations and a 53% increase in seizures of infringing imports.  
Question 32: Has the United States done any analysis of these figures, and identified causes?  
 RESPONSE: Current and past figures on enfo rcement, including the numbers and types 
of open investigations, arrests, and prosecu tions, are among the data reviewed by the 
U.S. Intellectual Property En forcement Coordinator and other government components 
in developing the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan to which the question refers. 
 
The substantial increases in enforcement outcomes from 2009 to 2013 are attributable, 
in part, to steady increases in the volume s of infringing imports and, in part, to 
concerted efforts to interdict as many shipme nts as possible of infringing imports across 
all shipping environments includ ing Post and Express Carriers.   
 Question 33: If so, is this for example a function  of better practices by enforcement agencies? Or 
does it indicate that IP infringement and/or trade in IP-infringing goods is increasing? 
 RESPONSE: It is difficult to ascertain the actu al volume of infringing imports, but, based 
on information provided by rights holders, officials at the ports of entry, and foreign 
government officials, U.S. Customs and Bo rder Protection (CBP) enforcement efforts WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  have been increasingly effective. In recent years, producers and shippers of infringing 
imports have become increasingly sophisticated  with regard to the quality of products 
they make and their techniques for avoiding detection. In addition, the internet and e-
commerce have fueled explosive growth in th e numbers of small packages of counterfeit 
and pirated goods shipped through internationa l express carriers and international mail.  
 
To counter these trends, CBP: 1) developed more advanced targeting methods, 2) 
increased the number and scope of IPR enforcement operations, 3) provided 
sophisticated authentication tools for identi fying genuine and infringing products to 
front-line officers, 4) expanded and enhanced  IPR training for enforcement personnel, 
and 5) worked closely with rights holders to improve awareness of IPR enforcement 
issues and increase the number of register ed copyrights and trademarks that are 
recorded in our internal IPR enforcement system. CBP also successfully engaged with foreign counterparts both bi laterally an d multilaterally. Such efforts included 
conducting joint IPR enforcement operat ions, sharing effective practices, and 
exchanging information on IPR violations fo r use in targeting and identifying new areas 
of risk and new techniques used by violators. 
 
A number of factors contribute to changes in the numbers of open investigations, 
arrests, convictions, sentence s, and other enforcement figu res. Available data suggest 
that IP crimes of various types continued to  increase during the period in question. 
However, the substantial increases in th e enforcement figures cited are certainly 
attributable at least in part, to policy de cisions, such as changes in enforcement 
priorities or resources devoted to particular  types of IP crime, as well to improved 
efficiencies and better cooperation among la w enforcement agencies working on IP, and 
increased awareness and reporting of IP crim es (Shorter term changes in enforcement 
figures may also simply reflect cyclical fact ors in the criminal enforcement process, 
e.g. a spike in convictions some mo nths after a spike in arrests.). 
 4. Trade Policies by Sector 4.1.1.1 Overview of Ag ricultural Act of 2014 
Page 101, Paragraph 4.1 
Question 34: Can the United States provide details of domestic support measures provided by U.S. State or local governments, if any, that ar e additional to Federal support measures that are 
available through the 2014 Agricultural Act?  
 RESPONSE: State and local government expenditures related to agriculture include 
outlays in support of agricultural associations and fairs, agricultural boards and advisory 
commissions, provision of agricultural exte nsion services, support of agricultural 
experiment stations and other research activiti es, regulatory and licensing activities (for 
livestock, dairy, crops, and other pr oducts), and conservation programs. 
 
4.1.1.1 Overview of Ag ricultural Act of 2014 
Page 102, Paragraph 4.3 
Question 35: Can the United States provide an overview of the changes in domestic support 
policies for the corn industry since the 2012 Trad e Policy Review, including changes in domestic 
support policies for corn ethanol production and distribution? 
 
RESPONSE:  The 2014 Farm Bill eliminated direct an d counter-cyclical payments available 
for corn. For the 2014-18 crops, assistance available to corn producers is in the form of the Agriculture Risk Coverage program an d the Price Loss Coverage program. In 
addition, the 2014 Farm Bill continues the ma rketing assistance loan program for corn, 
which provides assistance during times of low market prices. The 2014 Farm Bill did not 
change any policies on corn ethanol production and distribution. 
 
4.1.1.1 Overview of Ag ricultural Act of 2014 
Page 104, Paragraph 4.9 
Question 36: Can the United States explain how the deficiency-payment type instruments 
established in the 2014 Agricultural Act do not constitute market price support, given that such government-guaranteed financial support ensures pr oducers a guaranteed return irrespective of 
the actual market price? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  RESPONSE: If Australia is referring to the Price Loss Coverage program established by 
the 2014 Farm Bill, payments under this progra m are linked to historical base acres. The 
payments do not ensure a guaranteed return on current production.  
 
Question 37: Does the United States agree that, as in the case of market price support measures 
employed by some other countries, such guaran teed income and revenue support as provided 
under the 2014 Agricultural Act subverts the market price mechanism in farm decision-making, 
leading to over production? 
 RESPONSE: Policies under the 2014  Agricultural Act provide a measure of risk protection 
to producers facing volatility in agricultur al markets. As was the case under the 2008 
Farm Act, these programs are paid on histor ical base acres without reference to current 
production to remove the incentives that le ad to surplus production. Because producers 
cannot increase their payments as a result of  current planting deci sions, plantings would 
be based on market incentives.  
 4.1.1.2.2 and 4.1.1.2.3 Price Loss Cove rage and Agriculture Risk Coverage 
Pages 105-107 
Australia notes the introduction in the 2014 Agricultural Act of Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage. Question 38: Can the United States confirm th at payments under the Price Loss Coverage and 
Agriculture Risk Coverage programs are limited in total to US$125,000 for each eligible farmer? Is 
the spouse, or other family partner, also eligible for a total payment of US$125,000 maximum payment as well? If so, under what circumstances could a farm enterprise obtain such a double 
payment?  
 RESPONSE: The Price Loss Coverage and Agri culture Risk Coverage programs, along 
with marketing loan gains and loan defici ency payments, are limited to a total of 
US$125,000 for each eligible farmer. If the sp ouse is an eligible producer and actively 
engaged, he/she is also eligible for a US$125,000 payment limit.   
Question 39: Can it indicate the maximum amount that incorporated farm enterprises, including 
partnerships and companies, are entitled to under the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs?  
 
RESPONSE: The answer depends on the type of entity. Gene rally, with the exception of 
general partnerships and joint ventures, lega l entities have a single US$125,000 limit. 
 
Question 40: Are the annual maximum limits for all potential recipients under the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs the same for the Stacked Income Protection and the Supplementary Coverage Option programs? If  not, what payment limits, if any, apply to 
the latter? 
 RESPONSE: The Stacked Income Protection Plan and Supplementary Coverage Option 
are not subject to payment limitations. 
 4.1.1.2.2 and 4.1.1.2.3 Price Loss Cove rage and Agriculture Risk Coverage 
Pages 105-107 
According to the ICTSD paper "The U.S. Agricultur e Act 2014: Trade and production implications in 
a WTO context," Professor Vincent Smith concludes th at, should corn prices decline in accordance 
with early forecasts by the USDA, the outcome would be U.S. corn producers receiving over 
US$20 billion in Agricultural Risk Coverage subsid ies over the four years 2014-17, averaging about 
US$5 billion per year, which is more than twice as  much as they received each year under the 
previous Direct Payments, Counter Cyclical Payments and Average Crop Revenue Election 
programs in the period 2003-13. 
 Question 41: Noting the risk highlighted above, do es the United States have or plan a budget cap 
on expenditure under the Agriculture Risk Coverage  or Price Loss Coverage (either annual or for 
the full term of the 2014 Farm Bill) should there be significant world market price falls for certain 
agricultural commodities?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  RESPONSE: There are no specific limits on expenditures under the Agriculture Risk 
Coverage or Price Loss Coverage programs. However, the United States remains fully 
committed to abiding by its WTO commitments, and the 2014 Farm Bill like previous Farm Bills, contains a "circuit breaker" th at gives the Secretary of Agriculture the 
authority to ensure that the United St ates does not exceed its commitments. 
 4.1.1.2.5 Sugar 
Page 108, Paragraphs 4.23-4.25 
Australia is concerned by the potential impact on  access to the U.S. sugar market of proposed 
antidumping/countervailing duty suspension agreements between the United States and Mexico in October 2014 relating to sugar. We would be conc erned if the effect of these agreements was to 
substantially exclude other importer s from fulfilling U.S. sugar needs. 
 Question 42: How will the suspension agreements affect the United States' current formula used to 
calculate sugar imports? 
 RESPONSE: This question is premature given that a suspension agreement is not 
currently in place. 
 Question 43: What steps will the United States take to ensure that the arrangements do not disrupt the certainty and predictability of commercial sugar import arrangements? 
 
RESPONSE: This question is premature given that a suspension agreement is not currently in place. 
 
Question 44: Will the United States continue to offer quota allocations and additional allocations to countries other than Mexico to cover U.S. sugar needs? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States will continue to  fill its WTO quotas for sugar. Regarding 
additional allocations, this question is pr emature given that a suspension agreement is 
not currently in place, and that U.S. needs are dependent on market conditions in any 
given year.  
 4.1.1.2.6 Dairy 
Page 109, Paragraph 4.27 
Australia commends the United States for reforms in U.S. dairy protection undertaken as part of the 2014 Agricultural Act, including termination of  the Milk Income Loss Contract Program and the 
repeal of the Dairy Export Incentive Program.  
 Question 45: In view of the termination of the Dairy Export Incentive Program and the fact that 
the United States has not paid export subsidies since 2009, will the United States now consider 
making a commitment to exclude permanently export subsidies as a trade policy tool? 
 RESPONSE: The United States remains commi tted to the multilateral elimination of 
agricultural export subsidies as part of a complete, comprehensive, and substantial 
multilateral agriculture agreement that will re sult in real market access gains for all 
WTO Members. 
 
Question 46: Given the United States has undertaken genuine and constructive reform, especially with regard to the removal of trade-distorting dairy export subsidies, will it now work with the National Producers Milk Federation to end the C ooperatives Working Together export assistance 
program, which reportedly subsidised the export of 2.573 billion pounds of milk on a milk-fat basis 
to 45 countries in the 12 months to November 2014 (see: http://www.cwt.coop /cwt-assists-25-6-
million-pounds-cheese-butter-whole-milk-powder-export-sales/ )? 
 
RESPONSE: The Cooperatives Working Togeth er (CWT) program is a private sector-
initiative with no government involvemen t at any level and is both voluntary and 
farmer-funded. The WTO-Agreements provide no  reason for the United States to request 
discontinuation of this private-sector activity. 
 Question 47: Does the United States agree that this program distorts trade? Does it agree that its 
trade-distorting effect is similar to that of an export subsidy program? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
   
RESPONSE: The CWT is a private sector-initi ative with no government involvement at 
any level and is both voluntary and farmer-fund ed. Analysis of the CWT as if it were a 
government-run program would not be appropriate. 
 
Question 48: According to official data, the amount of cheese and butter exports covered under the Export Assistance Program in the 12 months to November 2014 totalled 99.32 million pounds 
and 56.287 million pounds, respectively (see: http://www.cwt.coop/cwt-assists-1-7-million-
pounds-cheese-export-sales/ ). Does the United States agree that, in terms of volume, this 
program exceeds the scheduled U.S. export subsidy reduction commitments for cheese and 
butter? 
 
RESPONSE: The CWT is a private sector-initi ative with no government involvement at 
any level and is both voluntary and farmer-funded. The United States does not keep 
official records with regards to the operatio n of the CWT. There is no basis under WTO 
rules to compare this private sector activity against U.S. export subsidy commitments.  
Question 49: How does it reconcile this program with its commitment to further global trade 
liberalisation and its other recent dairy reforms?   RESPONSE: The CWT export assistance prog ram is not a program operated by the 
U.S. Government but rather constitutes private sector activity. 
 4.1.1.2.6 Dairy 
Page 110, Paragraph 4.31 
Question 50: The Dairy Product Donation Program provides food assistance to low income people. Is this food assistance restricted to individuals domiciled in the United States, or can this be used 
as in-kind foreign food aid? 
 RESPONSE: The intention of the program is to distribute products for consumption within the United States. One of the purposes  of the Dairy Product Donation Program is 
to encourage domestic consumption of dair y products by people who otherwise would 
have limited access to dairy products.   
4.1.1.4.1 Food Aid 
Page 112, Paragraph 4.42 The Secretariat notes that the United States remains the world's largest donor of food aid. As 
notified in G/AG/N/USA/98, the United States provided 1,624,290 tonnes of food aid between 
October 2011 and September 2012 to LDC and net-food importing developing countries.  Question 51: Can the United States provide the total value and volume of commodity-based monetised U.S. food aid, disaggregated  by recipient country and commodity? 
 
RESPONSE: Please find the requested information in the following tables:   
Table 4 USDA Food for Progress Program, FY2012  
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s) METRIC TONS TOTAL COST 
(000s) 
Africa  
Ethiopia WCCU1 ---- ---- ---- US$821.2 
Mali IRD1 ---- ---- ---- US$4,800.0 
AKF1 ---- ---- ---- US$5,300.0 
AKF Vegetable Oil, 
Wheat 571.1 15,000 US$20,900.0 
Mozambique TS1 ---- ---- ---- US$7,100.0 
LOL Crude Degummed 
Soybean Oil 941.9 11,070 US$20,600.0 
Senegal SLI Crude Degummed 
Soybean Oil 442.1 8,360 US$14,600.0 
IRD Soybean Meal 308.2 18,200 US$17,300.0 
Tanzania CRS Wheat 541.7 25,730 US$20,200.0 
FINCA Wheat 744.0 27,930 US$19,500.0 
Sub-Total Africa 3,549.0 106,290 US$131,121.2
Near East 
Jordan GOJ Wheat 25.4 50,000 US$22,500.0 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES
(000s) METRIC TONS TOTAL COST 
(000s) 
Sub-Total Near East  25.4 50,000 US$22,500.0
South and Central Asia 
Afghanistan ASA1 ---- ---- ---- US$5,750.0 
Mongolia MCI Vegetable Oil 147.1 2,500 US$7,100.0 
Sub-Total South and Central Asia  147.1 2,500 US$12,850.0 
Western Hemisphere
El Salvador FINCA Wheat 90.7 17,300 US$12,400.0 
Guatemala CPI Soybean Meal 34.0 12,000 US$10,900.0 
Honduras TS Soybean Meal 164.9 24,500 US$20,400.0 
Nicaragua  TS Soybean Meal 135.1 18,000 US$14,900.0 
CRS Yellow Corn, 
Soybean Meal 1,381.1 34,000 US$20,600.0 
Sub-Total Western Hemisphere 1,805.8 105,800 US$79,200.0
WORLDWIDE TOTAL 5,527.3 264,590 US$245,671.2
1 Represents prior year agreements with costs in curred in FY2012. Beneficiaries and commodities are 
reported only in the year that the agreement was signed. 
Note: USDA's Food for Progress tables report on both direct and indirect beneficiarie s. USDA defines direct 
beneficiaries as those who come into direct contact with the set of interventi ons (goods, or services) 
provided by the program in each technical area or  program activity. Individuals who receive training 
or benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered direct 
beneficiaries, as are those who re ceive a ration or another type of  good. Indirect beneficiaries are 
those who benefit indirectly  from the goods and services provided to the direct beneficiaries (e.g., 
families of producers). 
Source: USDA total costs include all FY2012 obligations for commodity, freight, distribution, and awardee's 
administrative expenses reported  as of September 30, 2012. Comm odity figures are reported in 
metric tons. Beneficiaries are reported according to the planned levels in grant agreements. 
Table 5 USDA, McGovern-Dole Food  for Education Program, FY2012  
COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES 
(000s) METRIC 
TONS TOTAL COST 
(000s) 
Africa  
Cameroon CPI Veg Oil, Rice, Pinto 
Beans, Dehydrated 
Potato Granules 237.0 7,030 US$16,700.0 
Guinea-
Bissau IPHD Micronutrient-rich 
Ready-to-use Supplementary Food 1.4 15 US$1,200.0 
Kenya WFP 
CP 
 Bulgur, Corn-soy 
Blend, Veg Oil, 
Yellow Split Peas 650.0 8,250 US$9,683.3 
Liberia WFP 
DEV  Bulgur, Yellow Split 
Peas, Veg Oil 338.0 4,120 US$7,069.5 
Malawi WFP 
CP 
 Corn-soy Blend 340.0 5,590 US$8,663.6 
Mozambique 
 PAI 
WVI  Corn-soy Blend 
Corn-soy Blend 180.0 
222.0 3,600 
5,200 US$21,400.0 
US$22,300.0 
Niger WFP1 
CP 
 ---- ---- ---- US$3,794.3 
Sierra Leone CRS Veg Oil, Corn-soy 
Blend, Lentils, Bulgur 120.9 4,200 US$11,000.0 
Tanzania KSU Sorghum Cowpea 
Blend, Corn-soy 
Blend 1.4 205 US$4,100.0 
Sub-Total Africa 2,090.7 38,210 US$105,910.7
East Asia and Pacific 
Cambodia IRD 
 
 
PATH Veg Oil, Pink 
Salmon, Corn-soy 
Blend, Lentils 
Original Ultra-rice 83.2 
 
 
4.0 2,210 
 
 
4 US$8,000.0 
 
 
US$2,900.0 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  COUNTRY AWARDEE COMMODITY BENEFICIARIES 
(000s) METRIC 
TONS TOTAL COST 
(000s) 
Laos CRS Vegetable Oil, Rice, 
Green Split Peas, 
Lentils 117.0 4,200 US$12,300.0 
Sub-Total East Asia and Pacific 204.2 6,414 US$23,200.0 
South and Central Asia  
Afghanistan WVI Rice, Veg Oil, Yellow 
Peas 196.0 4,060 US$18,310.0 
Kyrgyz 
Republic MCI Veg Oil, Yellow Split 
Peas, Rice, Wheat 
Flour, MG Parboiled 
Rice 420.0 1,780 US$11,300.0 
Nepal  
WFP 
CP 
 Corn-soy Blend 278.3 3,890 US$6,000.0 
Sub-Total South and Central Asia 894.3 9,730 US$35,610
Western Hemisphere 
Guatemala HFS Poultry-spread 
(Spammy) 0.2 2 US$131.0 
Haiti  
WFP 
DEV 
 Rice, Veg Oil 400.0 4,770 US$8,000.0 
MFK Ready-to-use 
Supplementary Food 1.6 18 US$1,100.0 
Honduras CRS Veg Oil, Milled Rice, 
Corn-soy Blend 161.6 7,080 US$17,700.0 
Sub-Total Western Hemisphere 563.4 11,870 US$26,931.0
WORLDWIDE TOTAL 3,752.6 66,224 US$191,651.7
1 Represents prior year agreements with costs in curred in FY2012. Beneficiaries and commodities are 
reported only in the year that the agreement was signed. 
Note: USDA's McGovern-Dole tables re port only on direct beneficiaries.  USDA defines direct beneficiaries 
as those who receive food rations directly, including direct feeding at schools or take home rations through the life of the program. 
Source: USDA total costs include all FY2012 obligations for commodity, freight, distribution, and awardee's 
administrative expenses reported  as of September 30, 2012. Comm odity figures are reported in 
metric tons. Beneficiaries are reported according to the planned levels in grant agreements. 
Table 6 USAID, Office of  Food for Peace, FY2012  
Country Awardee Metric Tons Total Cost 
 
Bangladesh ACDI 14,950 US$5,853,100 
SCF 9,600 US$3,725,900 
CARE 37,000 US$14,343,600 
 
Burkina Faso ACDI 3,230 US$3,161,500 
CRS 2,600 US$2,989,100 
Burundi CRS PM21 3,780 US$1,930,900 
Chad 
 Africare 3,530 US$3,914,000 
 
DRC 
 ADRA 19,190 US$9,855,000 
FHI 18,590 US$9,547,000 
MCI 9,680 US$4,971,000 
Guatemala MCI PM2A 5,500 US$7,357,000 
Liberia ACDI 2,470 US$2,559,000 
 OICI 7,410 US$6,760,000 
Madagascar 
 CRS 12,350 US$8,139,000 
Malawi CRS 19,240 US$10,087,400 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
  Country Awardee Metric Tons Total Cost 
 
 
 
Mozambique ADRA 9,650 US$3,969,400 
FHI 6,930 US$2,850,600 
SCF 14,920 US$6,137,200 
WV 7,620 US$3,134,400 
 
 
 
Niger CPI 2,830 US$2,908,700 
CRS 3,500 US$3,100,200 
MCI 2,000 US$2,069,500 
SCF 1,000 US$893,800 
Sierra Leone 
 CARE 8,180 US$5,114,600 
Uganda MCI 5,120 US$2,786,800 
Worldwide Total 230,870 US$128,158,700 
 
4.1.1.4.1 Food Aid Page 112, Paragraph 4.44 
The 2014 Agricultural Act created an obligation upon USAID to provide Congress with a report that 
specifies: (1) the amount of funds (for administ rative costs, indirect cost recovery, internal 
transportation storage and handling and associated distribution costs) provided to each eligible 
organization that receives assistance under the Food for Peace Act (the Act); (2) how funds were 
used by eligible organizations; (3) the actual rate of return for each commodity made available under the Act including determining factors, ma rketing and transport costs, and (4) for each 
instance in which the rate of return for a commodity sold or monetized in recipient countries was 
less than 70%. 
 Question 52: Can the United States provide an  update on this reporting requirement and a 
summary of findings? 
 RESPONSE: USAID's Office of Food for Peac e provides annual reporting to Congress on 
the amount of funds provided to each eligib le organization that receives assistance 
under the Food for Peace Act, and how these funds were used by eligible organizations through the U.S. International Food Assistance Report, produced in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and USAID/ Farmer to Farmer program. As the 2014 
Agricultural Act requires USAID to provide Congress with the actual rate of return for 
each commodity made available under the Fo od for Peace Act, USAID will report this 
information in 2015. The Office of Food for Peace utilized monetization only in 
Bangladesh in Fiscal Year 2014, and the ra te of return for commodities monetized was 
not less than 70%.  
The United States Department of Agricultur e (USDA) has also begun to implement this 
provision of the 2014 Agricult ural Act. USDA will make this information available to 
Congress and the public when it is compiled.  
Question 53: Does the United States, through USAID or other official agencies, undertake periodic 
assessments in relation to the extent that monetisation of United States food aid may be contributing to commercial displacement of locally produced and imported agricultural products in 
food-aid recipient countries? 
 RESPONSE: The United States conducts market analysis before each monetization 
entitled the Market Analysis for Monetization (MAM). Each MAM analyzes the supply and 
demand in the recipient country for the commodi ty that will be monetized to ensure that 
donations from the United States do not displace locally produced or imported 
commodities.  
 
4.1.1.4.2 Export Credit Guarantees Page 113, Paragraphs 4.46-4.47 
Australia requests more information in relation to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) GSM-
102 program. Australia also notes that the FY2015 allocations under GSM-102 have been issued. Can the United States: 
 
Question 54: Provide a breakdown in terms of vo lume and value, and by commodity and export 
destination, for exports financed under the GSM-102 program for the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  RESPONSE: This information is available on the USDA website at: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/expo rt-credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102 . 
 
Question 55: Indicate the proportion, if any, of credit guarantees issued under GSM-102 in 2013 
and 2014 with tenor durations below 180 days? 
 RESPONSE: Please see the U.S. response with regard to tenor in WTO document 
G/AG/W/125, dated May 21, 2014, and related follow-up addenda. 
 Question 56: Indicate whether the United States has country-level allocations within the regional 
allocations, and if so, how they are these determined? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States establishes count ry and bank limits for each bank eligible 
country internally based on an evaluation of country risk and a thorough financial 
review of all banks in the program.  
 Question 57: Indicate whether the United States has commodity-specific allocations at both the 
regional and country level, and if so, how are these determined? 
 RESPONSE:  Yes, the GSM-102 Program has some comm odity-specific allocations at the 
regional and country level. This informat ion is available on the USDA website at: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102. 
 Question 58: Explain the significant increase in  allocation, between 2013 and 2015, to the South 
East Asia region (US$132 million to US$300 million)? 
 RESPONSE: In 2013, USDA alloca ted USD 550 million to Southeast Asia, rather than USD 
132 million, as stated in the question. To date, USDA has announced US$300 million to 
the Southeast Asia region for fiscal year 20 15. Additional tranches in the fiscal year 
2015 program will be made later in the year by announcement.   
Question 59: Provide estimates for how the 2015 Sout heast Asia regional allocation will be divided, 
in terms of supported commodities, and destination markets?   
RESPONSE: The information is available on the USDA website at: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102. 
 
4.1.1.4.2 Export Credit Guarantees 
Page 113, Paragraphs 4.46-4.47 Australia notes that under the terms of the settlement between the United States and Brazil in relation to the WTO US-Brazil Cotton dispute, the United States reduced the cap on tenor 
durations under GSM-102 from 24 months down to 18 months. Also, under the terms of the 
settlement, the United States has undertaken to calculate and charge risk-based fees for GSM-102 that cover the program's long-term operating costs and losses (including on loan guarantees with 
tenors below 12 months). 
 Question 60: Does the United States expect the reduced tenor cap to positively or negatively affect 
market demand for GSM-102 credit guarantees, or otherwise impact the overall volume and 
market-share of those commodities covered by GSM-102?  RESPONSE: The United States cannot speculate on future market demand. Any impact of 
the tenor reduction will be assessed over time. 
 Question 61: Can the United States indicate what "long-term" means in this context, in terms of 
months? 
 RESPONSE: This term is not define d in the terms of the settlement. 
 
4.1.2 Agricultural tariffs and tariff-rate quotas Page 117, Paragraph 4.65 Australia notes that according to the most recent notification (2012), tariff-quota fill rates varied 
significantly across product, but most were under-filled. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
  Question 62: Can the United States explain the reason for these under-fills? 
 RESPONSE: We assume under fill of these tariff -rate quotas was due to a lack of demand 
based on market conditions.  
 
Question 63: What impediments exist to filling the tariff rate quotas?  
RESPONSE: The fill rates for these tariff-rate  quotas are driven by market conditions. 
This can lead to fill rates varying significan tly from one tariff-rate quota to another and 
from year to year. With regards to the 2012 no tification, most of the tariff-rate quotas 
with very low fill rates are administered  on a first come, first-served basis.  
 
Question 64: Will the United States take measures to improve the fill-rates?  
RESPONSE: The fill rates for U.S. tariff-rate qu otas are driven by market conditions. The 
United States, notes, in addition, that to further liberalize markets and bolster transparency, the United States is committed to and encourages the implementation of 
the Bali Ministerial Understanding on Tariff-Rate Quota Administration.  
 4.1.3 Level of support Page 117, Paragraphs 4.67-4.68 
Question: Australia notes that the 2014 Agricultural Act provides for the repeal of several domestic 
support programs and the introduction of some new programs – the latter include the Price Loss Coverage, Agriculture Risk Coverage, Supplemental Coverage Option, Dairy Margin Protection and 
Stacked Income Protection programs, amongst others. In a presentation to the 73rd 
WTO Committee on Agriculture in March 2014, the United States stated that the Act would lead to an increase in Amber Box (trade distorting) measures. In particular, the Dairy Margin Protection, 
Supplemental Coverage and Stacked Income Protection programs would all be notified as amber, 
and the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Co verage programs would pr obably be notified as 
amber, depending on final program rules. It furt her stated that even with this increased amber 
box spending, the United States was likely to remain within its amber box limit, subject to 
commodity price movements. 
 Question 65: Can the United States indicate when program rules for all of the programs mentioned 
above will be finalised and published? 
 RESPONSE: The regulations for most of the 2014 Farm Bill safety net programs were 
published in the Federal Register earlier th is year. For example, the Agriculture Risk 
Coverage/ Price Loss Coverage regulation was published on September 26; the Dairy 
Margin Protection Program regulation was published on August 29; and the 
Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assi stance/Payment Limit/Payment Eligibility 
regulation was published on April 14. The Un ited States refers Australia to the Farm 
Service Agency's regulation publicat ion list and published regulations at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/federalNotice s?area=home&subject=lare&topic=frd-ii   
 
Question 66: Can the United States indicate when the above programs will be notified? RESPONSE: The United States plans to notify these programs as part of its regular, 
annual notification process.  
 Question 67: On what basis can the United States be confident that this increased amber box spending will remain within the United States' amber box limit, in light of the inherent and 
historical uncertainty surrounding commodity prices? At what point would it be prepared to cap 
such spending, and at what level?  
RESPONSE: U.S. estimates indicate that the United States will be within its 
commitments. Further, the 2014  Farm Bill like previous Farm Bills, contains a "circuit 
breaker" that gives the Secretary of Agricult ure the authority to ensure that the United 
States does not exceed its commitments. 
 Question 68: Irrespective of whether this new spending remains within the United States' amber box limit, how is this expected increase in amber box spending consistent with the 
U.S. commitment to reduce domestic support spending as part of the Doha Development Agenda WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 74 - 
 
  negotiations? How does this spending impact on the United States' ability to make new reduction 
commitments as part of a meaningful outcome in agricultural negotiations in the Doha Round?  RESPONSE: As Australia knows, the United States initially proposed modalities that 
would liberalize U.S. agriculture policie s as part of a broader reform in a 
Doha context. If and when WTO members ar e prepared to negotiate seriously about 
meaningful reforms, in particular market a ccess opening that has proven so difficult, the 
United States will be prepared to do its part. 
 4.2.2 Telecommunications Paragraph 4.87, p123 
Australia notes that the US' leading telecommunications provider Verizon further increased its lead 
in the U.S. market through the 100 % acquisition of its wireless operation "Verizon Wireless" in February 2014.  
 
Question 69: is the United States able to provide further information on whether it expects this acquisition to have an effect on market participation for telecommunications providers who do not 
own their own wireless operation? 
 RESPONSE: Verizon acquired from its joint-ve nture partner, Vodafone , shares of Verizon 
Wireless. Accordingly, the transaction itself did not increase the market share of Verizon 
Wireless or have any obvious relevance to part icipation of other suppliers in the market, 
whether facilities-based or non-facilities based.  
Paragraphs 4.95-6 pp 127-8 
Australia notes the ongoing efforts by the FCC to address issues related to the management of 
traffic on broadband networks ('Open Internet'), including unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic. 
 
Question 70: Is the United States able to provide an update on the FCC's proposed rules to protect the Open Internet, including on what the "alternati ve proposals" to rules on the Open Internet are 
likely to contain? 
 
RESPONSE: We have not yet received a new dr aft proposal from the FCC with respect to 
the Open Internet proceeding. Comments and proposals from the public, however, are 
available at fcc.gov/openinternet. 
 4.2.1 Financial services 
Paragraph 4.76, p 121 
Australia notes that there are "some accommodative  exceptions" to the requirements that foreign 
banks meet the same capital, liquidity and othe r standards as U.S. bank holding companies of 
comparable size 
Question 71: Can the U.S. provide further details regarding the nature of these exceptions?  
 RESPONSE: Details are available in the fina l rule, available at: "Enhanced Prudential 
Standards for Bank Holding Companies and Fo reign Banking Organizations" Final Rule, 
Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR Part 252 [Regulation YY; Docket No. 1438], Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, Ma rch 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations. 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2014-03-27/html /2014-05699.htm  
 
Question 72: As foreign banks are not required to  comply with these provisions until 1 July 2016, 
Australia additionally requests that the U.S.  comment on whether the U.S. anticipates any 
amendments to these exceptions prior to 1 July 2016? 
 RESPONSE: This rule is final. 
 
4.2.4 Health, medical and me dical insurance services 
Paragraphs 16 and 4.126, pp 16 and 139 
Australia notes the recent regulatory reforms in the health services sector contained in the 
2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care.   Question 73: Does the United States expect the reforms to enable greater foreign participation in 
the private health services sector? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 75 - 
 
  RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat Report , a basic purpose of the recent reforms of 
the U.S. health care system was to ensure increased access to health care services by 
providing insurance coverage to previously  uninsured individuals. The U.S. private 
health services sector is open to foreign pa rticipation. Improved insurance coverage for 
previously uninsured individuals will ensure  that those people have better access to 
appropriate health care services.  
 
Report by the United States - WT/TPR/G/307 
 The United States in the Global Trading System Paragraph 1.3, page 4 
Australia welcomes the U.S. call to work towards global free trade in environmental goods through 
Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) negotiations. An outcome here will demonstrate how trade liberalisation can generate tangible and significant benefits for the environment and sustainable 
development. 
 Question 74: Can the U.S. describe its objectives for the EGA negotiations and how it sees the relationship between this negotiation and the broader multilateral trading system? 
 
RESPONSE: The recently launched EGA negotiations present a unique opportunity to advance U.S. economic and environmental objectives, and to add impetus and energy to the multilateral trading system. The EGA is  being negotiated by a group of WTO 
Members committed to liberalization in this se ctor, but the benefits will accrue to all 
WTO Members, as the participants plan to el iminate tariffs on agreed products on an 
MFN basis. By eliminating tariffs on a broad set of environmental technologies, including 
those already endorsed by APEC Leaders,  WTO Members can improve access to these 
technologies globally, thus lowering the cost of environmental protection, while 
unlocking opportunity for our exporters and sp urring innovation in green technologies. 
 
3.4 State and local government relations Paragraph 3.18, page 11 Question 75: Is the U.S. considering expanding its sub-central coverage under the Government 
Procurement Agreement? 
 RESPONSE: The revised GPA entered into force on April 6, 2014. Consistent with 
Article XXII.7 of the revised GPA, the United  States is committed to undertaking further 
negotiations with a view to achieving the greatest possible extension of the Agreement 
coverage on the basis of mutual reciprocity.  
 
4.3.7 United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Paragraph 4.62, Page 20 Question 76: What learning and practice from the implementation of KORUS with regard to origin 
verification can be translated to other preferential trade agreements? 
 RESPONSE: As a result of the implementation of the KORUS FTA, the United States and 
Korea have discussed differences in the verification practices between our two 
countries. The United States and Korea conti nue to have positive dialogues to discuss 
such practices with the aims of ensuring that both Parties' traders can take full 
advantage of the FTA. As some of the differenc es are specific to the United States and 
Korea, we cannot yet determine if or how any experiences could be translated to other 
preferential trade agreements.  
5. Trade related capacity building initiatives 
Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3, page 23 Australia notes and supports that the United St ates provides trade capacity building (TCB) 
assistance to developing countries which includes coordinating initiatives with international 
institutions. Question 77: Is the International Standards Organizations (ISO) one of the international 
institutions that the United States Government coordinates with to provide TCB? 
 RESPONSE: U.S. trade capacity building assi stance is tailored to individual country 
needs. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and ANSI, as the 
U.S. member to ISO, have frequently worked with ISO to assist countries in achieving WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 76 - 
 
  certifications with ISO standards. For exam ple, the Kenya Dairy Sector Competitiveness 
Program facilitated training for a dairy cooper ative to become certified in Food Safety 
Management from the ISO.  
Paragraph 5.3, page 23 
Australia notes and supports that the United States provides assistance to developing nations on a bilateral basis including working with the private sector and non-government organizations to 
assist them abide by their trade obligations. 
 Question 78: Is the development of standards and conformity measures in developing countries a 
specific category of assistance provided by  the United States on a bilateral basis? 
 
RESPONSE: U.S. trade capacity building assi stance is tailored to individual country 
needs. Although assistance related to st andards and conformity assessment is not 
categorized separately within U.S. governme nt agency budgets, specific data on U.S. 
assistance in these areas can be accessed th rough the Trade Capacity Building database 
(http://eads.usaid.gov/tcb).  
 
In addition, the USAID-ANSI Standards Allia nce assistance facility, launched in 2012, 
provides resources and expertise to enab le developing countries to effectively 
implement the TBT Agreement. The focus of these efforts in developing countries 
includes efforts: to improve practices related to notification of technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures to the WTO;  to strengthen domestic practices related 
to adopting relevant international standard s; and to clarify and streamline regulatory 
processes for products. Un der the Standards Alliance 
(http://standardsalliance.ansi.org ), ANSI is working with ten partner countries/regions 
according to work plans tailored to individu al country needs, some of which include 
activities focused on standards development.  
 Question 79: Is the application of international standards and conformity measures encouraged by the United States under its bilateral assistance programs?  
 
RESPONSE: Please see previous answer.   
Question 80: How do U.S. authorities work with the ISO to encourage developing nations to 
develop standards in conformity with relevant international standards?  
RESPONSE:  The American National Standards Inst itute (ANSI) is a private sector 
organization and the U.S. member body to ISO and IEC. USAID and ANSI have entered 
into a public-private partnership to administ er the Standards Alliance facility. Under the 
Standards Alliance, ANSI and partner countries have engaged in cooperation related to 
participation in ISO technical committees and utilization of international standards. In 
addition, ANSI works with developing countri es to encourage utilization of international 
standards developed by organizations other than ISO.  
 
Pages 25-26, Paragraphs 5.17, 5.18, 5.19 Australia notes and supports the development of the "Standards Alliance" between USAID and the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), wi th goals of building capacity among developing 
countries to implement the WTO TBT Agreement. We note that ANSI reviews applications to deliver training and technical exchange based on bilateral trade opportunities, available private sector expertise, commitment, readiness and development impact.  
Question 81: In assisting developing counties develop international standards and best practices, 
does ANSI consult with the ISO?   
RESPONSE: ANSI's work with developing countries through the Standards Alliance 
focuses on increased understanding of WTO TB T principles, implementation of the Code 
of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adopti on and Application of Standards, improved 
transparency in the development and/or modifi cation of technical regulations, and more 
robust and transparent engagement with th e private sector in standards development 
and use. The application of these principles  strengthens best practices in standards 
development. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 77 - 
 
  ANSI is also a member of regional organiza tions, including the Pacific Area Standards 
Congress (PASC) and the Pan American Standards Commission (COPANT). These regional bodies provides standardizers with  a forum to exchange information and views 
about international standardization activi ties and strengthen positions at the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). COPANT cite s as a key activity assisting developing 
countries in the region in im proving their capacity for and/ or improving the quality of 
their standardization infrastructure. 
 The American National Standards Institute (A NSI) is a private sector organization and 
the U.S. representative to ISO. ANSI, as the U.S. member of ISO, is aware of ISO 
activities for the benefit of developing count ries, and will consult with ISO if necessary 
to better understand how U.S. and ISO effo rts may complement one another. In its 
existing capacity building projects with de veloping countries that are also members of 
ISO, ANSI has engaged in cooperative acti vities designed to enhance the countries' 
participation in ISO. ANSI has also discusse d Standards Alliance activities with other 
ISO members at meetings, such as the ISO General Assembly. 
 
Question 82: What criteria are used by the U.S. in assessing bilateral trade opportunities? How does this incorporate WTO TBT obligations and relevant international standards?   
RESPONSE: As the U.S. government report notes, "the United States launched a new 
U.S.-sponsored assistance facility called th e 'Standards Alliance' with the goal of 
building capacity among developing countri es to implement the WTO Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)… The focus of these e fforts in developing 
countries includes efforts: to improve practices related to notification of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedur es to the WTO; to strengthen domestic 
practices related to adopting relevant in ternational standards; and to clarify and 
streamline regulatory processes for products."  The U.S. government report also notes that the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) "reviewed the applicat ions received based on cons ideration of bilateral trade 
opportunities, available privat e sector expertise that may be leveraged, demonstrated 
commitment and readiness for assistance , and potential development impact." 
 
 Question 83: Can statistics and examples be provided of how successful the program is in enabling developing countries implement international standards and conformity assessment 
procedures? 
 RESPONSE: Paragraph 5.19 of the U.S. govern ment report highlights some of the major 
achievements from 2013 through August 2014.  Since the submission of the U.S. report, 
the Standards Alliance has conducted two ad ditional workshops. In October 2014, the 
Standards Alliance organized a two-day confer ence on the use of regulatory impact 
analysis in Lima, Peru. In December 2014,  the Standards Alliance staged a two-day 
conference on good regulatory practices in Mexico City. Additional information on the 
Standards Alliance can be found here: http://standardsalliance.ansi.org/ . 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 78 - 
 
  BRAZIL 
  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
 Page 61 (Para 3.65) 
 
In 2014, following the outcome of a court case, the Department of Commerce confirmed that it would not apply the previously withdrawn regulatory provisions governing targeted dumping.  
Question 1. Could the United States inform whic h are the current regulatory provisions governing 
targeted dumping?  
RESPONSE: In 2008, the U.S. Department of  Commerce withdrew regulatory provisions 
regarding targeted dumping, explaining that  the withdrawal of those provisions would 
provide the agency with an opportunity to analyze the concept of targeted dumping and 
develop a meaningful practice in this area as it gains experience in evaluating such 
allegations. As subsequently explained in an  April 22, 2014 notice (79 Fed. Reg. 22371) 
and a May 9, 2014 notice (79 Fed. Reg. 26720) , Commerce continues to examine this 
issue, and there are currently no regulatory provisions addressing the issue of targeted 
dumping.  
 Question 2. Could the United States explain the methodology it uses to implement its "targeted 
dumping" policy? 
 RESPONSE: In investigations and administra tive reviews, the U.S. Department of 
Commerce will calculate margins of dumping by  comparing the weighted average of the 
normal values (NV) with the weighted averag e of the export prices (EP) (or constructed 
export prices (CEP)) for comparable mercha ndise (i.e., the average-to-average method) 
unless Commerce determines another method is appropriate in a particular case. 
Commerce may compare NV to EP/CEP on a tr ansaction-to-transaction basis only in 
unusual situations, such as when there are very few sales of the subject merchandise 
and the merchandise sold in each market is id entical or very similar or is custom-made. 
In addition, when Commerce finds a pattern of EPs (or CEPs) that differ significantly 
among purchasers, regions, or time periods,  and it can explain why these differences 
cannot be taken into account appropriately by  using the average-to-average method, it 
may calculate margins of dumping by compar ing the weighted average of the NV to 
individual EP/CEP transactions (i.e., the average-to-transaction method).  
 Question 3. Could the United States inform what elements it takes into consideration in order to 
determine the use of the W-T comparison method instead of the W-W or T-T methodologies? 
 RESPONSE: Please see the response to question 2 above. 
 
Question 4. Does the United States use the "tar geted dumping" methodology in all types of anti-
dumping proceedings (investigations and reviews)? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see the response to question 2 above.  Page 68 (Para 3.81) 
 
Since the last Review of the United States, five specific trade concerns have been raised in the TBT Committee against measures taken by the United States. Furthermore, three WTO dispute 
settlement proceedings taken against the United States under the TBT Agreement are pending 
(Table A2.1).   
Question 5. Could the U.S. explain how the marketing of Menthol cigarettes is currently regulated 
following the U.S. Indonesia MAS in the U.S. – Clove Cigarettes case.   RESPONSE: The WTO dispute, United States — Measures Affecting the Production and 
Sale of Clove Cigarettes  (DS 406), did not concern the marketing of menthol cigarettes WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 79 - 
 
  (or any other types of cigarettes). The meas ure at issue in the dispute – a ban on 
cigarettes containing certain characterizing fl avors – is contained in the Family Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2010-03-19/pdf /2010-6087.pdf . 
 
Question 6. The U.S. is invited to explain its cu rrent COOL labelling requirements in light of the 
dispute and implementation panel in the Cool case. Could the United States inform if modifications 
to the COOL labelling policy are been studied? If so, what are the envisioned changes? 
RESPONSE: U.S. regulations related to Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) were modified on 24 May 2013. These regulations are available here: http://www.gpo.gov . 
 
These regulations remain in force. 
 Question 7. The U.S. is invited to explain its Tuna  labelling requirements after the decision by the 
Appellate Body.  
 RESPONSE: U.S. regulations related to the use of the Dolphin-safe label on tuna products 
were modified on 9 July 2013. These regulations are available here: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2013-07-09/pdf /2013-16508.pdf . 
 
These regulations remain in force. 
 
 4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
 
Page 104 (Para 4.9)  
Overall, the new Farm Bill is a big change in agriculture policy for some products. Its impact will 
depend upon a number of choices producers must make (e.g., PLC versus ARC; ARC versus SCO; 
reallocation of base acreage, etc.). The new Farm  Bill eliminates market price support and export 
subsidies for dairy products, and direct payments for historical crop production. However, the 
move from decoupled direct payments to deficiency-payment type instruments linked to current 
prices could potentially cause an increase in trade and production distortions.  
Question 8. Could the United States explain how the transition from direct payments to 
deficiency-payment type programs is being currently implemented? How does the United States evaluate this transition with regard to its impacts on international trade? 
 
RESPONSE: Under the 2008 Farm Bill, the fina l direct payments to producers with 
program crop base acres were made in Oc tober 2013. With the 2014  Farm Bill, the new 
crop safety net programs are the Agricult ural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) programs. Key ARC/PLC ac tion dates for landowner and producer 
decisions are as follows: --Base Reallocation/Yield Updating—Landowners can update their yields and  reallocate 
bases between September 29, 2014 and February 27, 2015. 
--Program Election—Producers can choose am ong ARC-County, ARC-Individual, and PLC 
between November 17, 2014 and March 31, 2015. This is a one-time election that will be 
in effect through the 2018 crop. 
--Program Enrollment—Producers must enroll annually. The first enrollment period (for 
2014 and 2015 crops) is mid-April 2015 through the summer (no exact dates yet).   
The Farm Service Agency's ARC/PLC web page provides more information at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?ar ea=home&subject=arpl&topic=landing . In 
particular, see the AR C/PLC fact sheet at:  
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsRelease s?area=newsroom&sub ject=landing&topic
=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail& item=pf_20140925_insup_en_arcplc.html . 
The ARC/PLC regulation (as well as other Farm Service Agency regulations) is at:  
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/federalNotice s?area=home&subject=lare&topic=frd-fi . 
Information on SCO (fact sheet, training, han dbook, policy, etc.) is available on RMA's 
website at http://www.rma.usda.gov/news/cu rrentissues/farmbill/index.html . The 
other crop policies available to producers may be found on RMA's website at 
http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2014policy.html . WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 80 - 
 
   
Although the new ARC and PLC programs ma k e  p a y m e n t s  w h e n  p r i c e s  o r  r e v e n u e  
decline, they are decoupled from actual farm  production decisions. By basing payments 
on past cropping records and delinking pa yments from current planting decisions, 
Congress is attempting to minimize producti on-distorting incentives. The United States 
also notes that it has eliminated both mark et price support and export subsidies for 
dairy products.  
 
Question 9. Could the United States provide information on current producers' choices and benefits (grants, for example) by each of the ag ricultural programs available under the 2014 Farm 
Bill, especially PLC, ARC, SCO, Marketing Loan Programme, and CIP? 
 
RESPONSE: Information on the ARC and PLC programs is provided above. The marketing assistance loan program and commodity/produ cer eligibility and benefits are discussed 
in the Farm Service Agency fact sheet at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/news 
Releases?area=newsroom&subject=landing &topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=d
etail&item=pf_20140328_insup_en_nrcmal.html .  
 
Question 10. Could the United States inform the total amount of disbursements for each of the above-mentioned programs in the current mark eting year and how they would be notified to 
the WTO? 
 
RESPONSE: Three of the programs mentioned—PLC, ARC, SCO—have not yet been fully implemented and there have been no paymen ts or premium subsidies disbursed under 
these programs for the current marketing year (2014). Expenditures through 
14 November 2014 for the current marketing year under the marketing loan program include US$23.8 million for loan deficiency payments and US$14.2 million in marketing 
loan gains. Expenditures through 1 Decemb er 2014 for premium subsidies under the 
crop insurance program in the current marketing year are US$6.2 billion – over 
US$1 billion less than the previous year.  
The United States will officially notify the le vels of support under these programs as part 
of its domestic support notifica tion at the appropriate time. 
 
Page 106 (Paras 4.14 to 4.16) 
 4.14. The PLC is open for enrolment by farmers with eligible historical acreage (base acres) of 
"covered" commodities. Eligible commodities are the same as under the CCP programme (wheat, 
feed grains, rice, oilseeds, peanuts, and pulses), with the exception of upland cotton, for which a 
new insurance programme was established (Stacked Income Protection Plan). The voluntary enrolment for PLC is on a commodity-by-commodity basis and the farmer's decision cannot be 
changed during the lifetime of the new Farm Bill . PLC payments are linked to current prices, as 
under the CCP programme. The payment rate equals the difference between the reference price minus the higher of the national average market pr ice during the marketing year or the loan rate. 
The reference prices are fixed for crop years 2014-18 (Table A4.2). Overall, the new reference 
prices are higher than under the CCP programme. According to U.S. Congressional Budget Office projections, PLC expenditures are forecast to be US$5.1 billion over 2014-18. In the 2014 Farm 
Bill, some of the DP-related savings might be used indirectly in PLC payments (where those 
payments are actually triggered), where the "effectiv e" price to be compared with the trigger price 
no longer includes DP rates.  
4.15. Like the expired CCP programme, PLC payments are based on a percentage (85%) of base 
acres and historical yields, i.e. they are decoupled from current production. However, farmers have the one-time option of updating yields, and of allocating base acres among covered commodities 
based on the average planted acres in 2009-12. Acreage shifts among commodities in recent 
years, include an increase in corn and soybeans, and a decline in wheat, feed grains, and upland cotton (Table 4.3). A reallocation of base acres and yield updating could increase the link or 
correlation between base acres, and actual crop production and farmers' risks. […] 
 4.16. The United States has notified the CCP programme in terms of non-product-specific AMS (de minimis), arguing that payments cannot be ascribed to a specific product.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 81 - 
 
  Question 11. Could the United States inform how it intends to notify the PLC to the WTO? If 
the PLC is to be notified as "non-product-speci fic AMS", as the CCP was, how would the United 
States make the concept of "non-product-specific AMS" compatible with the eligibility criteria for the PLC? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of the WTO classification of any programs establishe d in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States 
will notify the classification of this program as part of its official domestic support 
notification.  Question 12. Could the United States provide current information on PLC disbursements' 
distribution under the "covered" commodities? 
 RESPONSE: Data are not yet available; we are still in the election period.  
 
Question 13. What is the reason intended by the United States for allowing the reallocation of base acres and yield updating, taking into account that PLC payments are linked to current prices 
and that the new reference prices are higher than under the CCP programme? Would the 
programme now be more trade-distortive than the previous one (CCP)?  RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill language give s producers a one-time opportunity to 
reallocate their base acreage and update their yields to reflect more recent planting and 
yield history. Under the 2014 Farm Bill, producers may reallocate their farm's base 
acreage in proportion to the average of pl anted acreage of the covered commodities on 
the farm for crop years 2009-2012. The base acreage may not increase from the base 
acreage in effect on September 30, 2013. No new base acreage may be established for a 
farm. Regarding yields, land owners are pr ovided a one-time opportunity to update 
program payment yields for each covered co mmodity for which they have base acres 
using 90% of the farm's 2008-2012 average yield per planted acre, excluding any year 
in which the covered commodity was not plan ted. See the ARC/PLC fact sheet for more 
information at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/n ewsReleases?area=newsroom& 
subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prf actsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20140925_in
sup_en_arcplc.html .  
 
The PLC program is similar to the countercyclic al program in that payments are based on 
fixed historical areas and yields and not cu rrent production. Because producers cannot 
increase their payments as a result of curre nt planting decisions, plantings would be 
based on market incentives. 
 Page 115 (Para 4.59)  
Approved private insurance companies have their operating and administrative costs partially 
reimbursed and their losses underwritten by the Federal Government. These costs have been notified by the United States in the General Services category of the Green Box.  
 
Question 14. Could the U.S. explain why it considers that this kind of spending falls under paragraph 2 (General Services) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
 
RESPONSE: Outlays under the category "administrative and operating reimbursements to insurers" meet the general criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 1 (support is provided 
through a publicly-funded government prog ram and does not involve transfers from 
consumers, and there is no price support to producers; additionally, there are no trade-
distorting effects or effects on production). In addition, the outlays meet the general 
criteria in paragraph 2 (expenditures (or revenue foregone) in relation to programs 
which provide services or benefits to agri culture or the rural community and are not 
direct payments to pr oducers or processors). 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 82 - 
 
  Page 115 (Paras 4.58 and 4.59) 
 4.58. Crop insurance is administered by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), which manages the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Insurance policies are currently available for 
about 130 crops, as well as livestock. In 2013, about 295 million acres (83% of the total acreage 
of major row crops) were insured by federal crop in surance. In general, crop insurance is based on 
the yield or revenue of the insured crop or whole farm revenue; most crop insurance plans are 
revenue based. The insurance guarantee is based on the expected/estimated market price of the 
current crop year (not statutory minimum prices).  The coverage (indemnity) level is commonly at 
70-75% (with a range from 50% to 85%) of the historical average yield or expected revenue. Catastrophic coverage (CAT) is the basic crop insurance, while buy-up coverage plans offer 
additional insurance coverage.  
 4.59. Premium rates are set by the Federal Crop  Insurance Corporation and subsidized by the 
federal government. CAT premiums are 100% subsidized, although farmers pay a fee of 
US$300 per insured crop, subject to a waiver. Premiu m rates for buy-up plans are also subsidized, 
ranging from 38-80%, depending on the insurance plan and coverage options selected. Overall, 
the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance av eraged 62% in 2013. Subsidized crop insurance 
has become the United States' most expensive instrument of income support to farmers (followed by direct payments): US$7.46 billion in FY2011, up  from US$4.7 billion in FY2010, notified in 
terms of non product-specific AMS (Table 4.2 an d Chart 4.2). While coverage has not increased 
significantly in recent years, commodity prices ha ve increased significantly, which translate into 
more expensive crop insurance and higher premium subsidies. Four crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, 
and cotton) accounted for most of the premium subsidies (84% of the total in crop year 2009). 
Insurance policies are sold by 18 approved priv ate insurance companies, whose operating and 
administrative costs are partially reimbursed and losses underwritten by the Federal Government (as notified by the United States in the General Services category of the Green Box).  
 
Question 15. Could the United States explain how the concept of "non-product-specific AMS" could be compatible with the eligibility criteria for the Crop Insurance?  
RESPONSE: The United States has in the past  notified its crop insurance program as 
non-product specific. However, the United States has notified crop insurance as a 
product-specific amber box program in its latest domestic support notification for 
2012. The United States intends to submit revised 2008-2011 notifications reflecting our 
determination that our crop insurance program should be categorized as product-specific. 
 
Question 16. Could the United States provide information on Crop Insurance disbursements for each of the 10 main commodities in the past 3 years?  
RESPONSE: The top 10 crops, as measured by liability are listed in the table below. Data 
on all commodities covered by crop insurance is available online at RMA's website at http://www3.rma.usda.gov/apps/ sob/ (under the 'crops' tab). This information is 
updated weekly. 
 
Crop 2014 Liability 
CORN  US$43,884,974,344 
SOYBEANS  US$27,429,336,110 
WHEAT  US$9,237,095,801 
COTTON  US$4,043,915,459 
ALMONDS  US$2,188,578,118 
RICE  US$1,781,550,384 
NURSERY (FG&C)  US$1,551,010,479 
GRAPES  US$1,455,504,152 
ORANGE TREES  US$1,311,280,051 
POTATOES  US$1,173,637,896 
All Other Crops US$15,548,432,529 
Total US$109,605,315,323 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 83 - 
 
  Question 17. Could the United States indicate the trends for disbursements' distribution (by 
the 10 main commodities) on the Crop Insurance program for the current marketing year?  RESPONSE: Trends in premium subsidies are mainly influenced by commodity prices – 
especially for the four largest crops – co rn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Commodity 
prices were generally simila r from crop years 2012 to 2013, but then decreased 
significantly from crop years 2013 to 2014. Th is is reflected in the total amount of 
premium subsidy for the crop insurance prog ram: US$7.0 billion in 2012, US$7.3 billion 
in 2013, and US$6.2 billion in 2013.  Question 18. Could the United States give examples of the costs of individual policies for each 
level of CIP coverage, especially fo r corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton? 
 RESPONSE: The cost of individual policies ma y be calculated using one of RMA's on-line 
cost estimators, which can be found at 
https://ewebapp.rma.usd a.gov/apps/costestimator/ . Some examples of premium cost 
from the 2014 crop year are included below.  
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1
 
- 84 - Corn, Adair County, IA, non-irrigated, 170 bushels/acre APH, basic unit, 100 acres 
 
Coverage 
Level 85 % 80 % 75 % 70 % 65 % 60 % 55 % 50 % 
Yield 
Protection US$2,178.00 US$1,731.00 US$1,395.00 US$1,157.00 US$944.00 $755.00 US$590.00 US$448.00 
Revenue 
Protection  US$4,036.00 US$3,047.00 US$2,255.00 US$1,687.00 US$1,247.00 $946.00 US$714.00 US$517.00 
Revenue Prot 
with Harvest 
Price Exclusion US$2,351.00 US$1,791.00 US$1,342.00 US$1,051.00 US$812.00 $647.00 US$500.00 US$395.00 
 
Soybeans, McLean County, IL, non-irrigated/not following another crop, 50 bushels/acre APH, basic unit, 100 acres 
 
Coverage 
Level 85 % 80 % 75 % 70 % 65 % 60 % 55 % 50 % 
Yield 
Protection US$1,583.00 US$1,178.00 US$859.00 US$611.00 US$443.00 US$317.00 US$224.00 US$157.00 
Revenue 
Protection  US$2,259.00 US$1,663.00 US$1,210.00 US$844.00 US$575.00 US$388.00 US$265.00 US$183.00 
Revenue Prot 
with Harvest Price 
Exclusion US$1,401.00 US$1,025.00 US$758.00 US$526.00 US$367.00 US$260.00 US$197.00 US$141.00 
 
Wheat, Atchison County, KS, non-irrigated, 45 bushels/acre APH, basic unit, 100 acres 
 
Coverage 
Level 85 % 80 % 75 % 70 % 65 % 60 % 55 % 50 % 
Yield 
Protection US$4,011.00 US$3,182.00 US$2,643.00 US$2,186.00 US$1,847.00 US$1,538.00 US$1,271.00 US$1,029.00 
Revenue 
Protection  US$5,086.00 US$4,093.00 US$3,402.00 US$2,823.00 US$2,369.00 US$1,950.00 US$1,598.00 US$1,288.00 
Revenue 
Prot with 
Harvest Price Exclusion US$4,211.00 US$3,324.00 US$2,736.00 US$2,255.00 US$1,891.00 US$1,570.00 US$1,287.00 US$1,036.00 
 
Cotton, Mitchell County, GA, irrigated, 1, 100 pounds/acre APH, basic unit, 100 acres 
 
Coverage Level 85 % 80 % 75 % 70 % 65 % 60 % 55 % 50 % 
Yield 
Protection US$4,178.00 US$3,454.00 US$2,827.00 US$2,296.00 US$1,870.00 US$1,545.00 US$1,284.00 US$1,052.00 
Revenue 
Protection  US$6,184.00 US$5,010.00 US$3,982.00 US$3,105.00 US$2,449.00 US$1,990.00 US$1,627.00 US$1,294.00 
Revenue Prot 
with Harvest Price Exclusion US$4,883.00 US$3,952.00 US$3,142.00 US$2,438.00 US$1,955.00 US$1,620.00 US$1,365.00 US$1,115.00 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 85 - 
 
  Question 19. Could the United States provide information on current producers' choices on 
the CIP coverage for each of the 10 main commodities in the past 3 years?  RESPONSE: The coverage available for al l crops may be found on the database 
mentioned in question 16. 
 Page 115 (Footnote 57) 
 
Footnote 57. Congressional Research Service (201 3a), notes (page 4) that "in some cases, RMA 
has not pursued policies for particular commodities because producers have expressed concerns that offering insurance could adversely affect the market (because an insurance policy reduces 
producer risk, farmers may plant more acreage, which could drive down prices and total crop 
revenue)."  
Question 20. Could the United States provide more  information on the particular commodities the 
RMA decided not to offer Crop Insurance policies?  
RESPONSE: Over the years, RMA has either been requested to insure or to research the 
feasibility of providing insurance for vari ous commodities. RMA insures approximately 
114 different commodities. There are various reasons why Crop Insurance Policies are 
not offered for certain commodities including but not limited to: 
 
1) insufficient credible data to support th e development of an actuarially sound 
insurance offer; 
2) the commodity is grown in an environm ent where the individual grower does 
not have a financial risk of loss; 
3) the commodity already has insurance that is generally available to it from the 
private sector; 
4) growers of the commodity were not intere sted in having a federally reinsured 
policy for their commodity; 
5) the Federal Crop Insurance Act does not authorize the United States to 
provide coverage for the risk on which insurance was sought; 
6) it was determined there is no feas ible way to offer coverage for the 
commodity and be able to document and verify natural causes of loss 
occurred.  
 The Board will not approve an insurance produc t if the proposed product isn't actuarially 
appropriate, does not follow sound insurance principles, or is not authorized by the 
Federal Crop Insurance Act.  Question 21. Could the United States inform the reason why the RMA has not pursued CIP 
policies for these commodities? 
 RESPONSE: See response to Question 20. 
 
Page 117 (Para 4.67)  
Notifications by the United States to the WTO Committee on Agriculture cover domestic support 
through marketing year 2011. Total support to ag riculture was US$139.5 billion, an 8% increase 
over the 2010 marketing year, largely because of higher expenditures for domestic food aid (Table 4.2). The current total AMS remained well below the US$19.1 billion limit (total bound AMS 
commitment level). In addition, the notification specifies US$9.7 billion of Amber Box support 
below the de minimis limits, a large part of which is for subsidized crop insurance premiums. A number of the Amber Box measures are related to prices, production or both, including counter 
cyclical payments, marketing loan payments, and market price supports. Reflecting the continued 
high prices for commodities, budgetary expenditures for these programmes have declined considerably in recent years. 
 
Question 22. When does the United States intend to notify the WTO on its most recent agricultural support programs?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 86 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The U.S. 2012 domestic support noti fication was posted on the WTO website 
on 8 December 2014. The United States is sti ll in the process of collecting relevant data 
for 2013 and 2014 and will continue to notify its domestic support in a timely manner.  
Question 23. Taking into account the most recent U.S. notifications to the WTO as well as the 
changes in the U.S. agricultural programs established by the 2014 Farm Bill, it seems the United States is shifting its agricultural support programs from Amber box (subject to commitments) to 
non-product-specific AMS "de mininis" (not requir ed to be included in the Current Total AMS and 
thus not subject to commitments). Is this analysis  correct? Could the United States provide current 
information on this aspect?  
RESPONSE: The United States has eliminated a number of programs as part of the 2014 
Farm Bill, including the direct payment, co untercyclical payment, and ACRE programs. 
The United States has also eliminated both market price support and export subsidies 
for dairy products. The United States ha s also introduced certain new programs.  
 The United States has no current information with regards to the classification of these 
new programs, but will notify them as part of its official domestic support notification in 
a timely manner.  Page 159 (Table A2.1) 
 
Table A2.1 lists the current disputes of which the U.S. is a Party, among them is DS 353 U.S.-Large Civil Aircraft (2nd Complaint).  
 
Question 24.  The U.S. is invited to describe the course and the implementation of the measures taken to comply with the AB ruling. 
 
RESPONSE: The United States refers Brazil to the Notification of the Withdrawal of Subsidies and Removal of Adverse Effects in Un ited States – Measures Affecting Trade in 
Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complain t) (23 September 2012) (WT/D353/15). 
 
 2nd Set of Questions from Brazil 
 PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDIN G THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
Page 31, (Para 2.24) 
"The United States has notified all of its reciprocal trade agreements to the WTO Committee on Regional Trade Agreements. However, three factual presentations involving the United States have not yet been considered under the Transparency Mechanism, due to a lack of comments from one 
or both of the parties concerned." 
 Question 2.1 - Could the U.S. provide further in formation on the presentations mentioned above? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States looks forward to the transparency reviews of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, the Dominican Republic-C entral America-United States FTA (CAFTA-
DR) and the U.S.-Bahrain FTA as soon as mutu ally possible for our FTA partners in 2015.  
 Page 34, (Para 2.27) "In 2013, the Administration launched a comprehensive review of the AGOA programme to assess 
its performance and its goals. The results includ e recommendations to: (a) expand AGOA's product 
coverage, (b) improve rules of origin, (c) renew AGOA and the third-country fabric provisions for a long term, and (d) update AGOA's eligibility criteria and review processes."  
 
Question 2.2 - Could the U.S. provide further information on the review of AGOA?  
RESPONSE: A major aspect of the review was a study published by the United States 
International Trade Commission available here: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4461.pdf . 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 87 - 
 
  The results of the review were also published in a White House Fact Sheet: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o ffice/2014/08/04/fact-s heet-investing-
african-trade-our-common-future .  
 
The Administration is currently working with the United States Congress on renewal of 
the AGOA program and possible modifications id entified as a result of the review that 
will improve its implementation and utilization.  
 
Question 2.3 - What is the assessment method being used?  RESPONSE: The review examined all aspects of the program, for example, rules of 
origin, product coverage, and eligibility criter ia, and included consultations with AGOA 
stakeholders as well as studies requested of the United States International Trade 
Commission.  
 
Page 35, (Para 2.32)  
"The United States' GSP, its main global programme for preferences for developing and 
least-developed countries, expired on 31 July 2013. Therefore, imports that benefited from GSP provisions are subject to MFN tariffs as of 1 August 2013."  
Question 2.4 - Could you provide an update on prospects for the renewal of the US's GSP 
programme?  
RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U. S. Congress at the earliest opportunity. 
 
Page 35, (Para 2.34) "Since the suspension of the GSP programme in Ju ly 2013, a number of countries continue to be 
reviewed for worker rights, child labour, IPR or arbitral awards issues that could alter their 
beneficiary status. Product addition or removal petitions are also being reviewed." 
 Question 2.5 - Could the U.S. inform what products  have received addition and removal petitions? 
 
RESPONSE: In view of the July 31, 2013 expiration of GSP's authorization, the 
2013 Annual Review, launched shortly prior to  GSP's expiration, was suspended. The 
only product petitions that remain under review are the few that are outstanding from 
the 2012 Annual Review: petitions from Ecuado r and other parties seeking addition to 
GSP eligibility for cut roses, frozen broccoli, and certain pr eserved artichokes. No final 
decisions will be made on these outstandin g product reviews while the GSP program is 
without authorization. 
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 56, (Para 3.55) 
"The U.S. CBP is responsible for enforcing hundre ds of laws, on behalf of around 40 federal 
agencies, that may restrict or prohibit importation. The laws may prohibit the importation of a 
product or allow a product to be imported under certain conditions (e.g. licensing)."  
 Question 2.6 - Can the U.S. explain the procedure for verification and control of imports that must meet special requirements related to technical standards/regulations? 
 
RESPONSE: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces requirements that are set forth in U.S. regulations, either for CBP itself or for other federal government 
agencies that do not have a presence at the U.S. border. Enforcement for each 
requirement is set forth in the specific regu lation, but CBP's approach to enforcement of 
regulatory requirements includes utilizing risk  management techniques to identify those 
shipments that may need additional action s u c h  a s  d o c u m e n t  r e v i e w  o r  a  p h y s i c a l  
inspection.   Question 2.7 - Can the U.S. explain the procedure for verification and control of products of 
convict or forced labour that are prohibited from importation? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 88 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The U.S. statute prohibiting the im portation of forced labor including convict 
and child labor is 19 U.S.C. 1307. Further information about the procedures and CBP enforcement can be found at this link http://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade-
community/programs-outreach/convict-importations .  
 
Page 56-57, Table 3.6  
Question 2.8 - Regarding the information provided in table 3.6 "Prohibitions, restrictions, or other 
special requirements", what is the legal framework for the prohibitions, restrictions and other special requirements listed in the indicated table?  
RESPONSE: The applicable legal basis for the prohibitions, restrictions and other special 
requirements included in Table 3.6 varies  according to the specific prohibition, 
restriction, or special requirement. The United  States notes that the table itself includes, 
in many cases, a reference to a specific law or regulation.  
 Question 2.9 - With regard to household appliances special requirements, what is the relation, if 
any, between the "energy standards to be met"  and the Energy Star programme (from EPA and 
DoE)?  
RESPONSE: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ENERGY STAR is a voluntary 
program to identify, label and promote energy -efficient products and buildings in order 
to reduce energy consumption, improve ener gy security, and reduce pollution through 
voluntary labeling of or other forms of commu nication about products and buildings that 
meet the highest energy efficiency standard s. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) work together to develop the test me thods for measuring energy performance for 
the ENERGY STAR program.  
 
In contrast, DOE manages the federal mini mum efficiency standards for the United 
States. Regulated household appliances manufac tured in the United States or that are 
imported must meet these standards. The U. S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires 
manufacturers of certain appliances to di sclose a product's annual energy cost or 
efficiency information, based on DOE test procedures, on EnergyGuide labels. Energy 
information must be reported to DOE and FTC, which can be accomplished through a 
single report to both agencies using DOE's online system. 
 Question 2.10 - Can the U.S. further explain the requirements of the Bioterrorism Preparedness 
and Response Act of 2002 for cosmetics? 
 
RESPONSE: The two most important laws pertai ning to cosmetics marketed in the United 
States are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmet ic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging 
and Labeling Act (FPLA). FDA regulates cosmetics under the authority of these laws. 
 
Imported cosmetics must comply with the same  laws and regulations that apply to those 
produced domestically. Cosmetic products an d ingredients are not subject to premarket 
approval by FDA, with the exception of color additives. However, they must be safe for 
consumers under labeled or customary conditio n s  o f  u s e ,  a n d  t h e y  m u s t  b e  p r o p e r l y  
labeled. Color additives must be approved for the intended use; some must be from 
batches certified by FDA. Firms and indivi duals who manufacture or market cosmetics 
are responsible for ensuring that their produc ts are in compliance with U.S. law. Please 
see: http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetic s/InternationalActivitie s/Importers/default.htm .  
 
Question 2.11 - With regard to the "products of convict or forced labour" prohibition from importation, how does the U.S. Government determine that a particular product/merchandise was 
produced, mined or manufactured, wholly or in part by means of the use of convict labour or 
forced labour?  
RESPONSE: The Commissioner of Customs may issue a withhold release order to detain 
merchandise when there is information availa ble that reasonably but not conclusively 
indicates that merchandise in violation of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is being, 
or is likely to be imported into the Unit ed States. Thereafter, if the Commissioner 
determines there is probable cause to belie ve that merchandise is being imported in WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 89 - 
 
  violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1307, a finding can be published in the Federal Register and such 
merchandise can be seized and forfeited.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
coordinates closely with U.S. Immigration an d Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security 
Investigations, to verify allegations of conv ict or forced labor and to develop further 
information to determine whether issuance of a withhold release order, or a finding, is 
warranted in a particular case.  
Question 2.12 - Is this determination that a product/merchandise was produced, mined or 
m a n u f a c t u r e d ,  w h o l l y  o r  i n  p a r t  b y  m e a n s  o f  t h e  u s e  o f  c o n v i c t  l a b o u r  o r  f o r c e d  l a b o u r  a  declaration related to a product in a particular operation or to the producer/manufacturer?  
RESPONSE: Previously issued detention orders  and published findings are specific to 
both manufacturers (e.g., to include know n addresses) and subject merchandise 
(e.g., to include physical descriptions, tariff codes, etc.). 
 
Page 66, (Paras 3.75-3.76) "According to the Secretariat Report, "regulatory practices are currently under review with respect 
to the participation of federal regulators in the development and use of standards, and in 
conformity assessment activities." Also, "The Na tional Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 and Circular A-119 [.] of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direct federal agencies to use 'voluntary consensus standards' as a basis for technical regulations and 
government procurement bids", saying yet that " the Standards Incorporated by Reference 
Database (SIBR), maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce, includes voluntary consensus standards, government unique standards, 
private industry standards, and international standards referenced in the Code of Federal 
Regulations (C.F.R.)."  
Question 2.13 - Why does the U.S. continue to promote the use of private standards instead of 
following the provision of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement for the use of international standards 
as a basis for national technical regulations?  
RESPONSE: Brazil's question appears to be  based on a misunderstanding. First, 
international standards are not limited to st andards developed by governmental bodies. 
To the contrary, although the WTO Agreem ent on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT 
Agreement) does not define the term "interna tional standard," under the Decision of the 
WTO Committee on Technical Ba rriers to Trade on Principles for the Development of 
International Standards (G/TBT/1/Rev.10, 9 June 2011), any body that follows the 
principles of openness, transparency, impa rtiality, consensus, coherence, and the 
development dimension can develop intern ational standards. The United States 
therefore considers that any standard that  is developed in accordance with the 
principles set out in the Committee Decision – whether for example by an 
intergovernmental body or private sector body  – qualifies as an international standard. 
 Second, OMB Circular A-119 (1998) – which establishes policies on Federal use and 
development of voluntary consensus standard s and on conformity assessment activities 
– defines voluntary consensus standards as standards developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. In turn , the Circular provides that the following 
attributes define bodies that develop vol untary consensus standards: openness, balance 
of interests, due process, an appeals proc ess, and consensus. These attributes mirror 
the characteristics of standardizing bodies  reflected in the Decision of the WTO 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on Principles for the Development of 
International Standards. Thus, there is no conflict between the Circular A-119 and 
implementation of U.S. obligations with respect to use of international standards. To the 
contrary, Circular A-119 along with statutory requirements for federal agencies to use 
relevant international standard s where appropriate facilitate U.S. implementation of its 
TBT Agreement obligations.  
 
Question 2.14 - Can the U.S. explain what is the role played by federal regulators in the 
development of voluntary standards?   RESPONSE: OMB Circular A-119 (1998) establishes policies on Federal use and 
development of voluntary consensus standard s and on conformity assessment activities. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 90 - 
 
  Section 7 of the Circular covers the "Po licy For Federal Participation In Voluntary 
Consensus Standards Bodies." Please see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/  
.  
 
Page 67, (Para 3.78) "Agencies must prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for each regulation that OIRA or the 
agency designates as 'economically significan t' with an impact on the economy of over 
US$100 million in at least one year."  Question 2.15 - What are the methods used by U.S. agencies in the preparation of RIAs? 
 
RESPONSE: The Office of Information and Regu latory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has develo ped reference materials to assist 
U.S. government agencies in developing regu latory impact analyses. The primer can be 
found here: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default /files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-
4_regulatory-impact-a nalysis-a-primer.pdf . 
 
The Frequently Asked Questions can be found here:  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default /files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a-
4_FAQ.pdf . 
 
The Agency Checklist can be found here: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/f iles/omb/inforeg/regpol/RIA_Checklist.pd
f. 
 
Page 68, (Para 3.80) 
"The United States submitted 269 TBT notificati ons in 2013 (248 in 2012)69, including sub-federal 
measures notified under Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement."   
Question 2.16 - Could the U.S. specify the agencies responsible for developing mandatory 
technical, sanitary and phytosanitary regulations (on federal, state and local levels) as well as the matters regulated by each agency? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Congress enacts legislatio n that mandates or authorizes agencies 
to issue regulations, so the agency responsi ble for developing and issuing the regulation 
will usually be designated in the legislation itself. The United States does not maintain 
lists of specific regulatory responsibilities under the purview of each Federal agency, nor 
a list of regulatory bodies at the state and local levels. However, a list of and 
corresponding links to each Federal agency , where it describes its mandate, can be 
found here: http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml . 
 
Page 68, (Para 3.83) 
"Bodies fulfilling the criteria specified by the regu lator, domestic or foreign-based, are accredited 
or otherwise recognized to perform conformity assessment activities."  
Question 2.17 - Are there any further requirements for accrediting foreign-based conformity 
assessment bodies other than those required from the domestic ones?  RESPONSE: No. The United States applies th e principle of nation al treatment with 
respect to the recognition of conformity assessment bodies, and in fact, has include 
commitments to this principle in its free tr ade agreements going back over a decade.  
 
Page 68, (Para 3.85) 
"The Secretariat Report mentions a few mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) that have been 
signed by the US." 
 
Question 2.18 - Could the U.S. provide a full list of the MRAs signed by the U.S. as well as directions for accessing the full text of these agreements?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 91 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The National Institute of Standa rds and Technology maintains a complete 
inventory of the government-to-governme nt EMC and Telecommunications MRAs to 
which the United States is a party. This inventory also includes the MRA between the 
United States and the EU that co vers six sectors. Please see: 
http://gsi.nist.gov/global/index.cfm/L1-4/L2-16 . 
 
Page 76 (Para 3.116) 
"The NEI´s focus was on improving trade promotion and advocacy, improving access to finance, 
reducing trade barriers, and enforcing trade rules, with a particular emphasis on developing export programmes for SMEs. Certain agencies also developed their own targets as part of the NEI, [.] and the Department of Commerce's target to increase the number of new markets entered by 
client firms by 7%." 
 Question 2.19 - Can the U.S. provide information about concrete initiatives carried out to reduce 
trade barriers and enforce trade rules? 
 RESPONSE: Please see USTR's website ( http://www.ustr.gov/ ) for details on our efforts 
to reduce trade barriers, particularly the President's Annual Trade Policy Agenda 
(https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/ 2014%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda%20and%2
02013%20Annual%20Report.pdf ). Other websites of interest are USITC's 
(http://www.usitc.gov/ ) and the Department of Commerce's website 
(http://trade.gov/enforcement/ ). 
 
Question 2.20 - How does a firm become a client of the Department of Commerce? 
 
RESPONSE: Any company that believes it is export-ready or is already exporting can 
reach out to a U.S. Export Assistance Center . These centers are part of the Department 
of Commerce and are located throughout the United States. 
 Question 2.21 - Are there benefits extended to these firms?  
RESPONSE: The main benefit is they will have  the ability to receive counselling from our 
trade specialists, including information ab out export markets and potential export 
opportunities.  
 
Page 76 (Para 3.118) "In May 2014, the Administration launched NEI/NEXT as the successor of the NEI. [.] There are 
five main points: connect more U.S. business to gl obal customers, streamline U.S. export services 
and processes, expand access to finance, promote exports and FDI, and help developing economies improve their business environment to open new markets."  
Question 2.22 - What concrete measures have been undertaken to enhance the connection 
between U.S. business and global consumers and to promote exports?  
RESPONSE: We seek to improve customer se rvice, some of our efforts are focused on 
improving data collection on who exports (g oods and services). We are also improving 
our understanding of customer needs, develo ping and disseminating best practices of 
state-level development agenci es, and improving our ability to identify concrete market 
opportunities.   Page 85, (Para 3.167) 
"The United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a federal excise tax on foreign 
entities receiving payments for purchases of goods and services. When the law goes into effect, a 2% tax is to be applied to foreign entities not party to an international procurement agreement." 
 
Question 2.23 - What is the current share of contracts awarded to those participants?  
RESPONSE: The effective date of the statute was the date of its enactment, January 2, 
2011. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and th e Treasury Department are in the process 
of drafting regulations. The United States is unable to provide details about the administration or interpretation of the le gislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 92 - 
 
   
Question 2.24 - What is the main goal of the new legislation, considering that preference is already granted to American products in biddings set up under the "Buy American Act"?  
RESPONSE: The legislation was passed by the U.S. Congress and the legislative history 
does not indicate the policy intent be hind the 2% federal excise tax.  
 
Page 85, (Para 3.168) 
"According to the Secretariat Report, the Trade Agreements Act gives the President the authority to waive Buy American Act requirements for certain procurements. The USTR, to whom this authority is delegated has waived Buy American Act for eligible products in procurements covered 
by the GPA and some relevant FTAs." 
 Question 2.25 - Are there cases in which those requ irements have not been waived? If yes, which? 
 
RESPONSE: The Buy American Act requirements are waived under the Trade Agreements Act authority delegated to the U.S. Trade Re presentative for all procurements covered 
under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, U.S. Free Trade Agreements 
and for eligible products from  least developed countries.  
 Pages 87-89, (Paras 3.183-3.188) 
Question 2.26 - Does U.S. law differentiate between national and international procurements in 
terms of procedures and qualified participants?  
RESPONSE: No. The United States does not maintain separate procedures or 
qualifications for covered procurements of goods, services and suppliers of other GPA 
Parties. Consistent with Article IV.1 of th e revised GPA, the United States provides 
national treatment to the goods, servic es and suppliers of any other Party for 
procurements covered by the Agreement.   Question 2.27 - If so, which category of proc urement is generally encompassed by the GPA and 
relevant FTAs signed by the US?  
 RESPONSE: Information on the United States coverage schedule under the revised GPA 
can be located on the WTO webpage 
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ gproc_e/gp_app_agree_e.htm#revisedGPA ). 
Information on the United States coverage  schedule under Free Trade Agreements can 
be found on the webpage of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
(www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/government-pro curement/ftas-government-procurement-
obligations).   
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR Page 114, (Para 4.54) 
 
"Regarding the Renewable Fuel Standards Program (RFS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced two new rulings: fi rst, the reduction of the statutory volume 
requirements for advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels; and second, new requirements on 
renewable fuel exporters shipping to U.S. markets, including the posting of a substantial bond, additional and costly reporting and verification, a prohibition on the commingling of product, and 
the cancelation of a company's registration if export activity lapses for a year." 
 
Question 2.28 - Do these measures have any distortive or restrictive impacts on trade?  
RESPONSE: Neither of the described measur es have been implemented by EPA. In 
November 2013, EPA announced proposed rules regarding the 2014 RFS requirements. In November 2014, EPA announced that it would not finalize 2014 RFS requirements in 
this calendar year, and that the Agency in tends to take action on the 2014 standards 
rule in 2015. In June 2013, EPA announced proposed rules intended to improve the implementation of the renewable fuel stan dards program. In July 2014, EPA finalized 
certain provisions included in that prop osal, but has not finalized the provisions WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 93 - 
 
  specifically referenced in the question . EPA continues to consider the comments 
received regarding the provisions pr oposed as operational improvements. 
 Question 2.29 - If the answer is yes, how are those measures consistent with the 
U.S. commitments relating to the multilateral trade system and the WTO?" 
 RESPONSE: Please see the respon se to question 2.28 above. 
 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT  4 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2012 
 
Page 15, (Para 4.27) "The revolutions and other changes that swept through the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 
2011 prompted a comprehensive reevaluation of U.S. trade and investment policies toward this 
critical part of the world. In response to th ese events, USTR coordinated with other Federal 
agencies, outside experts, and stakeholders in bo th the United States and MENA partner countries 
to develop a trade and investment initiative to su pport jobs and enhance regional trade. To pursue 
this initiative, the United States initially focused on developing initiatives with respect to trade facilitation, investment, and the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, in addition to developing longer-term trade and investment objectives with trading partners in the 
region." 
 Question 2.30 - What are the main activities related to trade facilitation pursued under this 
initiative in MENA countries?  
 RESPONSE: The United States has pursued ne gotiation of bilateral trade facilitation 
agreements with several MENA countries si nce 2011, with an eye toward promoting 
greater U.S. trade with MENA countries an d regional trade among those countries. The 
United States also looks forward to working together with the MENA countries to effectively implement the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
 
Question 2.31 - Which U.S. agencies are engaged in trade facilitation initiatives?  
RESPONSE: USTR has the lead responsibility for the negotiation of Trade Facilitation 
initiatives. However, many other federal ag encies play a role in the negotiation and 
implementation of such initiatives, includ ing the Department of Commerce, USAID, the 
Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection.  Question 2.32 - What is the outcome so far?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States negotiated a bilateral Trade Facilitation Agreement with 
Morocco, which expanded upon the commitments  already contained in the U.S.-Morocco 
Free Trade Agreement. The bilateral U.S.-M orocco agreement entered into force in 
November 2013.  
Page 20, (Para 4.66) 
"The United States and Morocco signed a Trade Facilitation Agreement in November 2013 that builds on the FTA and includes provisions facilitating the movement of goods across borders, including transit, transparency with respect to  penalties, Internet publication of rules and 
regulations governing trade, and other issues that  will improve Morocco's efficiency in its goods 
trade."  
Question 2.33 - Are there any other bilateral trade facilitation agreements being negotiated by the 
US?  
RESPONSE: The United States has pursued ne gotiation of bilateral trade facilitation 
agreements with several MENA countries si nce 2011, with an eye toward promoting 
greater U.S. trade with MENA countries and regional trade among those countries. 
Negotiation of such agreements have been proposed to several countries in the region. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 94 - 
 
  The United States also looks forward to close cooperation with WTO Members on 
implementation of the WTO TFA.  Question 2.34 - What are the main features of the agreement with Morocco? 
 
RESPONSE:  Main features of the U.S.-Morocco Trade Facilitation Agreement include 
commitments on advance rulings, appeals, internet publication, transit, express 
shipments, disciplines on penalties, provis ions for release of goods, prohibition on 
consular transactions, and disciplines on th e requirements for uses of customs brokers 
and preshipment inspection.   
 
3rd Set of Questions from Brazil  
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
Page 39 (Para 2.52) 
"CFIUS continues to review "covered" foreign in vestment transactions to determine whether the 
transaction threatens national security. A covered foreign investment transaction is one where a merger, acquisition, or takeover results in foreign control of a person engaged in interstate 
commerce in the United States. CFIUS considers whether the foreign entity is controlled by a 
foreign government or if the investment would give control of critical infrastructure."  
 
Question 3.1. Could the United States please elaborate on the criteria used to determine whether a 
transaction threatens national security?  
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determining whether a transaction raises national 
security concerns, and a general description of  the types of transactions that CFIUS has 
reviewed and that have presented national se curity considerations is available in the 
official guidance that Treasu ry published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register 
(and available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-inves tment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in statutes, execut ive orders, regulations, and in the guidance 
document noted above, all of which are available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/Pages/Committee-on-Foreign-Investment-in-US.aspx .  
 
Question 3.2. What constitutes "foreign contro l" under the rules and regulations of CFIUS? 
 RESPONSE: The CFIUS process is fully de scribed in statutes , executive orders, 
regulations, and in the guidance document noted above, all of which are available at 
www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
Please refer to the following se ctions of the CFIUS regulations 
(http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/CFIUS -Final-Regulations-new.pdf ): 
o 800.212, which defines foreign entity; 
o 800.213, which defines foreign government; 
o 800.214, which defines foreign gove rnment-controlled transaction; 
o 800.215, which defines foreign national; 
o 800.216, which defines foreign person; 
o 800.204, which defines control; 
 
A note on the definition of control: cont rol is not defined in terms of a specified 
percentage of shares or number of board se ats. Although shareholding and board seats 
are relevant to a control analysis, neither fact or on its own is nece ssarily determinative. 
Instead, all relevant factors are considered to gether in light of their potential impact on 
a foreign person's ability to determine, direct , or decide important matters affecting an 
entity.  
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 95 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 77 (Para 3.122) "The main focus of the Ex-Im Bank is to provide direct loans, guarantees, and insurance to help finance U.S. exports of goods and services. It f ills a gap in the export financing sector where 
financing support is needed because of a percepti on of risk or political uncertainty, and helps 
create a level playing field for U.S. exporters who compete with others that have similar backing or financing from foreign governments. There were no significant changes in policy during the review 
period." 
 Question 3.3. Which is the benchmark used by the U.S. Government to determine whether there is a gap in the financing of U.S. exports that warrants the involvement of the Ex-Im Bank? 
RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank routinely meets with commercial banks to determine their 
capacity to offer export financing and the term s they are able to offer. This information 
informs the Ex-Im Bank's decisions during  its case-by-case approval process. 
Question 3.4. Are there precautionary actions take n by the U.S. Government to prevent the Ex-Im 
Bank from conferring a benefit to U.S. exporter s, as defined in WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures? 
 
RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank works closely, an d often consults with other departments 
and entities within the U.S. government that have WTO expertise as to the United States' WTO obligations. 
 
Page 86 (Para 3.176) "Pursuant to Part 8 of the FAR, agencies are required to give consideration first to "required 
sources" for their supplies and services needs." 
Question 3.5. On average, what is the share of the U.S. purchases that are supplied by "required 
sources"? 
RESPONSE: The United States does not collect such statistics or information. 
 Page 87 (Para 3.178) "All contracts over US$650,000 (US$1.5 million for co nstruction) must include a small business 
subcontracting plan so that small businesses can obtain work under these large contracts." 
 Question 3.6. Is this rule also mandatory for acquisitions made under the WTO Government 
Procurement Agreement and Free Trade Agreements? 
 RESPONSE: Yes. This requirement applies to acquisitions covered by the United States 
under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and Free Trade Agreements 
 Page 87 (Para 3.184) "The Trade Agreements Act gives the President authority to waive Buy American Act requirements 
for certain procurements. (...) USTR has waived the Buy American Act for eligible products in 
acquisitions covered by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, some relevant free trade agreements (FTA), as well as for least-developed countries." 
 
Question 3.7. On average, what is the share of th e eligible U.S. acquisitions that are a result of 
waiving the Buy American Act requirements? 
 
RESPONSE: As indicated in Paragraph 3.186,  the United States is overhauling its 
database of procurements covered under international agreements.  
 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT REPORT 
4 TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2012 Page 18 (Para 4.51) 
1. "The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) entered into force on 
15 May 2012. Two-way goods trade totalled US$40.0 billion in 2013. The CTPA's central oversight body is the United States-Colombia Free Trade Commission (FTC), comprised of the U.S. Trade 
Representative and the Colombia Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism or their designees. In 
November 2012, the FTC held its inaugural meeting and concluded that the Agreement was functioning smoothly and was already benefiting  both countries. In 2013 both Governments 
worked together to carry out initiatives launched at the November 2012 FTC, such as consideration WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 96 - 
 
  of accelerating tariff elimination, additional elements of the dispute settlement mechanism, and 
updating the rules of origin."  Question 3.8. What kind of updates shall be made? 
 
RESPONSE: The CTPA (Article 2.3.4) provides that the Parties may agree to accelerate the elimination of duties under the Agreement. The United States and Colombia have not 
yet decided whether to accelera te the elimination of tariffs and, if such changes were 
made, what the scope or extent of such ch anges should be. With respect to rules of 
origin, the United States and Colombia are wo rking to update the CTPA's rules of origin 
to reflect amendments to the Harmonized System. Finally, with regard to dispute 
settlement, the CTPA calls for the esta blishment of Model Rules of Procedure 
(Article 21.10); the establishment of a code of  conduct for panelists (Article 21.8.1(d)); 
the establishment of the amount of remune ration that will be paid to panelists 
(Article 20.1.2(e)); and the establishment of rosters of panelists (Article 21.7).  
 The text of the CTPA is available at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-
trade-agreements/col ombia-fta/final-text .  
 
Page 20 (Para 4.62)  "According to the Government Report, paragraph § 4.62 (KORUS FTA), the Joint Committee met in 
October 2013 to discuss substantial issues of interest to both countries, including the verification 
of origin."  
Question 3.9. How is the verification of origin held under the KORUS FTA? 
 RESPONSE: Under the KORUS FTA, the importing Party (either Korea or the United 
States) may conduct a verification by means of written requests for information or 
questionnaires to the importer, exporter, or pr oducer, or by visits to the premises of an 
exporter or producer in the other Party. Ther e are separate verification procedures for a 
textile or apparel good. More information can be found in Articles 6.18 and 4.3 of the 
Agreement which is online at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements/korus-fta/final-text .  
 
5 TRADE-RELATED CAPACITY  BUILDING INITIATIVES 
Page 25 (Para 5.12) "These trade capacity building efforts complement  other U.S. government initiatives to promote 
development and economic growth and address in frastructure needs in Africa. In June 2013, 
President Obama launched Power Africa, an initiative which aims to double the supply of electricity to Africa. In total, the Power Africa program has now mobilized more than US$26 billion."  
Question 3.10. The U.S. Government states that  Power Africa program "has now mobilized more 
than US$26 billion". How much of that amount is related to the financing of the export of U.S. services and products? 
 
RESPONSE: The President's US$26 billion a nnouncement at the U.S.-Africa Leaders 
Summit refers to non-USG resources (US $20 billion from the private sector and 
US$6 billion from other donors ) in support of Power Afri ca. The private sector's 
commitment represents a commitment to develo p and invest in over US$20 billion worth 
of power projects and energy services in Af rica and is not tied to the purchase of 
U.S. goods and services, although the privat e partners are free to purchase U.S. goods 
and services needed for the projects.  
 Question 3.11. Under which conditions has that financing been offered? 
 
RESPONSE: This funding is not subject to specific terms at this time.  
8 SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESS TRADE 
Page 28 (Para 8.5) "According to the Government Report, paragraph § 8.5 (Small and Medium-Sized Business Trade), the U.S. continues to develop the FTA Tariff Tool , an online tool launched in 2011 to help small 
businesses to benefit from the tariff reductions and eliminations from the free trade agreements in WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 97 - 
 
  which the U.S. participates. This tool was expanded in order to include information about textiles 
and garments, as well as the rules of origin in the U.S. FTAs."  Question 3.12. What kind of information does the online tool provide about rules of origin? 
Question 3.13. Is this information available for the general public or is the access restricted? (Only 
information on tariffs seems to be available on the website).  
RESPONSE: The FTA Tariff Tool provides the product-specific rule of origin for all 
products covered by the Tool. The informatio n is available to the general public. When 
users search for a particular product under one of the U.S. free trade agreements, the 
Tariff Tool displays the relevant  tariff data as well as the product-specific rule of origin 
applicable to that product (at the bottom of the page). 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS The Bayh-Dole Act (US Public Law 96-517, De cember 12, 1980) and the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act (US Public Law 96-480, October 21, 1980) require licensees of the 
results of U.S. government-sponsored research and development to "manufacture substantially" their products in the United States. In particular, Section 204 of the Bayh-Dole Act states the 
following: "Preference for United States industry" 
 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no small business firm or nonprofit organization which receives title to any subject invention and no assignee of any such small 
business firm or nonprofit organization shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell 
any subject invention in the United States unless such person agrees that any products embodying 
the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention will be manufactured 
substantially in the United States." 
 Moreover, subsection (b) of Section 209 of the Bayh-Dole Act states that: 
"(b) Manufacture in United States? A Federal agen cy shall normally grant a license under section 
207 (a)(2) to use or sell any federally owned invent ion in the United States only to a licensee who 
agrees that any products embodying the invention or produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the United States." 
 
Section 12 - 4(B) of the Stevenson-Wydler Act states that the director of a federally-operated laboratory, in deciding what cooperative research and development agreements to enter into shall: 
"(b) give preference to business units located in the United States which agree that products 
embodying inventions made under the cooperative research and development agreement or produced through the use of such inventions w ill be manufactured substantially in the United 
States and, in the case of any industrial organization or other person subject to the control of a 
foreign company or government, as appropriate, take into consideration whether or not such foreign government permits United States agencies, organizations, or other persons to enter into cooperative research and development ag reements and licensing agreements." 
 
Question 3.14. Please provide an indication of U. S. government disbursements in recent years for 
research and development activities covered by the Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler Acts. 
 
RESPONSE: The Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wyd ler Acts apply to U.S. research and 
development (R&D) funding. Information and analysis of trends for U.S. government 
R&D expenditures for recent years is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ 
2015/nsf15308/ . This table shows that R&D spending in actual funds in 2005 was 
US$131 billion. The amount of spending peaked in 2009 at US$164 billion but has 
trended back down, with 2014 at US$136 billion. 
 
Question 3.15. Please explain how the requirements foreseen in the two Acts are enforced by the Government of the United States. 
 
RESPONSE: The Stevenson-Wydler Act requires the establishment of an Office of Research and Technology Applications. These offices generally work within each federal 
laboratory and agency to transfer technology , including licensing of  intellectual property 
developed by the U.S. government at its la boratories. These statutes establish a policy 
objective stated in Title 15 United States Code Section 3702 and 35 United States Code 
Section 200 to ensure utilization of technolo gy and inventions. These statutes establish WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 98 - 
 
  a system to promote the development of rese arch results and inventions, so that they 
are available in the economy rather than being just a concept.   Question 3.16. According to which criteria is th e U.S. Government able to determine whether a 
"substantial manufacture" of products has taken place in the US? 
 RESPONSE: The United States considers its trade obligations and the specific 
requirements of each technology to de termine if the "substantial manufacture" 
requirement is met.   
 Question 3.17. Does the Government of the United States supervise the manufacturing activities of 
the licensees of the results of R&D activities covered by the said legislation? 
 RESPONSE: The United States does not superv ise the manufacturing activities but does 
require periodic reporting by the licensee on  the fulfillment of the license terms. The 
licensee is required to bring an invention to  practical application to promote utilization 
by the public. The requirement is found in  the United States Code Title 35 Section 
209(b)(2) " requiring periodic reporting on utilizat ion of the invention, and utilization 
efforts, by the licensee, but only to the exte nt necessary to enable the Federal agency to 
determine whether the terms of the license are being complied with." The statute does 
allow the government to terminate a license  in event the licensee beaches any terms 
regarding U.S. manufacture as set forth in United States Coode Title 35 Section 209.  
 For federally funded inventions that are no t produced by a government laboratory, the 
United States requires reporting on utilization as set forth in the United States Code Title 
35 Section 202(c)(5) that states " The right of the Federal agency to require periodic 
reporting on the utilization or efforts at obta ining utilization that are being made by the 
contractor or his licensees or assignees ."  
 FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION 14CFR, PART 91 - GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 
§91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. 
Requires the use of ATC transponder device during aircraft operations. 
§91.221 Traffic alert and collision avoi dance system equipment and use. 
Each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable traffic alert and collision avoidance 
system shall have that system on and operating.  §91.706 Operations within airspace designed as 
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace. 
No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical 
Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace unless: [.](2) The operator is authorized by the Administrator to conduct such operations. Question: 
 
Question 3.18. Could the United States please elaborate on its procedure to prosecute pilots and air transport service providers for violations of the aforementioned regulations? 
 
RESPONSE: Under the FAA's statutes, the FAA Administrator has broad authority to take 
action considered necessary to carry out th e FAA's statutory responsibilities and powers 
relating to safety in air commerce, includ ing: conducting investigations; prescribing 
regulations, standards, and procedures; and issuing orders.  Where there is a question of a potential vi olation of 14 C.F.R.  § §91.215, 91.221, and 
91.706, the FAA would generally start an invest igation. Early in the process, the Flight 
Standards District Office (FSDO) Inspector would generally issue a letter of investigation (LOI) to the operator or pilo t. Depending upon the circumstances, the 
matter could be handled with any the following enforcement procedures: 
1. Informal Action, including counseling 
2. Administrative actions– remedial training  efforts, a warning notice or letter of 
correction; 
3. Reexamination (in the case of pilots whose qualifications to hold a certificate are 
in question); 
4. Certificate action, either (order of) suspension or revocation; or 
5. A civil penalty (fine) WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 99 - 
 
  CANADA 
  Secretariat Report – United States (S307) 
 
Question 1.  Part II. Trade Policy Developments since 2012: (4.2) Regional Initiatives; (4.2.1) 
North American Free Trade Agreem ent: paragraph 4.14, page 13: 
 The report indicates that the under the North Am erican Agreement On Environmental Cooperation, 
the United States, Canada and Mexico are obligated to effectively enforce their environmental 
laws. With respect to enforcement of the United States' Lacey Act which makes it unlawful to 
import, export, transport, sell, rece ive, acquire, or purchase in interstate of foreign commerce any 
plant taken in violation of the laws of a U.S. St ate, or any relevant foreign law, Canada has the 
following questions: 
 1. How does the United States measure the effectiveness of the Lacey Act? 
 
RESPONSE: The Lacey Act is an important tool in U.S. efforts to combat trafficking in 
illegally taken wildlife, fish, and plant produc ts, and the United States regularly applies 
and enforces the Act. Information regardin g investigations and prosecutions under the 
Lacey Act is available on the websit es of the Department of Justice 
(http://www.justice.gov/enrd/News.html ) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(http://www.fws.gov/news/ ). In addition, the United Stat es Department of Agriculture 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service submitted a report to Congress in May 2013 
regarding the implementation of the 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act.  
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION : Regarding measurement of the effectiveness of the Lacey Act, has 
implementation of the Lacey Act amendments had an effect on the number or frequency of illegal 
wood shipments arriving in the U.S.? If so , could you please describe these effects? 
  
FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE: As with any type of illegal  activity, it is difficult to quantify the 
level of illegal wood shipment s. Nevertheless, based on anecdotal information, we 
believe that our efforts, along with those of  other countries, are having an impact in 
reducing the levels of illegal wood shipme nts. The United States looks forward to 
continuing to work with Canada and other tr ading partners to combat illegal logging and 
associated trade.  
 
2. How does the United States identify an illegal shipment under the Lacey Act? What are the triggers?  
RESPONSE: The United States may obtain information from a variety of sources in 
determining whether a shipment of wood pr oducts may potentially be illegal under the 
Lacey Act and therefore meriting further investigation. Information may, for example, 
be provided by officials from the country of harvest, from law enforcement entities such 
as INTERPOL, from employees of the compan y exporting or importing the products in 
question, from other participants in the indu stry, or other sources. Illegality may also be 
determined based on an inspection of the do cuments and material in the shipment. This 
may include fraudulent documents, incons istencies between documentation and the 
shipment contents, intentionally misidentifyi ng or falsely declaring the contents, etc. 
 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION : With respect to identification of illegal shipments and determination of 
illegality based on an inspection of documents and material in a shipment of wood products, what is the most common means of identifying the tree species present in a shipment being imported 
into the U.S. in order to determine the relevant regulations or trade laws?  
  FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE: The Lacey Act stipulates  that the importer identify and declare 
the species contained in a shipment to the U. S. Government. This is used as a starting 
point to identify the species of wood used in wood products that are imported. On-site 
verification of the species of wood spec ified can sometimes be accomplished through 
physical inspection by trained observers at the port of entry. For instances when the 
declared identification is in question, or n eeds more technical verification to determine WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 100 - 
 
  admissibility or illegality, we are exploring a number of wood identification technologies 
that are rapidly developing. These range from handheld tools that can be available at the 
port of entry, to sending samples to one of  several laboratories including a criminal 
forensic laboratory. The several U.S. labora tories with varying capabilities are now 
collaborating with each other and with labora tories around the world in order to share 
and further develop these technologies and techniques.  
3. Does the United States have a central location violations of the Lacey Act are posted? 
 RESPONSE: The United States does not have a central location where violations of the 
Lacey Act are posted. However, information regarding indictments and the resolution of 
many criminal enforcement actions, includ ing those brought under the Lacey Act, are 
frequently the subject of press releases  issued by the Department of Justice 
Environment and Natural Resources Divisi on that are publicly available at 
http://www.justice.gov/enrd/News.html  and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 
http://www.fws.gov/news/ . 
 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:  Have the press releases and the other means noted for conveying 
information regarding criminal enforcement acti ons resulted in a noticeably better-informed 
trading community with respect to legality requir ements for products entering the U.S.? If so, 
could you provide some examples of increa sed awareness among the trading community? 
 
RESPONSE: Press releases issued by rele vant agencies are just one part of 
U.S. Government efforts to ensure transparency and keep the trading community 
well-informed. U.S. Government agencies cont inue to host or attend various outreach 
and education sessions as a means of convey ing information and increasing awareness 
about the Lacey Act. Representatives of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS), the State Department, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Forest Service, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Office of  the U.S. Trade Representative, and other 
agencies have provided information about enforcement and implementation of the Lacey Act provisions relating to importation of  plants and plant products at numerous 
meetings and conferences attended by domestic  and foreign participants in the trade in 
these products. In addition, since 20 09, APHIS has attracted approximately 
150,000 visitors interested in the latest pr ogram information to its Lacey Act website 
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/ap his/ourfocus/planthealth?1dmy&urile=wc
m%3apath%3a%2Faphis_content_library%2 Fsa_our_focus%2Fsa_plant_health%2Fsa
_import%2Fsa_lacey_a ct%2Fct_lacey_act ).  
 
Additionally, APHIS launched a new web- based tool called the Lacey Act Web 
G o v e r n a n c e  S y s t e m  ( L A W G S ) ,  d e s i g n e d  t o  help importers save time and money by 
transmitting the Lacey Act import declaration information electronically. In response to 
interest from the trading community, the ag ency has delivered seven LAWGS webinars 
to over 325 participants representing more  than 90 organizations to help prepare 
importers to file their Lacey Act declarations electronically instead of submitting them as 
paper forms. APHIS will continue to host ad ditional webinars to introduce LAWGS to 
interested stakeholders.  
Question 2.  
Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: (2) Trade Policy Objectives: paragraph 14, page 
29:  
Regarding the priority of expanding "trade opport unities through regional economic integration" 
and in reflection of the North American Competitiveness Work Plan, a trilateral workplan to improve the competitiveness of North America including through a focus on the "Alignment of 
International Trade," (Pillar #6 - http://www.international. gc.ca/media/comm/news-
communiques/2014/11/03b.aspx?lang=eng ), we have the following questions:  
 
1. What is the United States doing to align its international trade approach to benefit and 
strengthen the North American production platform as it continues to advance trade policy objectives?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 101 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Trade is a key driver of the Nort h American economy. In the North American 
Competitiveness work plan we state that we will "ensure that senior U.S., Mexican, and 
Canadian officials meet when appropriate as well as on the margins of existing 
multilateral discussions to discuss shared trade policy interests." The United States 
engages in multiple fora to develop approa ches to benefit and strengthen the North 
America production platform. These fora  include the U.S.-Canada Regulatory 
Cooperation Council; U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border Initiative; U.S.-Mexico High Level 
Economic Dialogue; and, U.S.-Mexico 21st Century Border Initiative.  
 2. What is the United States doing to ensure that North American interests and, in particular, the North American integrated supply chains are kept in mind when developing trade related 
initiatives? 
 RESPONSE: The Office of the U.S. Trade Repres entative is responsible for developing and 
coordinating U.S. trade policy. The North American Leaders Summit (NALS) language 
states that we will "establish a dialogue to  explore shared interests and alignment of 
international objectives in tr ade negotiations with key markets, so that our integrated 
supply chains are deepened and strengthened." A key element in developing 
trade-related initiatives is outreach and communication to key stakeholders and the 
public in order to develop policy initiati ves in an open and transparent manner. 
 
Question 3. 
Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: Ta ble 2.4 Foreign Investment Restrictions: 
page 41 
 
The report indicates that only U.S. citizens may ma ke claims under the Desert Land Act, or acquire 
permits to graze on public lands.  
 
1. Could the United States explain how these restrictions comply with its National Treatment obligations under the NAFTA's Investment chapter (Article 1102)?  
Response: While the United States understands  that the TPR process is not intended to 
address compliance with regional trade agre ements, information about the statue cited 
in Table 2.4 of the Secretariat's Report can be found at 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectio nUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE . 
 
Question 4.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (v) Other Charges Affecting Imports: paragraph 48, page 53:  
 Regarding the proposed APHIS fee increase, provided, and in regard to Canada's official 
submission to the U.S. Federal Register, we have the following questions: 
 1. Has the proposed change to APHIS fees taken into consideration the magnitude of the 
overall impact to Canada-U.S. trade and specific ally considered the disproportional economic 
impact on trade by truck versus imports from overseas?  
RESPONSE: The proposed change to our AQI user fees is intended to recover the costs 
we incur in providing AQI services and are set on that basis. These fees are based on the 
cost of services provided; using the activity  based costing (ABC) methodology. Fees for 
various conveyances are calculated based on the projected number of conveyances 
subject to inspection within each transporta tion mode, using standard units such as a 
truck or airplane. Inspection costs are driv en by a number of factors, including number 
of conveyances, risk targeting, and other criteria.  
 
2. How does the United States reconcile its APHIS fee proposal with United States' international trade obligations, including WTO, GATT Article I? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States takes its inte rnational commitments seriously and ensures 
that measures affecting traders, including f ee increases, comply with our international 
trade obligations.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 102 - 
 
  3. How does the United States approach to fees weigh the activity and projected economic 
impact on each conveyance mode?  RESPONSE: The FACT Act (21 U.S.C. 136a) and Fe deral guidance for calculating user fees 
state that, where possible, a user fee shou ld recover the full cost of providing the 
service. APHIS used the activity based cost ing (ABC) methodology to determine the cost 
of AQI activities and their associated ou tputs and services and incorporated ABC 
methodologies to ensure that the full cost of  providing AQI services  can be appropriately 
assigned to AQI user fees. Once all costs we re assigned to the appropriate fee services 
and modes, the fees were calculated base d on the projected number of conveyances 
subject to inspection within each mode, using standard units such as a truck or airplane. 
The ABC methodology incorporates indust ry standards to ensure correctness, 
transparency, and repeatability in the assi gnment of costs from the APHIS and CBP 
financial systems to activities directly related to the delivery of AQI services. 
 
4. Has the proposed APHIS fees taken into consideration the "beneficiary pays" principle, based on the fact that each proposed fee has no public contribution? 
RESPONSE: The rationale for collecting user fees, as opposed to funding the 
AQI program through appropriations, is to ha ve those who benefit from a service cover 
its costs. The fees are calculated usin g the ABC methodology described above. 
 
5. How has the proposed fees taken into consideration Canada-U.S. bilateral initiatives that 
enhance U.S.-Canada cooperation, regional comp etitiveness and reflect our shared security 
interests? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States values the exte nsive cooperation and bilateral initiatives 
with Canada, and examines all proposed rule s to ensure they complement our joint 
work.  
 Question 5.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical regulations an d standards: paragraph 77, page 67: 
 The report refers to proposed revisions to Circular A-11966 that would maintain a "strong 
preference" for the use of voluntary consensus standards in federal regulation and procurement: 
 1. Could the United States describe, in practical terms, the level of discretion that the "strong 
preference" referred to in the proposed revisions to Circular A-11966 will grant federal agencies? 
Could the United States provide an example of a past situation that prompted this proposed 
change?  
RESPONSE: U.S. law and policy directs federal agencies to rely on voluntary consensus 
standards and relevant international standa rds, where appropriate. Paragraph 6 of 
Circular A-119 states that "All federal agenci es must use voluntary consensus standards 
in lieu of government-unique standards in th eir procurement and regulatory activities, 
except where inconsistent with law or ot herwise impractical." (See also the National 
Technology Transfer Advancement Act). Pa ragraph 6.a.2 of Circular A-119 further 
specifies "impractical" as including "circumsta nces in which such use would fail to serve 
the agency's program needs; would be infe asible; would be inad equate, ineffectual, 
inefficient, or inconsistent with agency mi ssion; or would impose more burdens, or 
would be less useful, than the use of anothe r standard." The text of Circular A-119 can 
be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 . 
 
The proposed revisions to Circular A-119 state that the proposed revisions continue the 
preference for voluntary consensus standa rds over government-unique standards and 
establish a further preference for voluntar y consensus standards over other types of 
standards (including voluntary standa rds that are developed by voluntary 
non-consensus bodies). In doing so, the proposed revisions acknowledge that other 
types of standards, including those develope d by voluntary non-consensus bodies, are in 
use in the marketplace and may be relevant in meeting agency missions and priorities 
and that under such circumstances agencies would be able to use such standards.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 103 - 
 
  Question 6.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical regulations an d standards: paragraph 84, page 68: 
 
The report refers to Executive Order 13609 of 1 May 2012 that seeks to promote international 
cooperation to address unnecessary differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and their foreign counterparts. 
 
1. Will the United States be producing guidelines  for departments and agencies to interpret this 
Executive Order?  
RESPONSE: Yes. The guidelines are currently being developed. 
 Question 7. 
Part III – Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: 3.2 Measures directly affecting 
exports; 3.2.4 Export support and promotion; 3.2.4.2 Nation al Export Initiative (NEI) 
and NEI/NEXT, paragraph 3.116, page 76 
The report notes that the National Export Initiative (NEI), and its successor program NEI/NEXT, is 
a government-wide programme to promote exports,  with the goal of doubling the amount of 
exports over five years. In line with this goal, the Department of Agriculture had developed its own 
targets as part of the NEI, with the goal to  expand agricultural exports to US$150 billion by 
FY2013. 
 1. Could the United States clarify what programs and initiatives have been established within 
the 2014 Farm Bill by the Department of Agriculture to achieve this goal? 
 RESPONSE: There were no new export promotio n programs or initiatives established in 
the 2014 Farm Bill.  
 Question 8.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (2) Subsidies and other government  assistance: paragraph 3.141, page 81: 
 The report indicates that while some stimulus measures have been progressively phased out, 
some measures have been maintained. The report also mentions at paragraph 1.3 that "the 
U.S. economy has largely recovered from recessio n". In this regard Canada notes that "deal 
closing funds" – pools of capital set aside by at  least 38 states to provide discretionary and 
targeted subsidies to new or relocating businesses – have become increasingly common in the 
United States, with many state governments in creasing their existing funding levels. Some 
economic development and fiscal policy experts in  the U.S criticize the very structure of deal 
closing funds, and state governments themselv es sometimes questions their effectiveness. 
 
1. Could the United States comment on the continuing need and existence of these funds in an improving economic climate and whether the United  States will exercise leadership in reducing 
these types of subsidy programs that distort investment decisions? 
 RESPONSE: WTO Members are permitted to pr ovide subsidies so long as they are not 
"prohibited" or cause "adverse effects" to  the trade interests of other Members, as 
defined under the Agreement on Subs idies and Countervailing Measures. The 
United States has historically been at the forefront in advocating for tougher rules to 
discipline the provision of industrial and fish eries subsidies. This was evidenced in the 
context of the Doha Rules negotiations du ring which the United States proposed a 
dramatic expansion of the "prohibited" catego ry of subsidies and a near total prohibition 
of fisheries subsidies. Unfortunately, thes e proposals did not receive the necessary 
support to move forward. (See, TN/RL/GEN/146, 5 June 2007; and, TN/RL/GEN/145, 
March 22, 20070.)   
Question 9.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5. Government Procur ement: paragraphs 3.166-8, page 85: 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 104 - 
 
  The Secretariat Report notes that for 2012, U.S. federal procurement contracts amounted to 
US$517.9 billion, of which the Department of Defence accounted for 70%. The report also states that the Buy American Act requires the federa l government to purchase domestic goods.  
 
1. Could the United States explain what percentage of non-military federal procurement is 
subject to Buy American restrictions?  
RESPONSE: 100% of goods procured by the Federal government is subject to the Buy 
American Act. The Buy American Act is waiv ed for eligible products in acquisitions 
covered by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and relevant free trade agreements (FTA). 
 
2. What percentage do build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts account for of the US$517.9 billion? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have  statistics on how frequently various 
contractual means, such as build-operate-transfer, are used in government 
procurements.  
3. Could the United States provide statistics of the value of procurement contracts conducted by state and local governments?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not have statistics on the value of procurement 
conducted by local governments or for th e states that are not covered by the 
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). Statistics on the procurement 
conducted by the 37 states covered by the GP A are included in the statistics that the 
United States submits to the WTO Co mmittee on Government Procurement. 
 
4. Could the United States indicate the amount in dollars of federal grants provided to other 
levels of government (e.g. state, municipal leve ls) for infrastructure? What percentage of those 
funds have Buy American requirements attached to them?  
RESPONSE: "Infrastructure" is a generic term, and the United States is not able to 
produce statistics on federal grants prov ided to other levels of government for 
"infrastructure." However, information on federal grants is available at 
http://www.grants.gov . 
 
5. Canada understands that most grants from the Department of Transport (DOT) and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have Buy Am erican obligations attached to them such that 
recipient entities (e.g. state and municipal level governments) must buy American-made products. Could the United States explain:  
a. The amount in dollars the federal government has transferred in the last 2 years to 
sub-central levels of government for infrastructure development? b. What percentage of those funds had Buy American provisions attached to them? 
c. How attaching Buy American provisions to such programs contributes to the United States' 
stated aim in paragraph 1.1 of their report of creating momentum for market-opening measures in international trade?  
 
RESPONSE: Information on grant programs can be found at http://www.grants.gov . 
Additional information on Department of Tran sportation grant programs can be found at 
http://www.dot.gov/grants ; and additional information on Environmental Protection 
Agency grant programs can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/home/grants-and-other-
funding-opportunities . 
  
The United States has one of the most open  and transparent procurement systems in the 
world. Like every other GPA member, the Unit ed States excludes certain procurements. 
The United States does not believe main taining exclusions under the GPA hinders 
creating momentum for market-opening meas ures in international trade. The United 
States strongly supports additional WTO me mbers joining the GPA and recognizes that 
flexibility on critical sensitivities is of ten the key to opening up other government 
procurement markets.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 105 - 
 
  6. According to the Organization for International Investment, Buy American measures have 
been either introduced or adopted in 21 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, 
New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vi rginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Could 
the United States confirm whether each of these states has adopted such restrictive practices? Are 
there other states not on this list that have adopted such practices?  
RESPONSE: The executive branch of the U.S. government does not oversee the 
legislative proposals introduc ed by members of the federa l or state legislatures. The 
United States is committed to ensuring its covered procurements are conducted 
consistent with U.S. international obligations.  
 
Question 10.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5. Government Procurement: paragraph 3.167, page 85: 
 The report refers to an upcoming "federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payment for 
purchases of goods and services." It adds that the "2% tax is to be applied to foreign entities not 
party to an international procurement agreement."  1. Could the United States confirm that suppl iers from GPA and NAFTA Parties will not be 
affected by this tax? 
 RESPONSE: The U.S Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. The Unit ed States is unable to provide details about 
the administration or interpretation of the legislation prior to the publication of these regulations. 
 
Question 11.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5. Government Procurement: paragraph 3.177, page 86: 
 
The report notes that part 13 of the FAR requires that a Federal government procurement of less than US$150,000 in value must be reserved for competition by small businesses under the 
Simplified Acquisition Procedure.  
 1. What is the total value and percentage of cont racts set aside for small business that fall into 
this category? 
 RESPONSE: SBA publishes a goaling report each  fiscal year. The goaling report does not 
provide that level of detail. Detailed reports may be pulled from the Federal 
Procurement Data System (FPDS) ( https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/ ), which is the 
government's official system for collecting,  developing and disseminating procurement 
data. It is available at: https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/ .  
 
2. Could the United States provide a definition of "small business"?  
RESPONSE: The definition of "small business" can be found at 13 CFR part 121, available 
at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=975f1ae5ff759d4a409c76fd7788750 
c&node=pt13.1.121&rgn=div5 . SBA also has a website with guides and other documents 
relating to small business size, which are available at:  
https://www.sba.gov/categor y/navigation-structure/contracting/contracting-
officials/small-business-size-standards .  
 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION : Canada thanks the United States for pointing to the relevant section of 
the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) website. We note that in a majority of subsectors, "small businesses" are defined as businesses employing up to 500 employees. For some 
subsectors, "small businesses" can even employ up  to 1,500 employees. What is the methodology 
for determining the specific definition of a sma ll business (e.g. average annual receipts or number 
of employees) for particular subsectors?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 106 - 
 
  FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE: The methodology SBA us es to establish its size standards can 
be found at 13 C.F.R. § 121.102, available at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=8f977d1ff101b9d5954ab9c6c95a 35d3&node=se13.1.121_1102&rgn=div8 . 
SBA's webpage also contains a White Paper expl aining the size standard methodology in 
further detail, available at https://www.sba.g ov/content/size-standards-methodology.  
 Further, each time SBA amends a size stan dard, it explains its methodology in the 
proposed rule. Recent and proposed change s to size standards can be found at: 
https://www.sba.gov/content/what%27s-new-with-size-standards .  
 
 
3. Could the United States confirm that contracts set aside for small businesses are reserved 
exclusively for U.S.-based small businesses? In ot her words, can foreign small businesses compete 
for such procurement contracts? 
 
RESPONSE: SBA's regulations define the term "business concern" as follows:  
(a)(1) a small business is a business entity  organized for profit, with a place of 
business located in the United States, an d which operates primarily within the 
United States or which makes a signific ant contribution to the U.S. economy 
through payment of taxes or use of Am erican products, materials or labor. 
 
13 C.F.R. § 121.105, available at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -bin/text-idx?SID= 
975f1ae5ff759d4a409c76fd778 8750c&node=pt13.1.121&rg n=div5#se13.1.121_1105 . 
 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION : Can the United States confirm that a small business from another WTO 
member that meets the applicable small business criteria for its subsector and otherwise meets 
the above definition of a "business concern" but fo r the fact that it primarily operates outside the 
United States, would not be eligible for procuremen ts contracts that have been set aside for small 
businesses by the federal government.  
 
RESPONSE: The regulation states that a sm all business is one that is organized for 
profit, has a place of business located in the United States and oper ates primarily within 
the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through 
payment of taxes or use of American produc ts, materials or labor. Whether a business 
qualifies as a small business is fact specific  (i.e., based on the individual set of facts 
pertaining to that business). In additi on, SBA's various socio-economic programs 
contain specific eligibility requirements in a ddition to the definition of small business 
concern set forth at 13 C.F.R. § 121.105.  Question 12.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5. Government Procurement: paragraph 3.177, page 86:  
The report notes that procurement below the US$150,000 threshold will also be set-aside for small 
businesses where there is a "reasonable expectation" that at least two responsive small businesses are able to provide the product/service competit ively in terms of market prices, quality and 
delivery.  
 1. How does the procuring entity determine what is a competitive market price? Is there guidance provided to procuring entities? If so, please provide a reference to such guidance. 
 
RESPONSE: FAR subpart 19.5 addresses the crit eria for setting aside procurements for 
small business. FAR section 19.502-2 provid es that the procuring official must 
determine that the award will be made at fair market prices. Price reasonableness 
through various means, including adequate pr ice competition, comparison to historical 
prices, comparison to the government estima te, and market research. See FAR sections 
19.202-6, 15.404-1(b). 
 2. How much discretion is accorded to procuring entities to determine whether these criteria have been met? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 107 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The decision whether to set asid e a procurement is a matter of business 
judgment within the contracting officer's disc retion. The decision must be reasonable.  
 Question 13.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5 Government Procurement: paragraph 177, page 86:  
The United States has commitments in its bilateral and regional free trade agreements for 
thresholds for goods and services procurement below the Simplified Acquisition Procedure threshold (see table 3.22 of the Secretariat report). For example, the thresholds for goods and services are of US$79,507 in the CAFTA and in FTAs with Australia, Chile, Colombia and Singapore. 
The thresholds for Canada, under the NAFTA, stand at US$25,000.  
 1. Could the United States confirm that the effective threshold for foreign suppliers from FTA 
countries for procurement of goods and services is therefore at a minimum US$150,000, given the 
Simplified Acquisition Procedure threshold of US$150,000?  
RESPONSE: The United States applies thre sholds consistent with its WTO GPA and 
FTA obligations.   2. Could the United States confirm that, by op eration of the small business set-aside and the 
Simplified Acquisition Procedure, the United St ates has effectively increased its procurement 
threshold for goods and services under these bilateral and regional FTAs to US$150,000?  
RESPONSE: The United States applies thre sholds consistent with its WTO GPA and 
FTA obligations.  
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION : In response to Canada's question number 11.2 (above), the United 
States indicated that, in order to be eligible to bid on contracts set aside for small businesses, the 
business must have "a place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through 
payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor." 
 Canada understands that by operation of th e small business set-aside and the Simplified 
Acquisition Procedure, only small businesses as defined by the SBA are eligible for government 
contracts valued at below US$150,000.  
 
Given this, is a foreign supplier, who operates primarily in a country with whom the United States 
has a bilateral free trade agreement, eligible to bid on federal procurement contracts that are valued below US$150,000?  
RESPONSE: Foreign suppliers are eligible to bid on federal procurement contracts 
consistent with obligations specified und er the specific free trade agreement.  
 
 
3. What assurances do WTO members, including GPA Parties, have that the Simplified Acquisition Procedure threshold of US$150,00 0 will not be increased in the future?  
 
RESPONSE : The United States is committed to ensuring its covered government 
procurement is conducted consistent with its obligations under the WTO GPA and its 
FTAs.  
 
Question 14.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5. Government Procurement: paragraph 3.178, page 87: 
 The report states that, under U.S. laws and ru les, all contracts over  US$650,000 (US$1.5 million 
for construction) must include a small business subcontracting plan so that small businesses can 
obtain work under these large contracts.  1. Are these sub-contracting plans voluntary or mandatory? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 108 - 
 
  RESPONSE: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 637(d), they are mandatory.  
 2. Could the United States indicate whether the place of establishment or the place of taxation of the small business is a criterion in determining its eligibility as a subcontractor under the 
subcontracting plan?  
 RESPONSE: To be considered a small business for purposes of either prime contracting 
or subcontracting, the entity must meet th e definition of "small business." See the 
above response to Question 11-3.  3. In relation to such contracts, are prime contractors encouraged to favour or prefer 
U.S. small businesses over foreign small business es in the development and implementation of 
sub-contracting plans? Can foreign small businesses qualify as a "small business"?  
RESPONSE: See response above.  
 4. Does the value of contracts reserved for small businesses (i.e. of the federal total 
percentage set aside for small businesses) include the value of sub-contracts awarded to small 
businesses under sub-contracting plans?  RESPONSE: Awards made to small business subcontractors do not count toward an 
agency's prime contracting goals, with one statutory exception relating to specific 
Department of Energy contracts.   
5. Could the United States confirm whether its exclusion of set-asides on behalf of a small or 
minority-owned business in its GPA and bilateral FTAs market access schedules applies to prime contracts that are required to submit a sub-contracting plan? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States believes the language in its market access exclusions to the WTO GPA and its FTAs is sufficiently clear.   
Question 15.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: 3.3. Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; 3.3.5. Government Procurement: paragraph 3.188, page 89: 
The report states that some 37 states participate in the GPA.  
 1. In 2008, Minnesota state legislature passed a statute requiring that it, in addition to the 
governor, give approval before the state may commit to any new international trade agreement's 
procurement provisions (Minnesota 2014 Chapter 116J.976, 2008 c 300 s.3). Could the United States confirm whether or not commitments entered into by the United States after this statute was enacted (2008) will be respected by Minnesota? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to ensuring its covered government procurement is conducted consistent with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on 
Government Procurement and its FTAs.  
 2. Could the United States outline what steps the federal government takes to ensure 
compliance by state governments? 
 RESPONSE: For those U.S. states subject to government procurement commitments under U.S. international obligations, the Office  of the U.S. Trade Representative engages 
with appropriate State officials regarding spec ific issues raised by our trading partners. 
 3. Could the United States provide a list of its states that have adopted either "buy American" 
or "buy local" restrictions and provide details on these restrictions for each state? 
 RESPONSE: The executive branch of the U.S. federal government does not oversee the 
legislative proposals introduc ed by members of the federa l or state legislatures. The 
United States is committed to ensuring its covered procurements are conducted 
consistent with U.S. international obligations.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 109 - 
 
  Question 16.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.1) Trade Context: paragraph 
3.194, page 91: 
 
Reviewing IP-related trade concerns, the ITC reported that content industries (including software, music, movies, books, and video games) identified internet piracy as "the single most important 
barrier to digital trade for their industries"; and that internet intermediaries expressed concerns 
about "unclear legal frameworks and being held liable for the infringing or illegal conduct of users of their systems".  
1. Could the United States elaborate on any concerns that internet intermediaries have raised 
regarding the current legal frameworks in the US?  
RESPONSE: Internet intermediaries are best able to elaborate on their views 
themselves. Additionally, the views of Internet  intermediaries are reported in the USITC 
report referenced in the question, as well as in a July 2013 greenpaper entitled 
"Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation  in the Digital Economy," authored by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce Internet Policy Ta sk Force. On March 13, 2014, as part of 
the review of copyright law described below in response to Question 22, the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Proper ty, and the Internet held a hearing on 
"Section 512 of Title 17" and heard testim ony from online service providers, content 
owners, and academics. Video, transcript an d written testimony from the hearing can be 
found at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cf m/hearings?ID=3A1D170D-D431-486F-
AEFA-3724B0D95AE9 . 
 
Question 17.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.2 ) Participation in WTO and 
International initiatives: paragraph 3.197, page 92:  
The Secretariat report notes that during the most  r e c e n t  r e v i e w  o f  U . S .  t r a d e  p o l i c i e s ,  o t h e r  
Members raised questions on "methodologies for assessing the contribution of IP to the economy, as well as on many patent issues (patent quality and pendency, unity of invention, litigation by 
non-practicing or patent assertion entities, humanitarian and green-technology initiatives, 
disclosure standards, remedies, post grant review, grace periods)…".  
Government Report – United States (G307): Part 8, Small and Medium-Sized Business Trade: 
paragraph 8.3, page 28:  The Government Report notes that "[s]everal aspects of U.S. trade policy have particular potential 
to help boost SME exports. These include enhancing trade facilitation work, strengthening and 
enforcing intellectual property rights, and targeting services barriers that are especially difficult for 
SMEs, such as requirements for staffing an office in each country to which companies wish to 
export." 
 Canada notes the rise of patent litigation, particularly by patent assertion entities, against 
innovative businesses in general, and specifically involving SMEs. Such litigation is often costly and 
slows the growth of the SMEs.   1. Could the United States provide information regarding the costs of patent litigation for SMEs 
and whether SMEs are able to recover these costs, including attorney fees, through U.S. courts? 
 RESPONSE: Congress required the Government  Accountability Office (GAO) to study the 
consequences of patent litigation by non-prac ticing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion 
entities (PAEs) in consultation with the USPTO. This study included the volume of 
litigation in the 20 years before enactment of  the AIA, the volume of cases which are 
found to be without merit after judicial review , the impact of litigation on the time to 
resolve patent claims, the costs with such  litigation, its economic impact on the 
U.S. economy and job creation, and any benefi ts created by NPEs or PAEs. The report, 
which was released in Augu st 2013, can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_ 
implementation/GAO-12-465_Final_R eport_on_ Patent_Litigation.pdf. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 110 - 
 
  Question 18.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.3) The Patent System: paragraph 
3.203, page 94-95: 
 
Following enactment of the Leahy-Smith Americ a Invents Act (AIA) in 2011168, significant 
regulatory and administrative reforms were required  to give effect to what was described as "the 
most significant reforms to the U.S. patent law in 60 years". 
 1. Could the United States detail its experience with the new Post-Grant Review Mechanisms introduced as part of the AIA Reforms? 
 
RESPONSE: For more information about the USPTO's experience with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, please see: http: //www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/index.jsp.   
 
Question 19. Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.3) The Patent System: paragraph 
3.204, page 95:  The report refers to a series of initiatives to bu ild on the AIA reforms with a view to improving the 
patent system, foster innovation and to protect innovators from "frivolous litigation". These 
include: a proposed rule on transparency to ensu re that records of patent ownership are accurate 
and up to date, and a crowdsourcing initiative to expand ways for identifying prior art relevant to 
determining the novelty of claimed inventions. 
 1. Could the United States clarify the status of the proposed rule on patent ownership 
transparency referenced in Paragraph 3.204? 
 RESPONSE: For more information about the status of attributable ownership, please see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_e vents/attributable_ownership.jsp .  
 
2. Could the United States clarify whether it is considering introducing other measures to protect businesses against "Frivolous [patent] Litigation", and if so, explain what they are? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States is in support of protecting the legitimate rights of patent 
holders. There are not any other measures at this time, other than the ones that were 
mentioned in Part III. 
 3. Could the United States clarify and provide de tails on the type of crowdsourcing initiatives 
that have been implemented to strengthen patent quality? 
 
RESPONSE: The USPTO held a roundtable on crowdsourcing on April 10, 2014 in Alexandria, VA and December 2, 2014 in New Yo rk City, NY to solicit public opinions 
regarding the use of crowdsourcing and third- party pre-issuance submissions to identify 
relevant prior art and enhance the quality of examination as well as the quality of issued 
patents. Members of the public were invited to participate. For more information about 
both events, please see 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_event s/crowdsourcing_roundtable_04-2014.jsp  
and http://www.uspto.gov/ patents/init_events/ 
crowdsourcing_roundtable_20141202.jsp. For more information about third party 
preissuance submissions, please see http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-
preissuance-submissions.jsp .  
 
4. Paragraphs 3.204(a) and (b) list some of the initiatives the Administration announced to 
build on the AIA reforms. Could the United States provide a description of any additional measures or initiatives taken or contemplated to strengthen patent quality? 
 
RESPONSE: For more information about pa tent quality initiatives, please see 
http://www.uspto.gov/patent s/law/pep-00014program.jsp .  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 111 - 
 
  Question 20.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.3) The Patent System: paragraph 
3.206, page 95: 
 
The report refers to several significant Suprem e Court decisions involving the issue of patent-
eligible subject matter, including Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics and Alice 
Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. 
 1. Could the United States clarify whether it anticipates there will be a government response to the changes to patentable subject matter eligibilit y made as a result of the two Supreme Court 
cases, and if so, please provide details on the response? 
 RESPONSE: The latest Patent Examination Guid elines released by the USPTO on Myriad 
can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent s/law/exam/myriad_20130613.pdf . The 
latest Patent Examination Guidelines on Alice can be found at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/a lice_pec_25jun2014.pdf. More detailed 
Examination Guidelines will be released at a future date. 
 Question 21.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.4) Trade Secret Protection: 
paragraph 3.207, page 95-96:  
The report refers to the Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets in 2013, which lays 
out a series of steps to curb the theft of trad e secrets. While civil enforcement is principally 
addressed through state law, criminal enforcement is  principally governed by Federal law, e.g., the 
Economic Espionage Act. 
 1. Could the United States provide information,  including statistics, regarding the impact of 
enhanced domestic law enforcement and enhanced remedies for theft of trade secrets in the U.S., 
and how, if at all, enhanced enforcement and remedies has impacted theft of trade secrets 
involving non-US actors. If the U.S. does not have an y information, can it describe how, if at all, it 
plans to measure the effectiveness of enhanced enforcement and remedies? 
 
RESPONSE: The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation each issue an annual report to Congress pursuant  to the PRO-IP Act, describing their 
IP enforcement efforts, including statistica l information of various types and summaries 
of recent, significant IP prosecutions. The PRO-IP Act reports covering the past year 
should be completed and rele ased in the near future. 
 
Question 22.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectual Property Righ ts; (3.3.6.5) Copyright: paragraph 3.210, 
page 97: 
 The report notes that the U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 
Property and the Internet is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law to 
ensure that current law keeps pace with the digital environment.  1. Could the United States clarify the timeline for completing this review, and the expected 
outcomes of the review, including whether it may include proposed legislative reforms? 
 RESPONSE: Beginning in the spring of 2013, the House Subcommittee on Courts, 
Intellectual Property, and the Internet has he l d  a  s e r i e s  o f  h e a r i n g s  t o  r e v i e w  t h e  
current state of U.S. copyright laws. Hous e Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte 
announced the hearings in response to Regi ster of Copyrights and Director of the 
U.S. Copyright Office Maria A. Pallante's te stimony in a March 20, 2013 hearing entitled 
"The Register's Call for Updates to the U.S.  Copyright Act." There, the Register urged 
Congress to take a comprehensive and informed approach to copyright review over the next few years. As of December, 2014, there have been a total of eighteen copyright 
review hearings, including Register Pallante's initial hearing. The hearings have been on WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 112 - 
 
  a variety of issues related to the U.S. copy right system including the role of voluntary 
agreements, the scope of fair use, preserva tion and reuse of copyrighted works, music 
licensing, and resale royalties, among ot hers. There is no specific timeline for 
completing the review, and future hearings have not yet been announced, but they are 
anticipated to resume in 2015. At this point, it is premature to pred ict specific outcomes, 
but some legislation is likely to be considered.   
 
Question 23.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectual Property Righ ts; (3.3.6.5) Copyright: paragraph 3.216, 
page 98: 
 
The report refers to the Supreme Court's consider ation of several significant copyright questions 
during the review period, including Kirtsaeng v. Jo hn Wiley & Sons, Inc., on the application of the 
"first sale" doctrine to textbooks published abro ad with the copyright holder's consent and then 
imported into the United States for sale.  
1. Could the United States elaborate on the impact of the Supreme Court's treatment of 
parallel imports in the Kirtsaeng decision, particularly how stakeholders have reacted and whether a government response to the decision is anticipated, including possible legislative amendments, and if so, please provide details on the response? 
 
RESPONSE: The Supreme Court's decision in Kirtsaeng  applied the "first sale" doctrine to 
books that are legitimately purchased ab road and then imported and sold in the 
United States without the copyright holder's authorization. The Court acknowledged that 
its decision made it difficult for publishers and other copyright holders to divide foreign 
and domestic markets, but it viewed that issue as a policy concern for Congress to 
decide.
2 
 As of this writing, there are no legislativ e proposals pending in Congress that address 
the treatment of parallel imports under U.S.  law (either in response to the Supreme 
Court's decision in Kirtsaeng or otherwise) . While noting that it is impossible to 
completely capture and/or accurately characterize th e full range of stakeholder 
reactions to the Kirtsaeng decision, a re presentative sample of some stakeholder 
reactions can be found in the public co mments received by the Department of 
Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force in re sponse to its Green Paper on Copyright 
Policy, Creativity and Innovation in the Di gital Economy. At least fourteen of the 
111 comments received in response to the Green Paper directly address the Kirtsaeng 
decision. Those comments are gathered here: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/ 
copyrights/green_paper_public_comments.jsp . 
 
• Specific organizations commenting on the decision included: American Free Trade 
Association, Association of American Pu blishers, Computer and Communications 
Industry Association, Internet Assoc iation, National Music Publishers 
Association, Software and Information In dustry Association, Copyright Alliance, 
Owners Rights Initiative, Intellectual Pr operty Owners Association, ScreenPlay, 
Inc., Global Intellectual Property Center , Public Knowledge, Stanford Center for 
Internet and Society and Electronic Frontier Foundation.  
 
• In addition, we can report that the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 
Property and the Internet held a hearing June 2, 2014 entitled "First Sale Under 
Title 17" at which the Kirtsaeng decisi on and a range of other issues were 
discussed. A video of that hearing can be accessed here: http ://judiciary.house. 
gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A3494657-04C2-4B9E-8027-B72783516C61. A 
transcript of the hearing can be fo und here: http://judi ciary.house.gov/ 
index.cfm/hearings?ID=A3494657-04C2-4B9E-8027-B72783516C61.  
 
                                               
2 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1370 (2013). WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 113 - 
 
  Question 24.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.7) IP Enforcement: paragraph 
3.219, page 99: 
 
The report notes that coordination and effectiveness of mechanisms to enforce IP rights both domestically and in foreign markets remain a major policy concern for the United States and that 
the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) issued the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on 
Intellectual Property Enforcement, highlighting developments in enforcement since 2009, in particular increases in arrests, convictions, indi ctments, health and safety-focused investigations, 
and seizures. 
 
1. To what does the U.S. attribute such drastic increases in enforcement for new cases, arrests, convictions, and indictments by ICE-HIS; for investigations and related arrests by the FBI; 
and seizures of infringing imports in the 4 years between 2013 and 2009?  
 RESPONSE: A number of factors contribute  to changes in the numbers of open 
investigations, arrests, convictions, sentence s, and other enforcement figures. Available 
data suggest that IP crimes of various types continued to increase during the period in 
question. However, the substantial increases in the enforcement figures cited are certainly attributable at least in part, to policy decisions, such as changes in 
enforcement priorities or resources devoted to  particular types of IP crime, as well to 
improved efficiencies and better cooperatio n among law enforcement agencies working 
on IP, and increased awareness and reporting o f  I P  c r i m e s  ( S h o r t e r  t e r m  c h a n g e s  i n  
enforcement figures may also simply reflect cy clical factors in the criminal enforcement 
process, e.g. a spike in convictions som e months after a spike in arrests.). 
 
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attributes the increase in enforcement 
efforts to the interagency collaboration and de-confliction through the National 
Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Cent er (National IPR Center). The National IPR 
Center was originally founded in 1999 by the former U.S. Customs Service and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  In 2008, the National IPR Center was 
restructured at a new state-of-the-art fa cility, with membership consisting of 
two components from DHS – U.S. Immigr ation and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
– as well as the FBI, the U.S. Postal Insp ections Service, the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration, and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Following its reinvigoration, the 
membership of the National IPR Center has grown to incorporate U.S. federal agencies 
with IP enforcement and administration equi ties as well as foreign partners. Through 
these partnerships, the U.S. Government has become more effective in its investigation 
of intellectual property theft and trade fraud. By emphasizing collaboration and 
partnership, the National IPR Center has tran sformed how IP infringement is discovered 
and investigated.   
An ICE HSI Director heads the National IPR Ce nter, with Deputy Directors from HSI, the 
FBI and CBP. Currently, there are 23 partner ag encies that collaborate under the auspice 
of the National IPR Center including INTERP OL, Europol, and the governments of Canada 
and Mexico. Under this task force setting, th e National IPR Center efficiently leverages 
the resources, skills, and authorities of ea ch participating agency to provide a 
comprehensive response to inte llectual property theft, while stressing the importance of 
active participation, de-confliction and information sharing. National IPR Center 
personnel also frequently engage as IP in fringement and trade fraud subject matter 
experts in capacity-building programs spon sored by the U.S. Department of State, 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (G lobal Intellectual Pr operty Academy), 
U.S. Department of Justice, INTERPOL , and the World Customs Organization. 
 Importantly, the National IPR Center also wo rks closely with right holders, domestic 
companies, and trade associations, who ar e deeply impacted by these types of 
crimes. The National IPR Center is the federal government's clearinghouse for investigations into violations of intellectua l property rights, including counterfeiting and 
piracy. In addition to receiving leads fr om its partners and other law enforcement 
agencies, the National IPR Center solicits inpu t from victims, witne sses, and public and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 114 - 
 
  private organizations and uses this informat ion to analyze, process, and de-conflict 
referrals to ensure that the appropriate partner agency can examine and potentially 
investigate the complaint.  
2. Could the United States provide examples of "private sector 'best practice' initiatives" by 
each of financial service providers, on-line mark ets, Internet service providers and advertisers, 
and have these initiatives been effective, if so, how? 
 
RESPONSE: On June 20, 2013 the United States issued a request for public comment on voluntary private sector initiatives regardin g IPR protection and enforcement, and is 
currently in the process of evaluating those response. In light of this on-going review, 
the United States is not in a position to prov ide an evaluation of such initiatives at this 
time.  
3. Could the United States clarify whether a connection exists between the voluntary private 
sector best practice initiatives and the increase in government enforcement, and if so, provide details on how these two are connected? 
 
RESPONSE: U.S. government IPR enforcement ac tions are distinct from voluntary private 
sector initiatives.   
Question 25. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectua l Property Rights; (3.3.6.7) IP Enforcement: paragraph 
3.220, page 99: 
 The report notes that alongside a range of domestic measures, the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan 
identified a series of action for enforcing U.S. rights abroad by means of foreign law enforcement 
cooperation.  1. Could the United States elaborate on specific measures taken to combat foreign websites 
that infringe U.S. IP rights, including how jurisdictional issues are addressed? 
 RESPONSE: The United States can pursue criminal copyright enforcement where 
infringing conduct is committed within U.S. jurisdiction, including the distribution of 
infringing copies of copyrighted materials into  the United States. Therefore, operators of 
websites which distribute infringing content into the United States may be subject to 
criminal prosecution in the U.S. Obtaining per sonal jurisdiction over such defendants, as 
well as locating and obtaining evidence ne cessary for prosecution , can be especially 
difficult where a defendant is located abro ad, which is among the reasons the United 
States law enforcement will generally seek to  work with their counterparts in foreign 
law enforcement to share info rmation and to encourage prosecution in the jurisdiction 
most appropriate to a particular case.  
The United States has taken several specific measures to combat foreign websites that 
infringe upon U.S. IP rights. One measure is  Operation Pangea, which is a joint global 
operation focused on targeting websites offering illicit and potentially dangerous 
substances to U.S. and foreign consumers. In 2012, the operation resulted in the 
shutdown of more than 18,000 illegal pharmacy websites.  The U.S. Trade Representative's Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets 
also identifies specific markets, including online markets, around the world that are 
assessed as causing particular economic ha rm to U.S. businesses and workers through 
IP infringement. The 2013 review identified 23 online markets, and several markets on 
the list have taken action to  address concerns. The 2014 review is currently underway.  
 U.S. law enforcement officials, including o fficials from U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, Homeland Security Invest igations, and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, are stationed overseas and facilitate cooperation with foreign law 
enforcement to target IP infringement within their jurisdictions. These efforts have resulted in foreign law enforcement taking in vestigative action and seizing servers that 
host illegal content in the countries in which they are located. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 115 - 
 
   
International law enforcement cooperation is a critical element to achieving the overall 
goal of combating counterfeiting, piracy, and trade secret theft. The global nature of 
these crimes demands that U.S. law enforc ement agencies develop relationships with 
international counterparts. As such, the Nati onal IPR Center has four international law 
enforcement partners which include the Ro yal Canadian Mounted Police, the Mexican 
Tax Administration Service, INTERPOL and Eu ropol. Further, law enforcement officials 
from ICE-HSI and FBI are stationed overseas and facilitate cooperation with foreign law 
enforcement to target intellectual proper ty infringement occurring within the 
jurisdiction of both the United States and th at of the foreign partner. This cooperation 
has resulted in both U.S. and foreign law enforcement officials taking investigative 
action and seizing servers that host infringing  content in the countries in which they are 
located, as well as more traditional law en forcement measures – such as seizing and 
forfeiting counterfeit merchandise and piratical works and assets derived from the 
proceeds of IP infringement. 
 In addition to these efforts, the U.S. In tellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 
(IPEC) has supported voluntary initiatives by the private sector with the goal of 
reducing the ability of foreign and domestic websites from targeting U.S. consumers. 
IPEC has worked with internet service provid ers, advertisers, credit card companies, 
payment processors, search engines, doma in name registrars, and registries to 
encourage voluntary initiative s to reduce infringement.  
 Question 26.  
Part IV – Trade policies by Sector, 4.1 Agricu lture, 4.1.1 Agricultur al Act of 2014, 4.1.1.1 
Overview, paragraph 4.3, page 102  
The report indicates that three old programs (direct and countercyclical payments, and ACRE 
program) have been replaced by two new measures, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC).  
1. The 2014 Farm Bill introduces two new programs for producers to choose - the PLC and 
ARC. Could the United States provide information on the enrollment rates for each program?  
RESPONSE: Enrollment data will not be ava ilable until mid- to late-2015. Key ARC/PLC 
action dates for landowner and producer decisions are as follows: 
--Base Reallocation/Yield Updating—Lan downers can update their yields and 
reallocate bases between September 29, 2014 and February 27, 2015. 
--Program Election—Producers can choose  among ARC-County, ARC-Individual, 
and PLC between November 17, 2014 and March 31, 2015. This is a one-time election that will be in effect through the 2018 crop. 
--Program Enrollment—Producers must enroll annually. The first enrollment 
period (for 2014 and 2015 crops) is mid-April 2015 through the summer (no exact dates yet). 
 
Question 27.  Part IV – Trade Policies by Sector: 4.1 Agricu lture; 4.1.1 Agricultur al Act of 2014; 4.1.1.1 
Overview; paragraphs 4.8, page 103 
 The 2014 Farm Bill introduced the Dairy Product Donation Program, a CCC dairy product purchase 
programme for distribution to low-income people in times of low margins (US$4/cwt or below).  
 
1. Could the United States specify how the government purchase and distribution of dairy products will take place, and whether there will be a cap on total purchases made under this 
program? 
 RESPONSE: USDA will determin e the types and quantities of products that will be 
purchased, in consultation with public or private nonprofit organizations and State and 
local agencies eligible to  receive such products. 
 Dairy product market conditions, logistical co nsiderations involved in the efficient and 
immediate distribution of the dairy produc ts, the potential effect on markets and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 116 - 
 
  margins, and time constraints will be consid ered. Approved quanti ties for a month will 
not exceed the amount of product that may be effectively distributed without waste. 
Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP) purc hases cannot be stored by or for USDA, 
and USDA cannot incur storage costs on beha lf of recipient agencies for the dairy 
products. The purchase price of products will be the prevailing market price for like 
dairy products for private buyers as dete rmined by the normal procurement methods 
used to procure foods for USDA's Food and Nutrition Service domestic food assistance 
programs. 
 Regulations for the existing USDA Food an d Nutrition Service (FNS) programs will 
govern how the products will be distributed.  Public or private nonprofit organizations 
that receive DPDP products may transfer those  products to other nonprofits only if the 
transferee will likewise distribute to domestic  low-income recipients without cost or 
waste, consistent with existing FNS regula tions. FNS regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(d)(1) 
provide that donated foods "be distributed on ly to recipient agencies and individual 
recipients eligible to receive them" und er applicable program regulations. FNS 
regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(a)(1)(ii) prov ide that donated foods "not be sold, 
exchanged or otherwise disposed of withou t the approval of the Department."  
 Question 28.  Part IV - Trade Policies by Sector: 4.1 Agricu lture; 4.1.1 Agricultur al Act of 2014; 4.1.1.1 
Overview; paragraph 4.9, page 104 
 The report suggests that, under new Farm Bill, the move from decoupled direct payments to 
deficiency-payment type instruments linked to curre nt prices could potentially cause an increase in 
trade and production distortions.   
1. Could the United States please elaborate on this? 
 
RESPONSE: The new programs make payments when prices or revenue decline, but they continue to be decoupled from actual farm  production decisions. Because producers 
cannot increase their payments as a result of  current planting deci sions, plantings would 
be based on market incentives.   
Question 29.  
Part IV - Trade Policies by Sector: 4.1 Agricu lture; 4.1.1 Agricultur al Act of 2014; 4.1.2.2 
Price Loss Coverage; paragraph 4.13, page 105 
 
The report indicates that deficiency payments are provided under the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 
programme when commodity prices fall below a "reference price".  
1. Could the United States please explain how these reference prices are calculated?  
 RESPONSE: The reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program were 
established by Congress and mandated in the 2014 Farm Bill.  
 Question 30. 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; 4.2 Serv ices; 4.2.5 Maritime Transport; 4.2.5.2 
Institutional and Legal Framewo rk: paragraph 4.141, page 143: 
 The report indicates the United States reserves, through the Jones Act, cabotage to ships that 
meet the requirement that three-quarters of crew be U.S. citizens.  
 1. What is the limit on foreign ownership of coastwise qualified and non-coastwise qualified 
U.S. registered vessels? 
 RESPONSE: Foreign persons may own up to a 25% interest in a coastwise qualified 
vessel owner. There is no fo reign equity limitation for non-coastwise qualified vessels, 
however, the chief executive and a majori ty of the board of directors must be 
U.S. citizens.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 117 - 
 
  2. Which part(s) of the quarter of the crew of the vessel that does not have to be U.S. citizens 
are included – are they all seafarers or are some at the office/master level?  RESPONSE: Generally, only U.S. citizens ma y serve as master, chief engineer, radio 
officer, or officer in charge of a deck wa tch or engineering watch on a U.S.-documented 
vessel. Unlicensed seamen must be U.S. citi zens, lawfully admitted permanent residents, 
or foreign nationals enrolled in the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Not more than 25% 
of the total number of unlicensed seamen on the vessel may be lawfully admitted 
permanent residents.  Question 31.  
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; 4.2 Serv ices; 4.2.5 Maritime Transport; 4.2.5.2 
Institutional and Legal Framewo rk: paragraph 4.143, page 143: 
 
The report indicates that waivers of the provisions of the Jones Act may be requested. 
 1. What conditions must be met, or not exist,  in order for MARAD to issue a waiver for small 
passenger vessels registered outside the US? 
 RESPONSE: A waiver of foreign build will be gr anted for an eligible vessel only if MARAD 
determines that the employment of the ve ssel in the coastwise trade will not unduly 
adversely affect U.S. vessel builders or th e coast trade business of any person who 
employs vessels built in the United States in that business.  
2. Are there crew or work permit requirements imposed on those vessels? 
 RESPONSE: Small passenger vessel waivers do not waive any documentation, vessel 
manning or vessel inspection requirements.  
 3. Are there safety and pollution prevention re quirements or inspections required before a 
waiver is issued? 
 
RESPONSE: The waiver is only of the U.S.-bu ild requirement. A sma ll passenger vessel is 
still subject to U.S. vessel inspection requirements. 
 
Question 32.  Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; 4.2 Serv ices; 4.2.5 Maritime Transport; 4.2.5.2 
Institutional and Legal Framewo rk: paragraph 4.145, page 144: 
 The report indicates that the United States has bilateral maritime agreements in effect with Brazil, China, Russia, and Vietnam. 
 
1. Is market access provided in these agreements, or do they simply affirm that services will 
be made available at ports? 
 
RESPONSE: Provisions related to market a ccess are found in each of the agreements, 
although the scope and nature of these provisions vary. The text of the agreements may 
be found at:  
http://www.marad.dot.gov/about_us_landing_p age/international_ac tivities/internatio
nal_agreements/International_Agreements.htm . WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 118 - 
 
  CHILE 
  Documentos: WT/TPR/S/307 y WT/TPR/G/307 
 
WT/TPR/S/307  
2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
 2.4 Corrientes y Regímenes de Inversión 2.4.2 Promoción de las Inversiones 
- Párrafo 2.49 indica que los EE.UU. siguen desarrollando y promoviendo su programa SelectUSA, 
que presta servicios directamente a las empresas qu e estén considerando la posibilidad de invertir 
en los EE.UU. y colabora con las ciudades y Estados a fin de apoyar sus iniciativas para atraer 
inversiones. A su vez, el Informe señala que el presidente Obama amplió y mejoró el programa 
inicial el año 2013.  
PREGUNTA 1: Chile agradecería a los Estados Unidos indicar ¿qué servicios proporciona 
SelectUSA a las empresas que estén considerando la posibilidad de invertir en los Estados Unidos?, 
así como también ¿cómo este programa fue ampliado y mejorado el año 2013?  
RESPONSE: SelectUSA provides a variety of se rvices to help facilitate, accelerate, and 
retain business investment in the United St ates. These include a one-stop-shop resource 
for economic, regulatory, and other informat ion relevant to investing in the United 
States; assistance identifying and utilizing av ailable Federal programs and services; and 
connecting businesses to partners or reso urces at state and local levels. A full 
description of the services offere d by SelectUSA is available at 
http://selectusa.commerce.gov. In 2013, President Obama expanded and enhanced the 
SelectUSA program, including by, among ot her things, enhancing coordination with 
regional, state, and local economic developm ent organizations; expanding outreach to 
prospective investors from econ omies with the largest potent ial for investment into the 
United States; and creating a single point-of-c ontact for investors ready to invest in the 
United States.   
2.4.3 Reglamentaciones y Restricci ones en Materia de Inversiones 
2.4.3.1 Comité de Inversiones Extran jeras en los Estados Unidos (CFIUS) 
- Párrafo 2.52 indica que el Comité de Inversiones Extranjeras en los Estados Unidos sigue 
examinando las transacciones de inversión extranjera "abarcadas" para determinar si constituyen 
una amenaza para la seguridad nacional. Por su parte, señala que una transacción "abarcada" es aquella en que la fusión, adquisición o absorción de una empresa hace que una persona o entidad que realiza operaciones comerciales interestatales en los Estados Unidos quede sometida al control 
extranjero.  
 PREGUNTA 2: Chile agradecería a los Estados Unidos indicar los criterios utilizados para 
determinar si una determinada transacción abarcada constituye una amenaza para la seguridad 
nacional.  
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determinin g whether a transaction raises national 
security concerns, and a general description of  the types of transactions that CFIUS has 
reviewed and that have presented national se curity considerations is available in the 
official guidance that Treasury pub lished on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  
(and available on our webpage at : http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign -investment/ Documents/CFIU SGuidance.pdf). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in statutes, execut ive orders, regulations, and in the guidance 
document noted above, all of which ar e available at www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
 2.4.3.2 Programa Nacional de Seguridad Industrial (NISP) 
- Párrafo 2.55 establece que el Programa Nacional de Seguridad Industrial se ejecuta a través de 
un reglamento conocido como Manual de Instrucciones del Programa antes mencionado, que obliga a los contratistas a impedir el uso indebido de la información confidencial. Señala que el Manual antes mencionado contiene disposiciones relativas a ciertas transacciones de inversión 
extranjera.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 119 - 
 
  PREGUNTA 3: Chile agradecería a los Estados Unidos especificar ¿a qué transacciones de 
inversión extranjera se les aplica el Manual de Instrucciones del Programa Nacional de Seguridad 
Industrial?  
RESPONSE: The National Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) pertains to 
foreign investment transactions when a U.S. company has contracts which require 
access to classified information. National security information (classified information)
3 
to which the NISP applies: 
 
a. "Top Secret": applied to information,  the unauthorized disclosure of which 
reasonably could be expect to cause exce ptionally grave damage to the national 
security. 
b. "Secret": applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which 
reasonably could be expected to cause se rious damage to the national security. 
c. "Confidential": applied to informatio n, the unauthorized disclosure of which 
reasonably could be expected to caus e damage to the national security. 
 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de salvaguardia 3.1.7.1 Medidas antidumping y compensatorias - Párrafo 3.63 dice que la definición y los requisitos de certificación de la información fáctica, 
relacionado con los procedimientos de investigación, han sido modificados. 
 PREGUNTA 4: ¿Podría Estados Unidos dar mayor informació n en cuanto a la nueva definición y los 
requerimientos de certificación de la información fáctica? 
 RESPONSE: As indicated in footnote 57 of the Secretariat's report, this rule was notified 
to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures in document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.14 (dated July 29, 2013). Further information can be found 
there.  
 
- Párrafo 3.68 establece que las investigaciones en el año 2013 fueron en su mayoría (33 de un total de 35) relacionadas con los productos de acero. 
 
PREGUNTAS 5: ¿Este antecedente responde a un acontecimiento particular de ese año específico 
o reflejan una situación de carácter global? ¿Estas medidas guardan alguna relación entre sí? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with the 
applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to petition filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual determination of whether dumping exists 
and whether dumped imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a 
domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a 
factual determination of whether counterva ilable subsidies exists and whether such 
subsidized imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic 
industry. Where dumped/subsidized imports, and material injury caused by such 
imports have been found, the United St ates will impose an antidumping or 
countervailing duty measure, as applicable.   3.1.7.2 Exámenes por Extinción 
- Párrafo 3.72 señala que el número de órdenes revocadas en los últimos ocho años ha tendido a 
disminuir significativamente.   
PREGUNTAS 6:  ¿Existe alguna razón en particular de por qué se ha dado esta disminución? 
¿Estados Unidos ha evaluado hacer un cambio a los procedimientos del Departamento de Comercio 
y la Comisión de Comercio Internacional de los Estados Unidos (USITC) para la determinación del 
mantenimiento o revocación de los derechos? 
 
                                               
3 Source: Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information”, December 29, 2009. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 120 - 
 
  RESPONSE: In determining whether revocati on of a countervailing duty order or an 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to  continuation or recurrence of material 
injury within a reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). In determining 
whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or an antidumping duty order would 
be likely to lead to continuati on or recurrence of a counte rvailable subsidy or sales of 
the subject merchandise at less than fair value, the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(Commerce) considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S. C. §§ 1675a(b) and (c), 
respectively.   The determinations in each sunset review  conducted by the USITC and Commerce are 
case-specific. The results for all sunset re views can be found on the USITC's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/). From this website Chile can obtain, on a case-by-case basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation or 
termination of a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty order. 
 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
3.3.6.1 Contexto comercial 
- Párrafo 3.194 cita información entregada por la Comisión de Comercio Internacional de los Estados Unidos (USITIC), quien habría indicado que los intermediarios de Internet estaban preocupados por "la falta de claridad de los marcos jurídicos y por que (sic) se los consideraba 
responsables de las infracciones o conductas ilegales de los usuarios de sus sistemas". 
 PREGUNTA 7 : ¿De qué manera Estados Unidos piensa hacer frente a este problema? 
 
RESPONSE: The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and regulations promulgated 
under the DMCA provide legal frameworks governing potential liability for Internet 
Service Providers. Additional guidance is pr ovided via court decisions, consistent with 
the U.S. system of common law jurisprudence.  These questions were also the subject of 
a policy discussion that can be found in a July 2013 greenpaper entitled "Copyright 
Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy," authored by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force. 
 3.3.6.3 Sistema de Patentes 
- Este año, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International resolvió 
una cuestión relacionada con la materia susceptible  de ser patentada (patent eligibility) en materia 
de reivindicaciones relativas a programas de computador (software) en el área de los servicios 
financieros, determinando que las ideas abstractas no eran susceptibles de ser patentadas. 
Teniendo en cuenta la fuerte defensa que Estados Unidos siempre ha manifestado en orden a proteger el software por la vía de patentes.   
PREGUNTAS 8:  ¿Cuáles son los efectos de esta decisión de la Corte Suprema respecto de la 
política de EEUU de seguir protegiendo el software por medio de patentes? ¿Cuáles son los 
cambios que esta decisión ha introducido o va a introducir en los procedimientos de concesión de 
patentes en el USPTO? ¿Cuáles son las limitaciones que esta decisión de la Corte Suprema 
introduce respecto del patentamiento del software? ¿Cuál se prevé sería el efecto de esta decisión en la industria del software en EE.UU.? 
 
RESPONSE: Preliminary Examinat ion Guidelines in view of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. 
CLS Bank International, et al. , are provided on the USPTO website at the following: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/a nnounce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf. 
 
- De acuerdo al 35 U.S. Code § 285 - Attorney fees, en casos excepcionales los tribunales de distrito (district court) pueden resolver sobre el pago del honorario de abogados a la parte 
ganadora. Esta breve norma de la ley fue restringida a ciertas demandas presentadas de mala fe y 
sin fundamento (Brooks Furniture Mfg. Inc., v Du taillier International Inc.), lo que fue modificado por un concepto más amplio en Octane Fitne ss, LLC v. ICON Health & FItness, Inc. 
 
PREGUNTA 9: ¿Por qué la ley y la jurisprudencia de Es tados Unidos limita el derecho a demandar 
el pago de los honorarios de abogados de la parte perdedora en juicio por infracción de patentes, 
evitando que aquellos que han sido llevado a un ju icio no puedan demandar el reembolso de los 
honorarios de abogados, lo que puede resultar muy oneroso para pequeñas y medianas empresas?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 121 - 
 
  RESPONSE: 35 U.S.C. Section 285 provides  that the court may award reasonable 
attorney fees to the prevailing party "in exceptional cases." In Octane Fitness v. Icon 
Health & Fitness  (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that whether a case is 
"exceptional" for purposes of the statute was to be determined on a case-by-case basis, 
considering the totality of the circumstances. 
 The United States just completed and implemen ted this year an impo rtant reform in its 
patent system, but informal sources have indi cated that a new reform of the system is 
foreseen for 2015.   - Estados Unidos acaba de completar e implementar una importante reforma a su sistema de 
patentes este año, pero fuentes informales han indicado que se prepararía una nueva reforma al 
sistema para el año 2015.  
PREGUNTAS 10: ¿Qué tan cierto es que Estados Unidos prepara una nueva reforma al sistema de 
patentes para el 2015? De ser cierto, ¿cuáles serían los elementos principales de esa reforma? 
 
RESPONSE: Given the prospective nature of this question, the United States is not in a 
position to provide detailed or definitive  answer. The Administration is currently 
evaluating possible patent reforms. Legisl ation has been introduced in the current 
Congress, but has not yet been passed. A new session of Congress will begin in 2015, at 
which time Members of Congress may introduce pa tent reform legislation. It is too early 
to know the principal elements of any possible legislation.   
- Párrafo 3.202. 
 PREGUNTA 11:  Agradeceríamos mayor información relacionada con la Oficina de Garantía de la 
Calidad de las Patentes (OPQA), especialmente lo relacionado con sus atribuciones, organización 
interna y dependencia.  RESPONSE: The Office of Patent Quality Assu rance reviews work product of examiners in 
all Technology Centers (TCs), assesses the le vel of quality for Office Actions across the 
corps, and provide upper management with a quality measure for all TCs. With respect 
to internal organization and reporting st ructure, we have provided the following 
diagram of Office of the Deputy Commi ssioner Patent Examination Quality. 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
- Párrafo 3.203 hace referencia a la promulgación de la Ley Leahy Smith sobre Invenciones (AIA).  
 PREGUNTA 12:  Agradeceríamos mayor información sobre el proceso vinculado al examen 
posterior a la concesión de la patente, especialmente en torno a los fines de dicho examen. 
 RESPONSE: Procedures for reexamination of i ssued patents began on July 1, 1981, the 
date when the reexamination provisions of Public Law 96- 517 came into effect. The 
reexamination statute and rules permit  a n y  p e r s o n  t o  f i l e  a  r e q u e s t  f o r  
WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 122 - 
 
  an ex parte reexamination containing cert ain elements and the fee required under 
37 CFR 1.20(c)(1). The Office initially determ ines if "a substantial new question of 
patentability" (35 U.S.C. 303(a)) is presen ted. If such a new question has been 
presented, reexamination will be ordered. The reexaminatio n proceedings which follow 
the order for reexamination are similar to regular examination procedures in patent 
applications; however, there are notable di fferences. For exampl e, there are certain 
limitations as to the kind of rejections wh ich may be made, special reexamination forms 
to be used, and time periods set to provide "special dispatch." When the prosecution of 
a reexamination proceeding is terminated, a reexamination certificate is issued which 
indicates the status of all claims following  the reexamination. Unless prosecution is 
reopened by the Director, the reexamination proceeding is concluded by the issuance 
and publication of a reexamination certificate. 
 3.3.6.4 Protección del Secreto Comercial 
- Párrafo 3.207 se vincula con la protección del secreto comercial. 
 PREGUNTA 13:  Agradeceríamos una clarificación respecto a si ¿dichas iniciativas incluyen la 
protección de la información no divulgada según lo indicado en el párrafo 3 del artículo 39 del 
Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC?  RESPONSE: As a member of the World Trad e Organization (WTO) and a party to the 
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of In tellectual-Property Rights (TRIPS), the 
United States is obligated to provide trad e secret protection. Article 39 paragraph 2 
requires member nations to provide a means for protecting information that is secret. 
Natural and legal persons in member nati ons have the opportunity of protecting 
information, so long as the information is secret, has commercial value because it is secret, and has been reasonably safeguarded from public disclosure. The United States 
fulfills its obligation by offering trade secr et protection under state laws. While state 
laws differ, there is similarity among the la ws because almost all states have adopted 
some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  
3.3.6.5 Derecho de Autor 
- Párrafo 3.210, dice relación con el examen qu e se encuentra siendo llevado a cabo por el 
Subcomité de Tribunales, Propiedad Intelectual e Internet de la Cámara de Representantes. 
 
PREGUNTA 14 : Agradeceríamos mayor información sobre el estado de este proceso y los 
resultados que se esperan de este proceso. 
 
RESPONSE: Beginning in the spring of 2013, the House Subcommittee on Courts, 
Intellectual Property, and the Internet has he l d  a  s e r i e s  o f  h e a r i n g s  t o  r e v i e w  t h e  
current state of U.S. copyright laws. Hous e Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte 
announced the hearings in response to Regi ster of Copyrights and Director of the 
U.S. Copyright Office Maria A. Pallante's te stimony in a March 20, 2013 hearing entitled 
"The Register's Call for Updates to the U.S.  Copyright Act." There, the Register urged 
Congress to take a comprehensive and informed approach to copyright review over the 
next few years. As of December, 2014, there have been a total of eighteen copyright 
review hearings, including Register Pallante's initial hearing. The hearings have been on 
a variety of issues related to the U.S. copy right system including the role of voluntary 
agreements, the scope of fair use, preserva tion and reuse of copyrighted works, music 
licensing, and resale royalties, among ot hers. There is no specific timeline for 
completing the review, and future hearings have not yet been announced, but they are 
anticipated to resume in 2015. At this point, it is premature to pred ict specific outcomes, 
but some legislation is likely.   
4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES 
4.2 Servicios 4.2.2 Telecomunicaciones 
- Párrafo 4.90 indica que el Artículo 310 de la Ley de Comunicaciones restringe la concesión de 
licencias de telefonía móvil a gobiernos, ciudadanos o empresas extranjeros o a toda persona con más de 20% de capital extranjero. El mismo párrafo señala, sin embargo, que con arreglo a la facultad legal de dispensa (forbearance), la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones (FCC) ha WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 123 - 
 
  decidido no aplicar el límite de 20% a las empresas de telecomunicaciones que cumplan una serie 
de requisitos indicados en dicho párrafo.  Esta delegación entiende que esta facultad lega l de dispensa se encuentra contemplada en la 
Sección 10 de la Ley de Comunicaciones. En virtud  de esta facultad, la Comisión debe abstenerse 
de aplicar a una empresa de telecomunicaciones que cualquier disposición de la Ley de Comunicaciones si se cumplen ciertos criterios legales. En virtud del artículo 10(c), una empresa 
de telecomunicaciones o clase de operadores de telecomunicaciones pueden presentar una petición 
ante la Comisión solicitando que se ejerza esta facultad de indulgencia. Si la Comisión no actúa en una petición de indulgencia el plazo de un año (prorrogable por tres meses, si es necesario) la petición se "considerará concedida" por el solo ministerio de la ley. 
 
PREGUNTA 15: Chile agradecerá a los Estados Unidos explicar los criterios y procedimientos 
utilizados por la Comisión al aplicar esta facultad legal, con énfasis en una explicación de ¿cómo se 
asegura que las decisiones que el regulador adopta, en uso de esta facultad, no sean 
discriminatorias hacia las personas extranjeras?  
RESPONSE: This "forbearance" authority is granted by the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended in 1996, specifically Section 10,  which can be found in 47 U.S.C 160, and 
applies to licenses for the provision of common carrier services. The 2012 Commission 
decision taking this action was designed to provide greater flexibility for foreign 
investment, by adopting the same open entr y criteria and procedures for evaluating 
such investment through noncontrolling U.S.-organized entities that the Commission 
had established in 1997 for foreign investment through controlling U.S.-organized 
entities. Under this standard, the Commission  has applied a rebuttable presumption that 
foreign investment from WTO Member countries  does not pose competitive concerns in 
the U.S. market, and also considers any national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy or trade policy concerns raised by the proposed foreign investment. (In 2013, the 
Commission further extended that open entr y standard to foreign investment from 
non-WTO Member countries.) As noted abov e, using the Commission's "forbearance" 
authority to extend this open entry st andard to foreign investment through 
noncontrolling U.S.-organized enti ties was designed to provide greater opportunities for 
foreign investment in common carrier license es, using the same process adopted in the 
1997 order – which has now been further stream lined in the 2013 order. Further details 
as to that process are provided in that orde r, which is published at 27 FCC Rcd 9832. It 
is unclear how the Commission's 2012 forbeara nce action could discriminate against a 
foreign supplier, since it now extents to an y supplier, irrespective of nationality.  
 
4.2.2.3 Medidas de Política - Párrafo 4.93 indica que la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones mantiene una "lista de empresas extranjeras que se supone poseen poder de mercado en los mercados de telecomunicaciones 
extranjeros" (List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that are Presumed to Possess Market 
Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets) la que sirve a los efectos de la aplicación de ciertas normas de la Comisión, en particular las relativas a las secciones:  
 1.767 (g) (5), que guarda relación con la prohibición a los titulares de ciertas licencias de cable 
para suscribir ciertos acuerdos;  
 743.51 (b), relativos a contratos de informes y concesiones; 
 63.14, que implica la prohibición de los operadores de telecomunicaciones que acuerdan 
aceptar concesiones especiales;  
 63.23 (d), que implica la prestación de serv icios básicos a través de líneas conmutadas 
privadas autorizadas y su reventa; y, 
 64.1002, que implica la política de asentamientos internacional, que la Comisión adoptó en el 
año 2004. 
 
PREGUNTAS 16: Chile estará agradecido si los Estados Unidos pudiera explicar el contexto en que 
se aplica esta lista y ¿cómo se determina que una empresa cuenta con poder de mercado? 
Resultaría particularmente interesante conocer si ¿se toman en cuenta las conductas 
anticompetitivas que ejerzan las empresas estudiadas? o ¿sólo se toma en cuenta la estructura de 
mercado de un actor económico y su relación con otros actores en un mercado relevante de que se trate?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 124 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The FCC looks at a number of factors to ascertain whether a supplier in a 
foreign market possesses market power, incl uding market share in the relevant market, 
and control over telecommunications facilities . The finding is market-specific, meaning a 
supplier that is included on the referenced List is presumed, subject to rebuttal, to 
possess market power in the origination or termination of telecommunications traffic 
between its home market and the United St ates, but it is not considered to possess 
market power with respect to traffic on other U.S.-international routes.  
 
The List is based on publicly available in formation, compiled from official sources, 
including the International Telecommunica tion Union. Parties may challenge the 
inclusion or exclusion of any carrier on the list by submitting a petition for declaratory 
ruling and appropriate supporting documentation to the FCC demonstrating that a 
carrier included on the list lacks market powe r in the relevant foreign market or that a 
carrier not included on the list does not la ck market power in a particular foreign 
market. 
 The List is no longer used for purposes of implementing the FCC's international 
settlements policy, which it has eliminated (with the exception of certain requirements 
on the U.S.-Cuba route). The List continue s to apply for purposes of the "No Special 
Concessions" rules for U.S.-internati onal telecommunications carriers and 
U.S. submarine cable landing licensees.  
 
- Párrafos 4.95 y siguientes dan cuenta de la discusión regulatoria y judicial sobre neutralidad de Internet (Open Internet) en los Estados Unidos en el último tiempo, señalando que luego de un 
proceso de consulta pública, la Comisión prev é adoptar nuevas normas para finales de 2014.  
 PREGUNTA 17: Chile agradecería conocer el estado actual del proceso normativo de la 
neutralidad de Internet y los elementos que informan esta nueva política. En especial resultaría 
interesante conocer ¿cómo se procurará asegurar un ambiente de competencia adecuado para todos los proveedores de servicios, aplicaciones y contenidos que hagan uso de Internet?  
RESPONSE: As this is an open proceeding, it  would be premature to conclude what such 
circumstances might be; the purpose of the proceeding is to explore that question, 
among others.  
 
- Párrafo 4.97 da cuenta del anuncio de los Estados Unidos en torno a su intención de negociar acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo sobre telecomunicaciones con determinados países para 
facilitar las exportaciones de equipos de telecomunicaciones estadounidenses. 
 PREGUNTA 18: Chile agradecería mayor información sobre esta iniciativa, incluyendo información 
sobre ¿qué países estarían comprendidos y cu áles son los términos de dichos acuerdos? 
 
RESPONSE: The APEC Tel MRA is already in place and the U.S. is willing to implement with any APEC Tel signatory. The terms of the arrangement can be found here: 
http://www.apec.org/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-
Cooperation/Working-Groups/Telecomm unications-and-Information/APEC_TEL-
MRA.aspx . 
 
Once implemented with particular economy,  the agreement provides for the mutual 
recognition of conformity assessment of telecommunications equipment. The value is 
that manufacturers of telecom equipment can have their products tested and approved 
with conformity assessment bodies located in  their own country. This will help in the 
speed and cost of placing new telecom products on the market.   
4.2.3 Servicios Audiovisuales 
4.2.3.1 Reseña Estadística  - Párrafo 4.103 asevera que la transición hacia un modelo digital del subsector de servicios de 
distribución de grabaciones sonoras/música grabada ha sido difícil, señalando que "ha perdido 
ingresos debido a la piratería". Según la Asociación de Industria Discográfica de Estados Unidos, el subsector perdió el 47% de sus ventas entre 2004 y 2009, junto con 71.000 puestos de trabajo.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 125 - 
 
  PREGUNTA 19: Chile agradecería una profundización en la metodología aplicada a los esfuerzos 
que han servido para cuantificar lo señalado en el citado párrafo. Además, Chile agradecerá saber 
¿cómo se han tomado en cuenta los cambios producidos por el dinamismo propio del mercado, los cambios en los modelos de negocio y en las preferencias de los consumidores al efectuar dichos 
cálculos?  
 RESPONSE: The Secretariat did not provide a ci tation for the reference, so we refer you 
to the Secretariat for further information.  
 4.2.3.2 Reglamentación de la Actividad Comercial  4.2.3.2.3 Régimen Aplicado  
- Párrafo 4.112 señala que en el mes de agosto de 2012, la FCC dispuso no aplicar más el límite a 
la participación extranjera del 20% establecido en el Artículo 310 b) de la Ley de Comunicaciones, y que haría uso de la facultad discrecional, que le otorga el Artículo 310 b) 4) del mismo cuerpo 
legal, para determinar casuísticamente si las pr opuestas de inversión extranjera en una empresa 
de servicios de telecomunicaciones que sea titular de una licencia son de interés público.   
PREGUNTA 20 : Chile estará agradecido si Estados Unidos pudiese aclarar ¿cuáles son los criterios 
que se aplican para la concesión de dichas licencias? 
 RESPONSE: The public interest standard for granting common carrier wireless licenses 
to companies with foreign ownership that would exceed the limits in the 
Communications Act has not changed for WTO investors. Following the WTO conclusion of negotiations on basic telecommunications and adoption of the Fourth Protocol, the 
FCC adopted a "rebuttable presumption" th at foreign investment from WTO Member 
countries in common carrier licensees does  not pose competitive concerns in the 
U.S. market. The FCC continues to apply th at presumption. The FCC also continues to 
consider, as part of its public interest anal ysis, any national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy or trade policy concerns th at may be raised by proposed foreign 
investment that would exceed the limits of the Communications Act.   
Questions on the Government Report WT/TPR/G/307 
 4 EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2012 
 
4.2 Iniciativas regionales 4.2.6 Gestión y profundización del comercio entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea 
- Estados Unidos señala que: "En 2013 se celebraron tres rondas de negociaciones, y ambas 
partes han convenido en mantener un ambicioso calendario de negociaciones en 2014".  PREGUNTA 21 : ¿Estados Unidos, podría dar mayor información sobre los resultados de las 
negociaciones 2014 y el calendario y expectativas para el 2015? 
 RESPONSE: The United States and the European Union have had seven rounds of 
negotiations since the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was launched in 
July 2013. Both sides are committed to achieving significant progress in 2015. 
4.3 Acuerdos e iniciativas comerciales bilaterales 
4.3.4 Acuerdo de Promoción Comercia l entre Estados Unidos y Colombia 
- Estados Unidos señala que: "En 2013, ambos Gobiernos colaboraron para llevar a cabo las iniciativas iniciadas en la reunión de noviembre de 2012 de la Comisión, como un examen de la aceleración de la eliminación de los aranceles, elementos adicionales del mecanismo de solución de 
diferencias y la actualización de las normas de origen". 
 PREGUNTA 22 : ¿qué significa el examen de la aceleración de la eliminación de los aranceles? y, 
por favor, informar el detalle de los bienes afectados (ítems arancelarios). 
 RESPONSE: The CTPA (Article 2.3.4) provides that the Parties may agree to accelerate 
the elimination of duties under the Agreement.  The United States and Colombia have not 
yet decided whether to accelera te the elimination of tariffs and, if such changes were 
made, what the scope or extent of such ch anges should be. The text of the United 
States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement can be found WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 126 - 
 
  at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-a greements/free-trade-agreem ents/colombia-fta/final-
text. 
 
8 COMERCIO DE LAS PEQUEÑAS Y MEDIANAS EMPRESAS 
- Párrafo 8.5:  Estados Unidos continúa perfeccionando la herramienta de los ALC sobre los 
aranceles, un instrumento en línea que las pequeñ as empresas pueden utilizar en forma gratuita 
para aprovechar la reducción y eliminación de aran celes en virtud de los acuerdos comerciales de 
los Estados Unidos". 
 PREGUNTA 23:  ¿Estados Unidos, podría compartir el enlace hacia esa herramienta de 
importancia, y los instructivos correspondientes, en  atención a la prioridad de nuestro gobierno en 
promover una mayor inserción internacional de las Pymes y, por ende, una mayor utilización de 
los acuerdos de libre comercio?  
RESPONSE: The FTA Tariff Tool is publically accessible at: 
http://export.gov/FTA/ft atarifftool/index.asp . WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 127 - 
 
  CHINA 
  Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
Page 14, Para 1.9 
The report states that "Several factors contribute d to that favourable economic context, and there 
has been some reporting of "in-sourcing", i. e. the homecoming of U.S. manufacturing.". 
 Question 1: 
The U.S. has promulgated a series of measures to attract capital reflow according to the 
"homecoming of U.S. manufacturing" plan, which has effectively promoted the recovery of the 
U.S. economy. Please offer the U.S. opinions of the impacts of the capital reflow into its 
manufacturing sector on the global economy, especially on the emerging economies.  
 RESPONSE: The United States is an attractive  destination for investment. It has a highly 
competitive workforce, an innovative environm ent, strong and transparent rule of law, 
and a growing energy sector. U.S. manufac turing production has also benefited as 
companies look to make produc tion closer to the customer. 
 
Page 15, Para 1.10 
The report states that "In 2013, the U.S. current account deficit shrank to a four-year low, as a consequence of a boom in shale oil/gas production and reduced demand, leading to a sharp 
reduction in the oil trade deficit, which accounts for nearly half of the total deficit in trade in goods 
and services.".  
Question 2: 
The "Shale Oil/gas Revolution" and the fall of global oil price have made significant contributions to the reduction of the fiscal deficit of the U.S. Wh at's the U.S. assessment of the impacts of this 
development on the global economic situation?  
 
RESPONSE:  The current account balances of the Un ited States and China have declined 
substantially as have the aggregate of imbalances relative to global GDP. Some of this 
adjustment for the United States reflects re al changes in underlying fundamentals such 
as increased savings, stable domestic oi l consumption, and greater domestic oil 
production. However, the adjustment proc ess in the world has been inefficiently 
asymmetric with deficit economies contributing  a far larger share to global adjustment 
through employment-constraining compressed  domestic demand growth. The expected 
boost in demand growth by surplus economies need to offset weaker demand growth in 
deficit economies has yet to materialize. The net result has been a slower global 
adjustment process and a weaker and more fragile global economy than necessary or 
desired.   
Page 16, Para 1.12 
The report states that "However, fiscal policy has turned contractionary during the last two years, as a result of deliberate deficit-reduction measures. …". 
 
Question 3: While implementing a tight fiscal policy, the U.S. is  also implementing highly easy monetary policy 
by ways such as the quantitative easing. Please describe how the seemingly contradictory fiscal 
and monetary policies affect the U.S macro economy. 
 RESPONSE: The United States' central bank, the Federal Reserve, is an independent 
agency within the federal government tasked  with the conduct of monetary policy. As 
such, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy choices are the sole responsibility of its 
own officials, i.e., are made by the Fede ral Reserve Board of Governors and by the 
Federal Open Market Committee. No influence fr om the executive, legi slative, or judicial 
branches of the federal government can be ex erted on those choices. The Administration 
therefore does not comment on the Fed's co nduct of monetary policy in any context. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 128 - 
 
  Question 4: 
Although the U.S. has tightened its fiscal policy, th e proportion of its public debts to GDP remains 
high and is ever growing. How does the U.S.  view the impacts of such situation on the 
WTO members holding U.S. dollar debts,  especially developing members? 
 
RESPONSE: In the FY2015 Budget, the Administration projects that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio will peak in FY2015 at 74.6% of GDP and then decline steadily 
through the end of the 10-year forecast to 72.0% in FY2024. 
 Page 17, Para 1.17 The report states that "During the review period, a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) took 
place, in September 2012, in the context of  high, although dropping, unemployment. In 
December 2013, the Fed announced that it would start scaling down its purchases."  
Question 5: 
How does the U.S. assess the impacts of "quantitat ive easing" adopted since the financial crisis on 
the global economy, especially the consequence of the unreasonably inflated asset prices of 
various WTO members? As a reserve currency co untry, does the U.S. take into account the 
spillover effect of its policies on other members when formulating these policies?  RESPONSE: The United States' central bank, the Federal Reserve, is an independent 
agency within the federal government tasked  with the conduct of monetary policy. As 
such, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy choices are the sole responsibility of its 
own officials, i.e., are made by the Fede ral Reserve Board of Governors and by the 
Federal Open Market Committee. No influence fr om the executive, legi slative, or judicial 
branches of the federal government can be ex erted on those choices. The Administration 
therefore does not comment on the Fed's co nduct of monetary policy in any context. 
 
Question 6: Some economists hold that "quantitative easing" led to an unreasonable boom of the stock market and the debt market of the U.S. and caused global  asset bubble rather than contributing much to 
the recovery of real economy. What is the opinion of the U.S. in this regard? 
 RESPONSE: The United States' central bank, the Federal Reserve, is an independent 
agency within the federal government tasked  with the conduct of monetary policy. As 
such, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy choices are the sole responsibility of its 
own officials, i.e., are made by the Fede ral Reserve Board of Governors and by the 
Federal Open Market Committee. No influence fr om the executive, legi slative, or judicial 
branches of the federal government can be ex erted on those choices. The Administration 
therefore does not comment on the Fed's co nduct of monetary policy in any context. 
 
Question 7: 
On 29 October 2014, the U.S. announced that it wo uld withdraw from QE3. Please describe the 
assessment by the U.S. on the impacts of such withdrawal on the global economy, especially 
emerging economies. Some comment that the with drawal by the U.S. from QE will cause outflow 
of hot money and is most likely to incur the depreciation of the local currency of emerging economies and further damage substantive ec onomy. Please describe the comments of the 
U.S. government.  
 RESPONSE: The United States' central bank, the Federal Reserve, is an independent agency within the federal government tasked  with the conduct of monetary policy. As 
such, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy choices are the sole responsibility of its 
own officials, i.e., are made by the Fede ral Reserve Board of Governors and by the 
Federal Open Market Committee. No influence fr om the executive, legi slative, or judicial 
branches of the federal government can be ex erted on those choices. The Administration 
therefore does not comment on the Fed's co nduct of monetary policy in any context. 
 
Question 8: 
Please describe the relationship between "QE" and plans such as "homecoming of U.S., manufacturing" and "export doubling". What impacts will the withdrawal from QE have on such plans? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 129 - 
 
  RESPONSE: There is no relationship between "QE" and plans for U.S. manfacturing or 
the doubling of U.S. exports.   Question 9: 
After withdrawal from QE, does the Fed plan to ra ise the interest rate in the near future? Please 
describe the considerations of the Fed on the timing  approach and extent of interest rate raise. 
 
RESPONSE: The Administration does not comment on the Federal Reserve's conduct of 
monetary policy. The Federal Reserve itself publishes the minutes of the Federal Open 
Market Committee meetings, at which a variety of issues are discussed. For the latest 
minutes, see 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newse vents/press/monetary/20141029a.htm  and 
http://www.federalreserve .gov/monetarypolicy/file s/fomcminutes20141029.pdf . 
 
Page 17, Para 1.18 
The report states that "The Fed also resorted to  Central Bank liquidity swaps in order to provide 
liquidity to private banks in foreign currencies. The swaps have been operational with ten Central 
Banks, including the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of 
Japan, and the Swiss National Bank."  Question 10: 
China notes that the 10 economies conducting curr ency swaps with the Fed are mainly developed 
members. Please describe the standards adopted by the U.S. in selecting partners for currency 
swaps. Does the U.S. plan to conduct currency swaps with emerging economies in the future? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States' central bank, the Federal Reserve, is an independent agency within the federal government tasked  with the conduct of monetary policy. As 
such, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy choices are the sole responsibility of its 
own officials, i.e., are made by the Fede ral Reserve Board of Governors and by the 
Federal Open Market Committee. No influence fr om the executive, legi slative, or judicial 
branches of the federal government can be ex erted on those choices. The Administration 
therefore does not comment on the Fed's co nduct of monetary policy in any context. 
 Page 17, Para 1.20 
The report states that "After stabilizing and achiev ing positive growth rates during the last three 
years, the U.S. economy is poised for further economic growth…".  
Question 11: 
According to some comments, the U.S. has basica lly completed deleveraging, enterprise M&A has 
picked up and the U.S. has yielded some results in  re-industrialization, but the pillar industry in 
the new round of economic cycle has not been formed. Please describe the measures to be 
adopted by the U.S. to speed up economic recovery and address economic unbalance. 
 RESPONSE: To return the economy to its full potential more quickly, the President is 
working on a range of measures includin g an Opportunity, Growth, and Security 
initiative, along with steps to pair business tax reform with a major effort to upgrade 
our Nation's infrastructure. For more info rmation on this initiative, please see: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default /files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/opportun
ity.pdf .  
 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
Page 25, Para 2.2 The report states that "It conducts its function s through a statutory inter-agency trade policy 
mechanism, composed of the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff 
Committee (TPSC)."  
Question 12: 
Please describe the respective functions of an d the division of labor between the Trade Policy 
Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC).  
  
RESPONSE: The Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 130 - 
 
  (TPSC), administered and chaired by USTR, are the subcabinet interagency trade policy 
coordination groups that are central to this process. The TPSC is the first-line operating group, with representation at the senior civil servant level. Supporting the TPSC are 
more than 80 subcommittees responsible fo r specialized issues. The TPSC regularly 
seeks advice from the public on its policy decisions and negotiations through Federal 
Register Notices and public hearings.   
Through the interagency process, USTR requ ests input and analysis from members of 
the appropriate TPSC subcommittee or  task force. The conclusions and 
recommendations of this group are then presented to the full TPSC and serve as the basis for reaching interagency consensus. If agreement is not reached in the TPSC, or if 
particularly significant policy questions are be ing considered, issues are referred to the 
TPRG (Deputy USTR/Under Secretary level).  
Page 25, Para 2.6 
The report states that "A proposal to reauthor ize TPA was introduced in the Congress in 2014, but 
to date no legislation has been approved." 
 
Question 13: Please give an update of TPA reauthorization. W ill the absence of TPA affect the ability of the U.S. 
to promote DDA and bilateral agreements under negotiation such as BIT? 
 
RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (T PA) legislation. As the Administration 
works with Congress on TPA, we will conti nue to advance bilateral, plurilateral and 
multilateral negotiations.   
Page 26, Para 2.7 
The report states that "The United States has a lo ng history of involving the private sector in trade 
policy advice. In 1974, a USTR-led trade advisory committee system was created, to enable public- and private-sector input in the formulation and implementation of U.S. trade policies. There 
are currently 28 trade advisory committees coveri ng, inter alia, agricultural, intergovernmental, 
labour, environmental, and U.S.-Africa issues. "  
Question 14: 
Please explain whether foreign investors, especially the highly representative and influential investors in the relevant sectors, are qualified to  participate in the activities of these advisory 
committees. Please describe the actual participat ion of foreign-invested enterprises in recent 
years.  RESPONSE: Every applicant is evaluated ba sed on the membership criteria for the 
committee to which they applied. However, USTR does not maintain data on which 
companies invest overseas.   
Question 15: 
Please describe the composition, functions, operat ion modality, policy objectives and roles in trade 
negotiations of TEPAC. 
 
RESPONSE: Please view the TEPAC charter, found here: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files /1979%20TEPAC%20Charter%20for%202013.pdf . 
 
Page 26, Para 2.8 
The report states that "In February 2014, USTR proposed a new trade advisory committee covering public interest issues. This proposal, in cluding its scope and purpose, is currently under 
consideration pending review and evaluation of public comments." 
 Question 16: 
Please describe the purpose and the expected composition of the advisory committee, as well as 
its possible impacts on trade and investment.  RESPONSE: The purpose, scope, composition  and creation of a new advisory committee 
is still under review.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 131 - 
 
  Question 17: 
What are "public interest issues"? 79 FR 10596 indicates "including but not limited to public medical care, international development and consumer protection". Please detail other sectors involved in public interest issues. 
 
RESPONSE: The purpose, scope, composition  and creation of a new advisory committee 
is still under review.  
 
Question 18: As required by USTA, the members of the committee must be nominated before 25 March 2014. Have these members been confirmed so far? Has the committee completed amendments and 
solicitation of opinions? If yes, when will the committee start operation officially? If no, is there 
any schedule in this regard?  
RESPONSE: The purpose, scope, composition  and creation of a new advisory committee 
is still under review. The 25 March 2014 dead line was for submission of comments, not 
for nominations, which will be accepted at any time.  
 
Page 28, Para 2.9 The report states that "In early 2012 the United States established the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) to advance U.S. foreign policy and protect the national and economic 
security of the United States through strengthened enforcement of U.S. trade rights." 
 Question 19: 
Please describe the concrete measures adopted by ITEC to strengthen the enforcement of U.S. 
trade rights. What are its current priority countries and topics?   
RESPONSE: Consistent with Executive Orde r 13601, ITEC has assembled staff from 
numerous government agencies with vari ed expertise. ITEC monitors trade 
developments and our trading partners' adhe rence to international trade obligations, 
investigates and develops issues for potent ial trade cases; supports enforcement-related 
negotiations and ongoing disputes; and ev aluates post-dispute compliance actions. 
 A variety of factors are taken into account in establishing ITEC priorities, including the 
economic impact and systemic effect of th e practice at issue an d the United States' 
overall trade policies and goals. ITEC invest igates a wide range of trade enforcement 
issues originating in a variety of regions across the globe, ranging from subsidies and 
localization measures to intellectual pr operty and agriculture, among others. 
 Page 28, Para 2.10 The report states that "During its first year of operation, the ITEC was involved in a number of 
trade matters which resulted in the United States taking up at least four issues in the WTO DSB. 
ITEC was also involved in identifying priority pr ojects for research and analysis regarding a number 
of countries and issues." 
 
Question 20: Certain actions of the ITEC were frequently brought to the WTO DSB by Members. Are these 
disputes caused for excessive protective measures  by the ITEC in "identifying and eliminating 
foreign trade barriers"? Please describe the operat ion mechanism of the ITEC. Will this mechanism 
be more open and transparent in the future?  
RESPONSE: As directed by the Executive Orde r, ITEC's mission is to strengthen and 
coordinate enforcement of U.S. trade rights  under international tr ade agreements. ITEC 
seeks to help ensure that our trading part ners play by WTO rules and abide by their 
obligations, including commitments to mainta in open markets on a non-discriminatory 
basis and to follow rules-based procedures in a transparent way. ITEC leverages and 
mobilizes the federal government's resources  and expertise to address unfair foreign 
trade practices and barriers. Personnel from contributing agencies form a designated 
team of experts who help to increase enga gement with foreign trade partners at the 
WTO and in other international fora. ITEC s eeks to expand interagency collaboration and 
the sharing of information and expertise as it relates to enforcement of international WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 132 - 
 
  trade agreements. USTR engagement in trad e issues is quite open and transparent, 
especially in relation to some of our trading partners.   Page 29, Para 2.14 
The report states that "A number of trade prioriti es identified for 2013-14 included initiatives at 
the national, multilateral, bilateral, and regional levels: to continue progress towards the National Export Initiative (NEI) goals; to advance and conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 
agreement; launch and advance the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) 
agreement; lead creative and effective efforts at the WTO to open markets, enforce rules, and combat protectionism…"  
Question 21: 
China notes that in its official report, the USTR listed NEI and the promotion of TPP and T-TIP negotiations before "lead creative and effective efforts at the WTO to open markets, enforce 
rules, and combat protectionism". Please explain whether the sequence reflects the priority given 
by the U.S. among its various trade policy objectives.   
RESPONSE: We note that paragraph 2.14 of the Secretariat report was drafted by the 
WTO Secretariat, not by U.S. authorities. Thus the sequencing reflects a drafting decision by the Secretariat, not a reflection  of priorities within U.S. trade policy.  
 
Question 22: 
Please describe how did the U.S. achieve the "creativeness" and "effectiveness" in its policy objectives in the participation of WTO activities.  
  
RESPONSE: The significant successes witnesse d by WTO Members over the last twelve 
months, including the historic outcome at Ba li and the lifting of the impasse that will 
allow the TFA to come into effect, required cr eativity, not only on the part of the United 
States, but other WTO Members. Should we expect any success in 2015 on the post-Bali 
work program or other major issue areas, the United States expects that creativity will 
again be required.  
 
Page 31, Para 2.21 The report states that "However, the United States is negotiating with the European Union on 
T-TIP, and with a group of countries in Asia, th e Pacific, and the Americas, with TPP (see Section 
2.2). At this time, neither has been concluded."  
Question 23: 
Please describe the latest progress of TPP and T- TIP negotiations. Are there any schedules for the 
completion of the negotiations?   
RESPONSE: Following a TPP Ministerial meet ings in October and November 2014, TPP 
leaders met in November 2014, noted the significant progress that ministers and negotiators had made in recent months in narrowing gaps on the TPP agreement, and 
stated that the end of the negotiation was co ming into focus. Chief negotiators met in 
Washington in December 2014. The schedu le of further meetings is still being 
developed. All TPP parties are working to co nclude the negotiation as soon as possible, 
so that each country can start to enjoy the agreement's benefits.  
 The United States and the European Union ha ve had seven rounds of negotiations since 
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pa rtnership was launched in July 2013. Both 
sides are committed to achieving significant progress in 2015.  
 Question 24: 
Please describe the opinions of the U.S. on the impacts of TPP and T-TIP on the multilateral trade 
system with WTO at its core.   
RESPONSE: We believe that such efforts will  reinforce and complement the multilateral 
trading system. They offer the opportunity to  contribute to a more dynamic and open 
global trading system and the possibility of bu ilding on them to pursue future ambitious 
trade and investment liberalization within the WTO. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 133 - 
 
  Page 37, Para 2.48 
The report states that "No new BITs were negotiated or entered into force during the review period. The United States does not have BITs with many of the emerging economies, which continue to be growing in importance as concerns investment flows." 
 
Question 25: Please clarify the reasons for not concluding BITs with "many of the emerging economies".  
 
RESPONSE: The United States has BITs in force with 40 countries, including several 
emerging economies. The United States also has 11 free trade agreements with 
investment provisions in force with 17 countries, several of which are emerging 
economies. The United States is also in th e process of negotiating, or exploring the 
negotiation, of BITs with a number of emer ging economies, including China and India.  
 
Question 26: 
Would the U.S. please provide the number of its concluded BITs applying a negative list modality? Please clarify the difference between these negative lists. 
 
RESPONSE: Although the specific text and format of the U.S. model BIT has evolved over the last 30 years, all U.S. BITs have been  concluded on the basis of a negative list 
approach to national treatment. 
 
Page 40, Para 2.50 The report states that "It does not offer direct incentives but provides a link to federal government 
programmes offering incentives to businesses." 
 Question 27: 
Does the U.S. have other official platforms to publish in a unified way the investment incentive 
policies of different states and regions in addition to SelectUSA, on which the investment incentives at the federal level are made public.   
RESPONSE: SelectUSA will in the near fu ture make available on its website a 
consolidated database of state-level invest ment incentives. In the interim, and in 
keeping with its role as a single point of entry for information about investment in the 
United States, SelectUSA publishes a list of contact information for designated 
investment officials in U.S. states and territories, as well as links to the websites of state-level economic development agencies.  
 
Page 39, Para 2.52 The report states that "CFIUS continues to review "covered" foreign investment transactions to determine whether the transaction threatens nati onal security. A covered foreign investment 
transaction is one where a merger, acquisition, or takeover results in foreign control of a person 
engaged in interstate commerce in the United States."  
Question 28: 
Please clarify the standards to determine whether a foreign investment "threatens national security". 
 
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determinin g whether a transaction raises national 
security concerns, and a general description of  the types of transactions that CFIUS has 
reviewed and that have presented national se curity considerations is available in the 
official guidance that Treasu ry published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register 
(and available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-inves tment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in statutes, execut ive orders, regulations, and in the guidance 
document noted above, all of which ar e available at www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
 
The Guidance makes clear that in conducting  its analysis of whether the transaction 
poses national security  risk, CFIUS assesses: 
o whether there is a threat - whether a foreign person has the capability or 
intention to exploit or cause harm; and  
o whether there is a vulnerability - whethe r the nature of the U.S. business WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 134 - 
 
  over which the foreign party is acquiring control creates susceptibility to 
impairment of U.S. national security.  
 National security risk is a function of th e interaction between threat and vulnerability, 
and the potential consequences of that interaction for U.S. national security.  
 Question 29: 
According to many Chinese enterprises, CFIUS ha s excessive discretion, complicated procedures 
and non-transparent processes. Moreover, CFIUS gives no causes for any rejected investment proposals. Does the U.S. plan to raise the tran sparency of relevant ruling and entitle foreign 
enterprises to appeal? 
 
RESPONSE: CFIUS procedures and processes are governed by a statute, executive order, 
and public regulation, all of which ar e available at www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
 
The CFIUS regulation contains at least fo rty examples to assist U.S. and foreign 
companies. For example, CFIUS may review only mergers, acquisitions and takeovers 
that could result in foreign control of a U.S.  business. So, wholly passive minority stakes, 
greenfield investments, and land sales are not subject to CFIUS review. This focused 
mandate reflects our belief in the importan ce of foreign investment as a source of 
national strength.  
 
Any decisions by the U.S. President to prohib it a transaction are publicly disclosed. The 
vast majority of foreign investments do no t raise national security concerns and are 
cleared by CFIUS without issue. When a transa ction poses a national security risk, CFIUS 
works to resolve it as expeditiously as possi ble, including through targeted mitigation 
rather than prohibition whenever possible.  
 
Page 39, Para 2.52 The report states that "CFIUS considers whethe r the foreign entity is controlled by a foreign 
government or if the investment would gi ve control of critical infrastructure." 
 
Question 30:  
According to the information obtained by the Chinese government, the definition of "critical 
infrastructure" regarding the national security of the U.S. in its Foreign Investment and National 
Security Act is too broad, leading to great unc ertainty on whether Chinese enterprises could 
eventually approved to make investment in the U.S.  infrastructure projects. Does the U.S. plan to 
further improve legislations to explicitly define "critical infrastructure"? 
 RESPONSE: CFIUS considers all relevant nati onal security factors in its reviews of 
transactions. This may include, in some tran sactions, the potential national security-
related effects of the transaction on United St ates critical infrastructure. In every case, 
CFIUS looks at whether the pa rticular transaction raises national security concerns, 
whether or not it involves  critical infrastructure. 
 
Please refer to Section 800.208 of the CFIUS regulations, which defines the scope of the 
term "critical infrastructure" for CFIUS pu rposes. The regulations are available at 
http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/CFIUS -Final-Regulations-new.pdf . 
 
Page 39, Para 2.53 
The report states that "During 2010-12, there was a gradual increase in the number of notices of 
covered transactions submitted, from 93 to 114 in 2012. In particular, investment reviews from China grew from 6 notices in 2010 to 23 in 2012 (Table 2.3)." 
 
Question 31: How many investments among the 114 so-called "covered transactions" in 2012 are from 
developing members? Do relevant enterprises have opportunities to make appeals? Please 
describe the outcome of such appeals, if any.   RESPONSE: The number of filings per countr y in 2012 is availa ble in CFIUS's 2012 
Annual Report.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 135 - 
 
  http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/2013%20CFIUS%20Annual%20Report%20PUBLIC.pdf . 
 
Parties have the opportunity to engage CFIU S before filing, during the review, after 
CFIUS informs the parties of the action that CFIUS intends to take, and even after the 
CFIUS review process has concluded.  
Question 32: 
Please explain the reasons of the rapid increase in  national security reviews on investments from 
Chinese enterprises.   
RESPONSE: The United States has a strong open  investment policy. We recognize that it 
is vital to economic growth, to job creation, and to productivity. The vast majority of CFIUS reviews, including those involving Chines e companies, are initiated by parties to a 
transaction voluntarily submitting their tran saction for CFIUS review. Chinese FDI into 
the United States, in general, has increased significantly over the past several years. 
 
The number of filings over time and per count ry in 2012 is available in CFIUS's 2012 
Annual Report. http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/2013%20CFIUS%20Annual%20Report%20PUBLIC.pdf . 
 
Question 33: 
While promoting a series of investment incentive me asures, the U.S. is more proactive in applying 
the highly subjective "national security review" to restrict foreign investments, including those 
from China. How does the U.S. assess the effects of  such policies? Does the U.S. plan to restrain 
the abuse of national security reviews for the sake of investment facilitation?  
RESPONSE: The United States consistently ranks at the top of most major indicators for 
its attractive business and inve stment climate. The United States ranks: #1 in A.T. 
Kearney's Foreign Direct Investment Confid ence Index; and #4 in the World Bank's 
"Ease of Doing Business" rankings. These rankings are reflected by investment 
statistics: from 2007 through 2013, the United  States received more FDI than any other 
country. The FDI flow into the United States in 2013 – US$187.5 billion – was 34% 
higher than the flow into any other country.  
 
The vast majority of foreign investments from all countries, including China, do not raise 
national security concerns. And the vast majority of transactions that are submitted to 
CFIUS are cleared without any mitigation or conditions. 
 Page 40, Para 2.55 The report states that "The NISPOM contains provisions regarding certain foreign investment 
transactions under its broader mandate to require contractors to protect and safeguard classified 
information. The NISPOM section on Foreign Owners hip, Control, or Influence (FOCI) contains the 
procedures to be followed for certain investment transactions that involve classified information. 
U.S. companies are subject to NISPOM reporting requirements when a foreign interest acquires 
control that may result in unauthorized access to classified information or adversely affect the performance of classified contracts." 
 
Question 34: Please clarify which information belongs to "classified information" deemed by NISP. To what extent have such NISPOM requirements increased the burdens on enterprises and affected normal 
investment. Has the U.S. made corresponding assessment? 
 RESPONSE: National security information (classified information)
4 to which the NISP 
applies: 
 
a. "Top Secret": applied to information,  the unauthorized disclosure of which 
reasonably could be expect to cause exce ptionally grave damage to the national 
security. b. "Secret": applied to information, the una uthorized disclosure of which reasonably 
                                               
4 Source: Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information”, December 29, 2009. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 136 - 
 
  could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security. 
c. "Confidential": applied to informatio n, the unauthorized disclosure of which 
reasonably could be expected to caus e damage to the national security.  
 
The U.S. has not assessed whether the NISPOM requirements increased the burdens on 
enterprises and affected normal investment.  
Page 41, Table 2.4 
The Table introduced existing foreign investment restrictions in the U.S, which includes reporting requirements for foreign ownership of U.S farmland in accordance with the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978. 
 
Question 35: Please describe the main contents of the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978. 
Were there corresponding threshold on the area of the agricultural land subject to reporting 
requirements?  
RESPONSE: The Agriculture Foreign Invest ment Disclosure Ac t of 1978 (AFIDA) was 
created to establish a nationwide system for the collection of information pertaining to 
foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land. The regulations require foreign investors who acquire, transfer or hold an interest in U. S. agricultural land to report such holdings 
and transactions to the Secretary of Agriculture on an AFIDA Report Form FSA-153. 
Those foreign investors who are required to report must have more than 10 acres in 
aggregate (across all parcels in the U.S.) an d the land must have been used for an 
agricultural purpose within the past five years. More details on AFIDA can be found in 
the AFIDA handbook at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home 
&subject=empl&topic=hbk . Exhibit 5 in the handbook contains the AFIDA regulation. An 
annual report is published containing ex tensive tables; they can be found at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp? area=home&subject=ecpa&topic=afa . 
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 42, Para 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
 Question 36: 
Does the U.S. customs authority scan all the goods imported and exported at ports? How many 
large container scanning equipments have been installed by the U.S. customs? Are these equipments subject to network scanning and imag e examination? Please describe the scanning and 
inspection rates of imported and exported goods.  
 RESPONSE: CBP screens all cargo.  High risk cargo is scanned using image analysis with 
Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Technology or  manually. In addition, all containerized 
cargo is scanned for illicit radiological material s. As of December 5, 2014, over 300 large 
scale NII systems and over 1, 300 large scale networked radi ation portal monitors have 
been deployed. The ports determine on a ri sk basis the utilization rates for export 
cargoes.  
 Page 43, Para 3.7 
The report states that "By the same executive order, the President formally established the BIEC in 
2014 to develop policies and processes to enhance coordination of customs, transportation security, health and safety, sanitary and phytos anitary, trade, and conservation agencies to 
improve supply chain processes and identification of illicit shipments." 
 
Question 37: China hopes that the U.S. may, by establishing th e BIEC, coordinate the efforts of relevant trade 
authorities to promote trade facilitation. Is there any assessment of the actual effects of the BIEC 
since its establishment?  
RESPONSE: Results of the BIEC risk manage ment principles and methods have been 
completed, but a determination has not been made of whether they will be published for 
external distribution .  
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 137 - 
 
  Page 44, Para 3.10 
The report states that "Advance binding rulings are published through the Customs Rulings On-line 
Search System (CROSS) or the Customs Bulletin and Decisions within 90 days of issuing the decision and are binding on CBP. However, there appear to be no set deadlines with respect to 
issuing a ruling." 
 Question 38: 
Does the U.S. plan to set a deadline for "advance  binding rulings" for the sake of providing more 
convenience to enterprises in practice?  RESPONSE: The U.S. does not plan to set a deadline for advance rulings as the issuance 
of a ruling depends on the submission of in formation to CBP, which could come later 
than the initial ruling request. The U.S ende avors to issue rulings within 90 days of 
receipt of information necessary to issue a ruling, and generally issues classification 
rulings within 30 days of receipt of a request. 
 Page 44, Para 3.13 
The report states that "As of June 2014, there we re more than 10,732 C-TPAT certified companies, 
resulting in over 25,160 total validations, and a ccounting for around 54.1% of total merchandise 
imports into the United States by value."  
Question 39: 
Have the effects of C-TPAT been assessed since its implementation? Have the preferential measures the U.S. committed to C-TPAT certified enterprises been fully implemented? Please 
provide and compare the inspection rate of good s  e x p o r t e d  t o  t h e  U . S .  b y  C - T P A T  c e r t i f i e d  
companies and the overall import inspection rate  of the U.S. How to guarantee that foreign 
enterprises enjoy equal treatment as the American ones in C-TPAT rating? 
 
RESPONSE: CBP has been engaging in prelim inary discussions with C-TPAT and their 
automated targeting system group to me asure the effects of C-TPAT including 
measurement of the inspection rate for C- TPAT and AEO mutual recognition cargo. C-
TPAT and AEO mutual recognition arrangement (MRA) cargo both receive preferential 
treatment and among this cargo, there is no  distinction between American and foreign 
enterprises. 
 
Page 45, Para 3.14 The report states that "As of June 2014, seven C-TPAT MRAs were in place, with Canada, the EU, 
Japan, Jordan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealan d, and Chinese Taipei. All are operational, with 
the exception of Jordan."  Question 40: 
Does the U.S. plan to have more C-TPAT MRAs? Are there any new C-TPAT MRAs under 
negotiation? Will the U.S. be interested to coop erate with more emerging economies, including 
China? 
 
RESPONSE: CBP has MRAs with Canada, the EU, Japan, Jordan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Chinese Taipei, Israel, Mexico and Singapore.  CBP intends to initiate MRA 
talks with countries in Central America, So uth America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia 
over the next few years. CBP is current ly in MRA negotiations with China and 
Switzerland.  
 
Page 45, Para 3.15 
The report states that "As of June 2014, seven C-TPAT MRAs were in place, with Canada, the EU, Japan, Jordan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealan d, and Chinese Taipei. All are operational, with 
the exception of Jordan." 
 Question 41: 
Does the U.S. plan to further expand the scope of economies eligible for the ISA? 
 RESPONSE: At this time, there are no plans for CBP to extend eligibility to the ISA to 
traders from other countries.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 138 - 
 
  Page 46, Para 3.19 
The report states that "There have been no significant changes in the programme since the last Review of the United States; the CSI still op erates in 58 ports world-wide and pre-screens 
approximately 80% of all maritime container cargo destined to the United States." 
 
Question 42: Does the U.S. plan to further expa nd the application scope of CSI? 
 
RESPONSE: Yes, CSI continues to be engaged in  a broad, strategic effort to expand the 
scope of its targeting and examinations with host country partners. This effort will proceed on a country-by-country basis to select mission areas of mutual interest . 
 
Page 47, Para 3.22 The report states that "The United States has long-standing experience of using foreign trade 
zones (FTZs) to increase U.S. competitiveness thro ugh a variety of means, especially by reducing 
customs duties."  
Question 43: 
Please describe in detail the legislation and regulation, as well as the operation mechanism of FTZ, especially the difference between the current taxation policies in FTZ and those in other areas.   
RESPONSE: U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZs) were authorized by Congress in 1934 (FTZ 
Act - 19 USC 81a-81u). The FTZ Act establis hed the FTZ Board to manage and oversee 
the program – with individual FTZs propose d, sponsored and managed by agencies at 
the regional or local level – while U.S. Cu stoms and Border Protection (CBP) maintains 
direct oversight of operations within FTZs. Both the FTZ Board and CBP have 
promulgated regulations to govern FTZ acti vity (15 CFR Part 400 and 19 CFR Part 146). 
 
U.S. FTZs are designated locations where im ported merchandise can be brought into the 
territory of the United States prior to filing a formal customs entry. If the merchandise is re-exported, no entry is ever filed and on shipments to the U.S. market entry can be 
deferred until the merchandise leaves the zo ne. The delayed filing of the customs entry 
allows companies to defer and possibly reduce duties. While use of U.S. FTZs affects the timing of the filing of a formal customs entry, the merchandise is located within the 
territory of the United States and all othe r federal, state and local laws apply.  
 Page 47, Para 3.23 
The report states that "In 2012, the Foreign Trade Zone Board, which supervises and oversees the 
U.S. FTZ system, established new regulations for FTZs. While the regulations address a number of issues, they focus on streamlining the applicatio n process and reducing the time necessary to 
establish a zone or set up manufacturing within a zone." 
 
Question 44: Please describe the specific measures adopted in the new legislation to streamline application 
procedures. How does the U.S. assess the role of FTZs in the "homecoming of U.S. manufacturing" 
plan?  
RESPONSE: The primary change in the 2012 re gulations decreased the time required to 
review a company's request for production authority within a FTZ. In the prior regulations this type of application requir ed a 12-month review, which has been reduced 
to a 120-day process for most requests. In addition, through both the regulations and 
previous changes adopted by the FTZ Boar d, the processing time needed for a 
company's site to receive FTZ designation has been significantly reduced from 10 
months to as little as 30 days. The proces sing time reductions were accomplished 
through a full reassessment of the procedures needed and information required for each 
type of request, with previous requirements  eliminated or reduced wherever possible. 
Essentially, the reductions in processing time  for production within a FTZ resulted in a 
vastly simplified review for the majority of  cases, while allowing for a more detailed 
review where warranted by the circumstances.   The FTZ Board's reassessment of its procedures  in 2012 was intended in part to better 
meet the needs of business in the United States. Statistics from 2012 and 2013, with WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 139 - 
 
  record numbers of cases reviewed by the FT Z Board, indicate that there was a demand 
from the business community for simplified a ccess to the FTZ program. However, due to 
the range of factors that enter into companies' location decisions, it is not practicable to 
try to assess the degree to which access to FTZs contributes to individual companies' 
location decisions. 
 Page 48, Para 3.26 
The report states that "U.S. non-preferential ru les of origin, used to determine origin for MFN 
trade, recognize first the concept of wholly obta ined, if a product was grown or manufactured in 
one country."  
Question 45: 
Has the U.S. notified non-preferential rules of origin to the WTO? If yes, please provide the reference number.  
 
RESPONSE: Yes. Reference numbers are G/RO /N/1 (including Add.1), G/RO/N/6, and 
G/RO/N/12. 
 
Question 46: Many Chinese enterprises reported that the rules to determine the origin of agricultural products imported by the U.S. are too complicated. Does the U.S. plan to further streamline relevant 
procedures and promote trade facilitation? 
 RESPONSE: It is not clear which rules of origin or procedures the question is referring 
to. The United States has no plans to change s to its non-preferential rules of origin. 
Page 50, Para 3.38 The report states that "The United States' app lied MFN rates are quite diverse, as a large number 
(37%) of tariff lines are free of duty, while there are a significant number (7%) of tariff peaks in 
sensitive sectors (tobacco, textiles, agriculture). Tariffs range from free to 510% (ad valorem equivalent) (Chart 3.3, Table A3.1)."  
Question 47: 
China notes that the U.S. applies zero tariff to 37% of its tariff lines, but is also concerned about its various tariff peaks in "sensitive sectors". Does the U.S. plan to use less tariff peaks in the 
future? 
 RESPONSE: As shown in the Table 3.2 of the Secretariat's Report, incidence of 
international tariff peaks (defined as any tariff rate at or above 15%) in the U.S. 
schedule has declined from 5.5% in 2004 to 5.1% in 2014. As is the case with other 
Members, the incidence of tariff peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule would be further 
reduced through balanced, ambitious multilateral trade liberalization. 
 
Page 50, Para 3.38 The report states that "Tariffs above 25% ad valorem are in the agriculture sector, in particular 
dairy, tobacco, and vegetable products; footwear; and textiles." 
 Question 48: 
While granting huge subsidies to its agricultural products, the U.S. also set a lot of tariff peaks to 
hinder the import of foreign agricultural products . Does the U.S. plan to remove unnecessary tariff 
peaks in the agricultural sector in the future?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. duty structure is a result of several successive rounds of 
multilateral trade negotiations. As shown in the Table III.4 of the Secretariat's Report, 
incidence of international tariff peaks (defined as any tariff rate at or above 15 percent) 
in the U.S. schedule has declined from 6. 6% in 2002 to 5.0% in 2012. As is the case 
with other Members, the incidence of tariff peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule would be 
further reduced through balanced, ambiti ous, multilateral trade liberalization.  
 
Page 52, Para 3.42 The report states that "The United States maintains tariff-rate quotas on 200 tariff lines of agricultural products, (beef, dairy products, pea nuts, sugar, chocolate & cocoa, olives, satsumas, 
animal feeds, tobacco, and cotton products). Approx imately half are in the dairy sector, including WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 140 - 
 
  milk, cream, butter, ice cream, and cheeses." 
 Question 49: Does the U.S. plan to reduce the types of the ag ricultural products subject to import quota to 
reduce excessive protection on its agricultural products?  
 RESPONSE: The United States has no current plans to unilaterally change its MFN tariffs 
or tariff quotas. To further liberalize ma rkets and bolster transparency, the United 
States is committed to and encourages th e implementation of the Bali Ministerial 
Understanding on Tariff-Rate Quota Administ ration. Moreover, the United States would 
make any required changes pursuant to an agreement under the Doha Development 
Agenda.  
 Page 53, Para 3.47 
The report states that "In recent times, the HMTF has accrued significant surpluses as typically 
only about half of collections have been approp riated for works. The fee rate remains unchanged 
at 0.125% on the declared value of commercial cargo." 
 
Question 50: As the levies of the HMT are far more than the actual expenditures of ports and significant surpluses have been accrued, does the U.S. plan to properly reduce the HMTF rate based on the 
actual situation to relieve unnece ssary burdens on enterprises?  
 RESPONSE: The amount of the Harbor Main tenance Tax (HMT), also called the Harbor 
Maintenance Fee, is set by statute (26 U.S.C. § 4461 and 4462). Time may pass between 
collection of the fee and expenditure of the re levant sums because, after each project is 
vetted, the funds must be appropriated by Co ngress in order for any project to begin. A 
considerable amount of recordkeeping and ac counting help ensure that funds that are 
collected are used for projects that are appr opriate under the provisions of the HMT fund 
and that they are used in a manner that is  in compliance with the United States' WTO 
obligations. 
 
Question 51: It seems that HMT only applies to imported commodities. Although exported commodities use port 
facilities to the same extent as imported ones, th ey are not subject to the HMT obligations. Please 
describe the reasonability of such practice.   
RESPONSE: The HMT applies to imports, admi ssions into foreign trade zones, domestic 
cargo shipped through a port, and passengers. Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1998, the tax is no longer collected on exports.   
Page 58, Para 3.58 
The report states that "The United States ha s extended the provisions of the Steel Import 
Monitoring and Analysis System (due to expire in March 2013) to 21 March 2017". 
 
Question 52: Please describe the reasons for extending automatic import licensing for steel products.  
 
RESPONSE: Prior to March 2013, a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register 
(77 FR 67593) asking for public comment abou t a proposal to modify the regulations for 
the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis Sy stem (SIMA) that would extend the system 
until March 2017. During a public notice peri od, three submissions were received from 
the public, including one from a coalition of eight steel trade groups. Each was in favor 
of the extension given the volatility of wo rld steel markets and the timely market and 
import information SIMA makes available to interested parties. Generally, the 
commenters view the system as an important and transparent tool to support rational 
decision-making by all interested parties. The final rule was published in the Federal 
Register (78 FR 11090). The comments received can be found on 
www.enforcement.trade.gov/steel/license. 
 Page 61, Para 3.63-3.65 
According to the Report, the Department of Commerce instituted some changes to its internal WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 141 - 
 
  regulations and practices relating to anti-dumping or countervailing investigations. 
 Questions 53: What's the purpose for the Department of Commerce to make such changes to its policies and 
practices? 
 RESPONSE: Each of the changes identified in th e Secretariat's report were either notified 
to the respective WTO Committee (if a ch ange in rule) or published in the Federal 
Register (if no rule change). The explanation as to why the United States made a 
particular change is set forth in the a pplicable document addressing the change. 
 
Questions 54: 
Besides the changes mentioned in the report, are there any other changes to the Department of Commerce's policies or practices relating to anti-dumping or countervailing investigations? 
 
RESPONSE: Any changes in the U.S. Department of Commerce's policies or practices relating to antidumping or countervailing duty investigations have been published in the 
Federal Register , which can be accessed at https://www.federalregister.gov/ .  
 
Questions 55: How will these changes impact the respondents in countries deemed as non-market economy 
countries by the Department of Commerce? 
 RESPONSE: Any impact based on rule, policy, or practice changes on countries involved 
in proceedings before the U.S. Department of Commerce will be case specific, based on 
the facts and circumstances involved, and will  not depend solely on the change involved. 
 
Questions 56: 
Has the Department of Commerce considered the opinion in the Chinese Government's written comments during the process of public comments relating to some of those changes?  
RESPONSE: With regards to any changes in rule, policy, or practice, the U.S. Department 
of Commerce takes into account all comments su bmitted in a particular proceeding or in 
any request for comments, as applicable to the particular change.  
 
Page 61, Para 3.66 The report states that "The United States had 294 anti-dumping and countervailing measures in 
place at the end of 2013, an increase of 18% si nce 2010. There was a general increase in the use 
of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on em erging markets during 2010-14, while remedies 
with respect to developed countries decreased."  
Question 57: 
During the post-crisis period, the U.S. significan tly increased its trade remedies, especially those 
against emerging economies, which has severely interrupted relevant trade activities. Please 
explain whether the U.S. plans to restrain the abuse of trade remedies for the sake of trade 
liberalization in the future?  
RESPONSE: Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are initiated in response 
to petitions filed by a U.S. industry. The de cision to impose an antidumping measure is 
based on a factual determination of whet her dumping exists and whether dumped 
imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. The 
decision to impose a countervailing duty meas ure is based on a factual determination of 
whether countervailable subsidies exists an d whether such subsidized imports have 
caused, or threaten to cause, material  injury to a domestic industry. Where 
dumped/subsidized imports, and material in j u r y  c a u s e d  b y  s u c h  i m p o r t s  h a v e  b e e n  
found, the United States will impose an anti dumping or countervailing duty measure, as 
may be applicable.  
 
Question 58:  
Trade in steel products accounts for a small propor tion in the total trade value of the U.S., but 
takes a disproportionately high percentage in the number of trade remedy investigations launched 
by the U.S.. Is the U.S. government protecting its the steel sector too much? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 142 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in strict accordance 
with WTO rules. Antidumping and countervailin g duty investigations are initiated in 
response to petitions filed by a U.S. indust ry. The decision to impose an antidumping 
measure is based on a factual determinatio n of whether dumping exists and whether 
that dumping has caused, or threatens to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. 
The decision to impose a countervailin g duty measure is based on a factual 
determination of whether countervailable su bsidies exists and whether countervailable 
subsidization has caused, or threatens to caus e, material injury to a domestic industry. 
Where dumping/subsidization, material inju ry, and a causal link between the two has 
been found, the United States will impose  an antidumping or countervailing duty 
measure, as may be applicable.  
 
Page 61, Para 3.66 The report states that "China was the country mainly affected, accounting for over 40% of all 
orders in 2013. The Republic of Korea and Chinese Taipei were also slightly more impacted during 
the period, whereas EU countries, Japan, and Brazil all had slightly lower levels of remedies applied (Table 3.8)." 
 
Question 59: While implementing trade remedies against Chinese products, the U.S. has simultaneously imposed antidumping and countervailing duties many times. Please explain the consistency of such 
practice with the WTO rules. 
 RESPONSE: It is not inconsistent with the WTO Antidumping Agreement or the 
WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Ag reement for a Member to simultaneously 
impose antidumping and countervailing duti es on the same imported product.  
 
Question 60: 
In the claims raised by China against the GPX Le gislation of the U.S. (DS449), the Appellate Body 
and the Panel ruled that 25 remedy investigations launched by the U.S. against Chinese Products were inconsistent with the WTO rules. China hope s that the U.S. will implement the WTO rulings in 
good faith. Please describe the plans of the U.S. in this regard. 
 RESPONSE: In its communication to the DSB on  August 21, 2014, and at the meeting of 
the DSB on August 29, 2014, the United Stat es stated its intention to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in United States – Countervailing and Anti-dumping 
Measures on Certain Products from China  (WT/DS449). The United States further stated 
that it would need a reasonable period of time (RPT) in which to do so. The United 
States and China have met several times to di scuss the RPT. The United States is hopeful 
that an agreement can be reached on the RPT shortly.  
 Question 61
： 
The U.S. is still suspected to have violated WTO rules while implementing the WTO rulings on the 
claims raised by China against the GPX Legislation.  In particular, the tax rates for certain products 
adopted upon the implementation were even high er than those before the implementation. Would 
the U.S. make some explanation in this regard? 
 
RESPONSE: The question is unclear to the United States. If China's question is referring to DSB rulings in the DS449 dispute involvin g the "GPX legislation," the United States 
intends to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and needs a reasonable 
period of time in which to do so. 
 Question 62: 
According to many Chinese enterprises, while  conducting anti-dumping and countervailing 
investigations against Chinese products, the U.S.  frequently abuses unreasonable "surrogate 
price", causing severe over-valuation on the margin of dumping and subsidization. Please explain 
whether the U.S. plans to make improvement in this regard. 
 RESPONSE: The United States disagrees with China's characterization of the use of the 
surrogate value methodology. The United Stat es administers its trade remedy laws in 
accordance with WTO rules. Antidumping and countervailing duty determinations are 
based on the specific facts and circumstance s that exist in a particular proceeding; WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 143 - 
 
  therefore, any impact from the application of  a particular methodology used will depend 
on the specifics of a particular proceeding.  Question 63: 
Article 15(a) of China's Accession Protocol to WTO will expire on December 11, 2016 and no WTO 
member should continue to treat China as a non-market economy country in anti-dumping proceedings. In this regard, what actions will the U.S take in order to fulfill its WTO obligation to 
recognize China's market economy status immediately after December 11, 2016?  
 RESPONSE: The United States will take such ac tion as is necessary when the provisions 
of subparagraph 15(a)(ii) of Ch ina's Accession Protocol to WTO expire 15 years after the 
date of China's accession to the WTO. 
 Page 62, Para 3.67 
The report states that "Some 39 investigations were initiated in 2013, compared to an average in 
the other 4 years of 2010-14 of 9 per year."  
Question 64: 
Please explain the reasons for the significant increase in the number of anti-dumping investigations initiated in 2013.  
RESPONSE: Antidumping duty investigations ar e initiated in response to petitions filed 
by a U.S. industry. Any increase in the number of  investigations initiated is as a result of 
an increase in petitions being filed that m eet the specific requirements for initiation. 
 
Page 64, Para 3.69 The report states that "The trend for countervailing duty investigations during 2010-14 was similar 
to that of anti-dumping investigations. They remained relatively low with the exception of 2013 
when 19 investigations were initiated."  Question 65: 
Please explain the reasons for the significan t increase in the number of countervailing 
investigations initiated in 2013.  
RESPONSE: Countervailing duty investigations ar e initiated in response to petitions filed 
by a U.S. industry. Any increase in the number of  investigations initiated is as a result of 
an increase in petitions being filed that m eet the specific requirements for initiation. 
 
Page 65, Para 3.72 The report states that "While the number of review s has varied over the last eight years, there has 
been a significant trend with fewer orders bein g revoked. In 2007-8, approximately half of all 
orders were revoked, whereas in 2013-14, about 90%  of reviews resulted in the continuation of 
the remedy (Chart 3.8)."  
Question 66: 
Please provide reasons for the significant decrease  in the number of the rulings of "terminating 
trade remedies" in sunset reviews. Additionally , in recent years, the U.S. has considerably 
increased the use of countervailing and anti-dumping measures, the timing of which coincides with 
that of "homecoming of U.S. manufacturing" st rategy. Please clarify whether this is just a 
coincidence.   
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with 
WTO rules. Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are initiated in response 
to petitions filed by a U.S. industry. The de cision to impose an antidumping measure is 
based on a factual determination of whethe r dumping exists and whether those dumped 
imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty meas ure is based on a factual determination of 
whether countervailable subsidies exists an d whether such subsidized imports have 
caused, or threaten to cause, material  injury to a domestic industry. Where 
dumped/subsidized imports, and material in j u r y  c a u s e d  b y  s u c h  i m p o r t s  h a v e  b e e n  
found, the United States will impose an anti dumping or countervailing duty measure, as 
applicable. A decision whether to continue  or revoke such a measure is based on WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 144 - 
 
  whether dumping/subsidization and material in jury would be likely to continue or recur 
if the measure is removed. Any increase or  decrease in determinations to revoke a 
specific measure depend on the specific fact s and evidence on the administrative record 
of the sunset review. No other factors are taken into consideration before imposing, 
continuing, or revoking an antidu mping/countervailing duty measure. 
 Page 76, Para 3.76 
The report states that "The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and 
Circular A-119 of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direct federal agencies to use 'voluntary consensus standards' as a basis for technical regulations and government procurement bids, except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. Thus, where a federal regulatory 
agency determines that mandatory compliance with a standard is needed to address a particular 
policy objective, it is required to rely on vol untary consensus standards and avoid developing its 
own 'government unique standard'". 
 
Question 67: Please make further elaboration on the "Volunt ary Consensus Standards". What's the difference 
between "Voluntary Consensus Standards" and "government unique standard"? 
 RESPONSE: The definition of the term s "voluntary consensus standard" and 
"government-unique standard" are included in section 4 of Circular A-119, which can be 
found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 . 
 
Page 68, Para 3.81 
The report states that "Since the last Review of the United States, five specific trade concerns have 
been raised in the TBT Committee against measures taken by the United States. Furthermore, three WTO dispute settlement proceedings taken against the United States under the 
TBT Agreement are pending (Table A2.1)." 
 Question 68: Please introduce the relevant progress and the im plementation of the DSB rulings by the U.S. in 
recent years.  
 RESPONSE: Table A2.1 (page 161) provides in formation related to disputes concerning 
the TBT Agreement for which the United States is a respondent: United States – 
Measures Concerning the Importation, Market ing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products; 
United States – Measures Affecting the Pr oduction and Sale of Clove Cigarettes; and 
United States – Certain Country of Or igin Labelling (COOL) Requirements.  
 In United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna 
and Tuna Products, the United States  made effective a final ru le that amended certain 
dolphin-safe labelling requirements to brin g those requirements into compliance with 
the DSB recommendations and rulings. In United States – Certain Country of Origin 
Labelling (COOL) Requirements , the United States issued a final rule that made certain 
changes to the COOL labelling requirements to  bring those requirements into compliance 
with the DSB recommendations and rulings.   
Additionally, on 3 October 2014, the United States and Indonesia notified the DSB that 
they had reached a mutually agreed solution.   Information regarding the status of the other two cases can be found on the WTO 
website: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop _e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm ; 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop _e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds386_e.htm . 
 
Page 70, Para 3.96 
The report states that "CBP requires export data to be filed electronically via the Automated Export 
System (AES) prior to departure of the cargo. The timeframes for electronic submission vary 
according to mode of transportation; e.g. for air cargo, no later than 2 hours prior to scheduled 
departure; for vessels, 24 hours prior to loading; and for truck/train, no later than one/two hours prior to arrival at the border."  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 145 - 
 
  Question 69: 
Information available to China indicates that some enterprises are unsatisfied with the advance electronic filing requirement of the U.S., viewin g such practice as imposing unnecessary burdens 
o n  t h e m .  W o u l d  t h e  U . S .  p l e a s e  m a k e  s o m e  c o m m e n t  i n  t h i s  r e g a r d ?  D o e s  t h e  U . S .  p l a n  t o  
improve such practice? 
 RESPONSE: Advance export information is required for security purposes and to assess 
risk prior to export. Automation is intended to  facilitate legitimate trade and target high 
risk shipments prior to de parture from the U.S.  
 The minimum time frames vary according to method of transportation for pre-departure 
filing. Electronic Export Information (EEI) is submitted through the Automated Export 
System, the gathering and processing system  developed through the corporative efforts 
of the CBP, U.S. Census and other federal ag encies. EEI is the electronic version of the 
Shippers Export Declaration (SED), which is no longer accepted in paper form.  
 CBP is currently in the process of automating  the export manifest in a phased approach 
by mode of transportation, and eventually w ill be required prior to departure. As CBP 
continues to automate, exporters should see increased efficiencies .  
 Page 72, Para 3.104 
The report states that "The United States imposes restrictions, licensing requirements, additional 
controls and prohibitions on a variety of exports for national security and foreign policy reasons."  
Question 70: 
The U.S. permits export of liquefied natural gas to its FTA partners, but imposes various restrictions on LNG export to other WTO members, which constitutes obviously a discrimination 
against the latter. Does the U.S. plan to relax export restrictions on LNG? 
 RESPONSE: The LNG projects that have been a pproved to date will enable the export of 
up to 5.7 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d ) of LNG to FTA and non-FTA partners. In 
addition, the U.S. Department of Energy has given conditional approval for another 4.9 
bcf/d, for a total of 10.6 bcf/d. As a practica l matter, the first project to export U.S. LNG 
is not expected to be operational until late 2015. 
 
Question 71: The U.S. has, by the excuse of "national security",  always restricted the export of hi-tech products, 
especially the export to China of hi-tech produc ts evidently for civil purposes. This has caused 
significant imbalance in Sino-U.S. trade. Does the U.S. plan to relax its export control on civil 
hi-tech products?  
RESPONSE: With respect to the "significant imbalance" in the U.S.-China trade 
relationship, the United States notes that its goods trade deficit with China totaled 
US$318 billion in 2013. In that year, Chin a exported US$440 billion of goods to the 
United States, while the United States expo rted only US$122 billion of goods to China. 
The United States notes further that only a small amount of U.S. exports is affected by U.S. "dual-use" export controls. Of the US $122 billion in U.S. exports to China in 2013, 
only 0.4% (i.e., less than one half of one pe rcent) was exported under a license required 
by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The United States remains committed to 
facilitating trade for commercial items destin ed for civilian end uses and civilian end 
users in China.  
 
Page 73, Para 3.106 The report states that "Enforcement of U.S. export controls is shared among the Department of 
Homeland Security, Department of Just ice, and the Department of Commerce." 
 Question 72: 
Please introduce the respective functions of the different authorities in export control.  
  RESPONSE: The Export Administration Ac t of 1979, as amended, authorizes the 
Department of Commerce, Bureau  of Industry and Security (BIS), in consultation with 
other appropriate agencies, to regulate the ex port or reexport of U.S.-origin dual-use WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 146 - 
 
  goods, software, and technology. BIS implements this authority through the Export 
Administration Regulations (EAR). BIS en forcement efforts encourage compliance, 
prevent and deter violations, and disrupt illicit  activities. BIS achieves these important 
objectives through a comprehensive law enforcement program.  
 
The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) is the co rnerstone of U.S. muni tions export control 
law. The Department of State implements th is statute by the International Traffic in 
Arms Regulations (ITAR). All persons or entiti es that engage in th e manufacture, export, 
or brokering of defense articles and serv ices must be registered with the U.S. 
Government. The ITAR sets out the requirements  for licenses or other authorizations for 
specific exports of defense ar ticles and services. The Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) enforces the ITAR through a comprehensive border protection program and 
criminal investigations.   
BOTH BIS and DHS are directly supported by the U.S. Department of Justice in 
prosecuting export crimes. Most of the support  for this is driven out of the National 
Security Division, Counteres pionage Section (CES).  
 
Page 74, Para 3.109 The report states that "The goal of the ECR is not to eliminate or reduce export controls but to reprioritize controls to better use government resources and enhance controls where they are 
needed on more sensitive items. The ECR plans to ease export requirements on a select group of 
less sensitive items, such as parts and componen ts to a specified group of 36 countries, while 
enhancing national security and foreign policy interests with respect to certain items and markets. 
For example, it plans to tighten controls by a dding items that were not previously subject to 
U.S. or UN arms embargoes."  
Question 73: 
China hopes that the U.S. effort in its export control reform will effectively reduce unnecessary restrictions on the trade of the civil products irrelevant to national security. Please detail the changes to the categories of the hi-tech commodities subject to export restrictions after the 
reform.  
 RESPONSE: Export control reform is a long-term effort whose centerpiece is changes in 
the U.S. Munitions List. However, the tran sferred items still will generally be military 
items even where they are moved to the Commerce Control List. At the same time, the United States remains committed to facilitating trade for commercial items destined for 
civilian end uses and civilian end users.  
 Page 74, Para 3.110 The report states that "in July 2013, the State De partment transferred its licensing database and 
IT platform to that of the Department of Defense, and a similar effort is being made by the 
Department of Commerce to link the three main Departments' IT infrastructures."  
Question 74: 
The State Department transferred its licensing da tabase and IT platform to the Department of 
Defense. Does this mean that the Department of Defense will be responsible for the export 
examination and approval of military products? The Department of Commerce is also linking the IT 
infrastructures of three key departments. How will this affect the status of DOC as the authority 
responsible for examining and approving th e export licensing of "dual-use items"? 
 
RESPONSE: The departments will be using th e same IT system to process and refer 
license applications. The process of reviewing license applications will remain the same. 
The State Department will continue to proc ess license applications for military items 
subject to its jurisdiction, with the Defense Department participating in the review. The 
Commerce Department will continue to proc ess license applications for dual-use and 
certain military items subject to its jurisdicti on, with other agencies, including State and 
Defense, participating in the review. 
 Page 74, Para 3.111 The report states that "In October 2013, the first major regulatory changes were introduced 
migrating a number of USML items related to aircraft, gas turbine engines, classified defense, and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 147 - 
 
  miscellaneous articles to the CCL". 
Question 75: Does this mean that the U.S. will expand the scope of "dual-use items" subject to export control in 
its export control reform? 
 
RESPONSE: Generally, the Export Control Reform  initiative will not expand the scope of 
dual-use items as the movement of items from  the jurisdiction of the State Department 
to the Commerce Department primarily conc erns military items. However, commercial 
satellites and related items, which were prev iously subject to the jurisdiction of the 
State Department, are now controlled as dual -use items under the jurisdiction of the 
Commerce Department as of November 10, 2014. 
 
Page 76, Para 3.116 The report states that "As part of the initiatives to spur the economy after the 2009 economic 
downturn, President Obama announced the NEI as a government-wide programme to promote 
exports, with the goal of doubling the amount of exports over five years."  
Question 76: 
Does the U.S. have any assessment of the effects of the NEI in recent years? What role does the NEI play in influencing the U.S. exports? Ha s the NEI achieved its expected objectives? 
 
RESPONSE: Feedback from customer survey s on the NEI and focus groups across the 
country – reaching more than 6,000 clients and partners – showed that U.S. companies 
are well-positioned to capitalize on growin g opportunities around the world and offered 
suggestions on how to improve upon th e NEI. NEI/NEXT is a new customer 
service-driven strategy with improved info rmation resources that will help American 
businesses capitalize on existing and new opportunities to sell Made-in-America goods 
and services abroad. NEI/NEXT is focused on improving data of use to exporters, 
providing information on specific export opportunities, working more closely with 
financing organizations and service providers to expand access to export-related 
resources, and partnering with states and communities to empower local export efforts 
and make it easier for small businesse s to understand where to go for help. 
 Question 77: 
Please describe the measures adopted by the U.S. to ensure that the export-oriented "export 
doubling plan" will not constitute export subsidies and remain consistent with the WTO rules.  
RESPONSE: NEI was developed by several agen cies within the U.S. government. Final 
approval of the initiative was also subject to interagency review. In the course of the 
development and final approval  of the initiative, those ag encies with WTO expertise 
were able to raise and address any conc erns related to WTO rules. On-going 
implementation and review of the program is  also a matter of interagency coordination 
which ensures continued consistency with WTO rules.  
Question 78: 
Is the U.S. concerned that the plan may incur a new round of export competition among various WTO members and impede the global economic recovery? 
 
RESPONSE: No, the United States is not co ncerned that WTO members' efforts will 
"impede the global economic recovery."  
Page 76, Para 3.118 
The report states that "In May 2014, the Administration launched NEI/NEXT as the successor of the NEI. It builds on the principles of the NEI an d lessons learned from NEI customer surveys, and 
provides a strategic framework to continue export growth." 
 Question 79: 
Please compare NEI/NEXT with NEI in terms of sp ecific measures. what are the major changes? Is 
there a definite implementation period for NEI/NEXT? Is there any assessment of the effects of the  NEI/NEXT since its implementation about half a year ago?  
RESPONSE: See response to Question 76.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 148 - 
 
  Page 76, Para 3.119 
The report states that "Several government agencies or departments have specific programmes to support or otherwise encourage exports (Table 3.12)."  
Question 80: 
Please clarify whether the export incentives adop ted by these agencies, especially some measures 
taken by the Department of Agriculture, involv e export subsidies prohibited by the WTO.  
 
RESPONSE: All of the referenced programs ar e consistent with the United States WTO 
obligations.   
Page 77, Para 3.120 
The report states that "USTDA provides grant funding for early project planning activities such as feasibility studies, pilot projects, and technica l assistance to introduce foreign grantees to 
U.S. technologies. " 
 Question 81: 
Please describe the scale of such funding in rece nt years. Does the funding constitute a subsidy 
granted based on export performance?  
RESPONSE: USTDA provides grants directly to  overseas sponsors who, in turn, select 
U.S. companies to perform agency-funded pr oject development activities. An overseas 
sponsor is a local entity, public or private, with the decision-making authority and ability 
to implement a project. While USTDA projects span a variety of sectors, many focus on 
clean energy and energy efficiency, tran sportation, information and communications 
technology, and the environment. The tota l budgetary resources for fiscal year 2013 
were: US$65,145,017. Funding is not co ntingent upon export performance. 
 
Page 77, Para 3.121 The report states that "The Ex-Im Bank is an independent government agency, and serves as the 
official export credit agency of the United States. It is self-financed in the sense that its fees and 
services charged," 
 Question 82: 
Please explain whether the Ex-Im Bank, as a self-financed U.S. governmental agency, is entitled to 
other special supporting measures or policy preferences.  
RESPONSE: As a government agency, the Ex-Im Bank borrows funds from the U.S 
Treasury in order to fund direct loan co mmitments. Ex-Im Bank transactions carry the 
full faith and credit of the U.S. Government but as a self-sustaining agency Ex-Im Bank does not receive annual appropriations from  the U.S. Treasury to cover expenses. 
Ex-Im Bank is required to pay interest, base d on current rates and terms, on the funds 
borrowed from the U.S. Treasury. The Bank is  not entitled to other special supporting 
measures or policy preferences. For further information, see: http://www.exim.gov/ 
about/library/reports/annualreports/2014/up load/Management-Discussion-Analysis-
09-30-14-as-of-11-14-14-FINAL.pdf .  
 
Page 77, Para 3.121 
The report states that "In its last reauthorization in 2012, Congress set its lending authority limit to US$100 billion, rising to US$140 billion in FY2014.".  
Question 83: 
Please explain why the lending authority limit of the Ex-Im Bank was significantly increased in FY2014.  
 
RESPONSE: The lending authority is establishe d by Congress. The increase of the lending 
authority limit to US$140 billion was a result of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization 
Act of 2012. Of the increase in the lending authority, the report from the House of 
Representatives said this:   
"Section 3 would allow the bank to continue providing new loans, guarantees, 
and insurance through 2015. Section 4 would increase Ex-Im's maximum WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 149 - 
 
  allowable financial exposure to US $120 billion in 2012, US$140 billion in 2013, 
and US$160 billion each year  thereafter. CBO estimates that such an increase 
would allow Ex-Im to continue expanding at  its recent rate of about 15% a year." 
 
See: https://www.congress.gov/congressional -report/112th-congress/house-report/ 
201/1 .  
 
Page 77, Para 3.122 
The report states that "The main focus of the Ex-Im Bank is to provide direct loans, guarantees, and insurance to help finance U.S. exports of goods and services.".  
Question 84: 
Please list the private financial institutions in the U.S. providing export loans, guarantees and 
insurance besides the Ex-Im Bank as a governmental agency. Please describe the differences 
between the Ex-Im Bank and the private institutio ns in terms of the application scope and fee 
rates of relevant financial services.   
RESPONSE: Numerous private sector financia l institutions provide loans, guarantees, 
and insurance products for exporters. Fo r example, the Ex-Im Bank has financed 
projects alongside JP Morgan and Citibank. Ex -Im Bank financing tends to be of a larger 
size, longer term, and of a different risk nature. 
 
Page 78, Para 3.123 The report states that "The Ex-Im Bank has grown in recent years, especially 2012, in part fuelled 
by the NEI initiative." 
 Question 85: 
Please describe How the NEI promoted the growth  of the export financing services of the 
Ex-Im Bank.   RESPONSE: The "whole-of-government" approa ch under the NEI, and continued under 
NEI/NEXT, helped connect the Export-Import Bank to more customers and transactions. 
The NEI set a goal of doubling U.S. exports between 2009 and 2014, and has devoted resources to improve the conditions that dire ctly affect the private sector's ability to 
export. (See, http://www.commerce.gov/news/fac t-sheets/2013/05/ 24/fact-sheet-
national-export-initiative .)  
Ex-Im Bank's services have been prominen tly featured on the homepage of the NEI 
(http://trade.gov/nei/ ), and in the U.S. Department  of Commerce's Trade Finance 
Guide: 
(http://www.export.gov/static/TradeFi nanceGuide_All_Latest_eg_main_043219.pdf ).  
 
Page 78, Para 3.123 
The report states that "In FY2013, it authoriz ed total financing of US$27.3 billion to support 
US$37.4 billion in exports, a slight decrease  compared to the record levels in FY2012 
(Table 3.13)." 
 Question 86: 
Please describe the respective proportion taken by the high-income OECD countries, the 
medium-and-low-income countries and the low-income countries released by the World Bank in the export financing worth US$27.3 billion. Please li st the main export products enjoying financing 
support.  
 
RESPONSE:  A complete list of the Ex-Im Bank's authorizations by market for fiscal year 
2013 can be found at the following link: http://www.exim.gov/about/library/reports/ 
annualreports/2013/FY2013-auth-by-market.pdf . 
 
For high-income OECD countries, the Ex-Im Bank 's authorizations in fiscal year 2013 
totalled US$9.96 billion. For lower-middle-inco me economies, authorizations totalled 
US$4.63 billion. For low-income economies,  authorizations totalled US$127 million. 
The main export products financed th rough the Ex-Im Bank include aircraft 
manufacturing, industrial machinery and equipment, engineering services, and 
semiconductor machinery manufacturing.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 150 - 
 
  Question 87: 
Please describe the risk exposures of the Ex-Im Bank in China in FY2013. Please introduce the 
ranking of the above exposure in the main trade pa rtners of the U.S. and the proportion taken by 
loans, guarantees and insurance in the exposure.  
 
RESPONSE:  Ex-Im Bank's exposure in China as of March 31, 2014 was US$3.0 billion 
(USD), ranking 12th among our trade partners.  
 
Question 88: Please describe the main reasons for the gradual decrease of business volume of the Ex-Im Bank in recent years. Has the U.S. made corresponding assessment? 
 
RESPONSE: A resurging economy and an increasingly liquid lending environment resulted in more private lenders funding expo rt finance during the year. As a result, the 
Ex-Im Bank has seen its authorizations decrea se from the recent highs brought about in 
the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The Ex -Im Bank's role is to match competition 
from other exports credit agencies and fill in the gaps when private lenders are unable 
or unwilling to provide support. As such, the Ex-Im Bank's authorizations are, to a 
certain extent, contra-c yclical liquidity. See: http://www.exim.gov/about/ 
library/reports/annualreports/2014/upload /Management-Discussion-Analysis-09-30-
14-as-of-11-14-14-FINAL.pdf . 
 
Page 78, Para 3.124 The report states that "In terms of destinations, the Ex-Im Bank authorizations and activities are 
very diverse, with activities in over 150 count ries. In terms of exposure, Mexico, India, the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emir ates, Australia, Ireland, and Turkey are the 
dominant destinations." 
 
Question 89: Please clarify the reasons why certain export markets enjoy more export financial services provided by the Ex-Im Bank. While providing serv ices, does the Ex-Im Bank, as a governmental 
agency, grant policy preferences to commodities of certain types or with certain export 
destinations?  
RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank is a demand-driven export credit agency; therefore, the 
sectors it supports are those whose companies co me to it for financing. The only sectors 
on which the Ex-Im Bank is directed to focu s are small business (which is more a cross 
section of many industries), and renewabl e energy technology/products. The Ex-Im 
Bank also has a Congressional mandate to promote the expansio n of its financial 
commitments in sub-Saharan Africa.  
 
Page 78, Table 3.13 Ex-Im Bank authorizations, 2011-13  
Question 90: 
Are the loans, guarantees and insurance provid ed by the Ex-Im Bank in compliance with the 
Gentleman's Agreement of the OECD? If not, please specify the reasons.  
 
RESPONSE:  Yes, all of the official medium- and long-term loans guarantees and 
insurance provided by the Ex-Im Bank are in compliance with the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits. 
 
Question 91: Please define the working capital (including term, beneficiaries and scope of support) indicated in 
the table. 
 RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank's Working Capital Guarantee Program (WCGP) provides a 
90% guarantee on loans made by commercial lenders to creditworthy U.S. businesses 
that export. The loans are secured by export-related accounts receivable and export-related inventory collateral. The WCGP is an asset based lending product where the amount the exporter can borrow is determined by the available collateral securing 
the loan based on formula advance rates. The WCGP is a short term product. The term WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 151 - 
 
  of the loan facilities are generally 12 months but can go up to 36 months. 
 Ex-Im Bank's Global Credit Express program is  specially designed to deliver short-term 
working capital loans directly to creditwort hy small business exporters. Through this 
new program, small business exporters may be  eligible for a 6- or 12-month revolving 
line of credit of up to US$500,000. Global Credit Express adds liquidity to the U.S. small business export market by financing the bu siness of exporting rather than specific 
export transactions. This is a pilot program currently offered through a select number of 
originators nationwide.  Question 92: 
Are the working capital loans granted by the Ex-Im Bank different from the working capital loans 
provided by other commercial banks in terms of beneficiaries, term and scope of support?  
RESPONSE: The structure of the WCGP is si milar to the asset-based lending programs 
offered by commercial lenders. Most commercial lenders however, prefer to lend only on 
domestic accounts receivable and invent ory, and are not willing to lend on 
export-related accounts receivable and inve ntory without a guarantee. Ex-Im Bank's 
WCGP allows U.S. businesses to expand th eir borrowing capacity and liquidity to 
facilitate more exports.   
The Global Credit Express program was create d to help small businesses obtain loans of 
US$500,000 or less. Very few commercial lenders are interested in making loans of 
US$500,000 or less to exporters. The Ex-Im Bank  stepped in to fill this financing gap. 
 
Page 78, Para 3.125 The report states that "As of June 2014, the Ex-Im bank faced an uncertain future as Congress 
debated its reauthorization; its current mandate an d authorization are scheduled to expire at the 
end of September 2014."  Question 93: 
Please introduce the latest progress of the reauthorization to the Ex-Im Bank. 
 RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank's charter was reauthorized by Congress in September 2014. 
The new date of expiration is June 30, 2015.  
  
Page 78, Para 3.126 
The report states that "OPIC is the government's development finance institution. It facilitates U.S. investment in developing countries by pr oviding investors with financing, guarantees, 
political-risk insurance, and support for private equity investment funds. Like the Ex-Im Bank, 
OPIC is a self-financed, indepe ndent government corporation. " 
 Question 94: 
Please introduce the main private financial instit utions in the U.S. providing the above-mentioned 
financial services for outbound investments in ad dition to the OPIC. Please describe the difference 
between the OPIC and such private institutions in  terms of the application scope and fee rate of 
the relevant financial services. 
 RESPONSE: OPIC's financial services are not intended to replace private financing of 
investment. One of the principle considerations  in deciding whether OPIC involvement is 
warranted is whether long-term private fina ncing is otherwise unavailable. Fees for 
OPIC's financial products are based on the unde rlying cost of capital, adjusted to reflect 
commercial and political risks involved, and are otherwise consistent with commercial 
practices. 
 Question 95: 
Compared with the Ex-Im Bank, is OPIC subject to certain restrictions in its political risk insurance 
business, e.g. are there any countries or sectors not to be covered? If yes, please specify.  
 RESPONSE: OPIC is able to operate in mo re than 150 developing and post-conflict 
countries; hence OPIC is able to offer politic al risk insurance for operations in all of WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 152 - 
 
  these countries. A full list of countries where OPIC operates is available at 
http://www.opic.gov/doing-business- us/OPIC-policies/where-we-operate . Although 
OPIC activities, including insurance policies,  are generally not limited to particular 
sectors, OPIC is categorically  prohibited from supporting ce rtain types of projects. Those 
prohibitions are listed at: http://www.opic.gov/doing-business-us/applicant-
screener/insurance-eli gibility-checklist#1 . 
 
Page 79, Para 3.131 
The report states that "The American Taxpayer Re lief Act of 2012 signed into law in January 2013 
further extended the 50% first-year bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired and placed in service from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013. It also provided one-year extensions 
for several tax credits, including: credit for alte rnative-fuel vehicle refuelling property; alternative 
fuels excise tax credits; extension and modification of cellulosic biofuel producer credit; incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel; and special allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property." 
 
Question 96: Please describe the specific measures under th e American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 regarding 
preferential tax policies and subsidies granted to enterprises.  
 RESPONSE:  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was estimated to cost 
US$3,916 billion between 2011 and 2022. Most of this cost was for individual taxpayer 
relief in terms of lower tax rates and perman ently adjusting the individual alternative 
minimum tax such that it would not apply to  as many people. Business tax incentives 
accounted for roughly US$60 billion of the total. Extension and modification of credits 
for renewable energy were estimated to co st approximately US$13 billion between 2011 
and 2022. Specific provisions that were temporarily extended through the end of 
calendar year 2013 include: the New Market s Tax Credit costing US$1,794 million over 
2011 to 2022; the credit for production of cellulosic biofuel with a maximum credit of 
US$1.01 per gallon costing US$49 million over  2011 to 2022; extension of credits for 
biodiesel and renewable diesel costing US$2,181 million over 2011 to 2022; and, the 
credit for energy-efficient appliances c osting US$659 million over 2011 to 2022. Where 
appropriate, these programs were included  and are described in detail in the most 
recent U.S. subsidy notification (see, G/ SCM/N/253/USA). For further detail, please 
see: https://www.jct.gov/publicatio ns.html?func=startdown&id=4509 . 
 
Page 80, Para 3.133-3.134 The report states that "The United States is also committed to enhancing the national business 
framework by promoting innovation in the private sector. To this end, the Innovative Technologies 
Investment Incentive Act of 2013 provides credit for equity investments to high technology or 
biotechnology businesses that employ less than 500 employees." "State-level legislatures have also focused on providing investment incentives to businesses 
through grants, tax credits, loans, and corporate income tax abatement with the aim of promoting, 
inter alia, job creation (New Jersey, Oregon),  clean technology (New Mexico, Wyoming), and 
development activities (Colorado)." 
 
Question 98: Please elaborate on the taxation policies promulgated by the U.S. government in recent years to 
encourage investments in innovative technologies, especially the preference granting modes and 
effects of enterprise income tax policies.  RESPONSE: The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentive Act of 2013 did not 
become law. The President in his fiscal year 2015 Budget 
(http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce nter/tax-policy/Documents/General-
Explanations-FY2015.pdf ) proposed some incentives for in vestment and production of 
innovative technologies. These include a tax cr edit for investment in property used in 
advanced energy manufacturing, a tax credit for the production of advanced technology 
vehicles, a tax credit for medium- and heavy- duty alternative-fuel commercial vehicles, 
a tax credit for cellulosic biofuels, and a tax credit for construction of energy-efficient 
new homes. Combined these proposals we re estimated to cost approximately 
US$11 billion between 2015 and 2024. However, none of these proposals have become 
law. Other relevant tax incentive programs ca n be found in the U.S. subsidy notification, 
which includes programs at the central an d sub-central levels of government (see, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 153 - 
 
  G/SCM/N/253/USA).  
 Question 99: Please describe the aggregate amount of support in the program. 
 
RESPONSE:  Support levels can be found in the U.S.  subsidy notification, which includes 
programs at the central and sub-central levels of government (refer to 
G/SCM/N/253/USA).   
 Page 80, Para 3.135 The report states that "Discussions on a tax reform to simplify the corporate tax code and lower its 
top rate are ongoing." 
 Question 100: 
Please describe the latest progress of the tax relief program.  
 RESPONSE: Business tax reform in particular continues to be discussed though none of 
the proposals has been adopted into law. Representative Dave Camp has held many 
hearings and produced a comprehensive tax re form plan that has been released to the 
public in parts. ( http://waysandmeans.house.gov/taxreform/ ) Similarly, Senator Max 
Baucus released a series of discussion documents detailing a tax reform proposal. 
(http://www.finance.senate.gov/issue/ ?id=7D222262-D589-4D5E-A2AB-1504273E2E 
61) While neither proposal was adopted into law, discussions in Congress and with the 
President are ongoing. 
 
Page 80, Para 3.137 The report states that "The U.S. Small Busine ss Administration (SBA) provides counselling and 
financial assistance to small businesses through, inter alia, loan guarantees and federal 
procurement opportunities. Within this framework, the SBA has 32 permanent programmes, and approved 101,066 loans over the fiscal year 2013."  
Question 101: 
Please describe the difference between the SBA and private financial institutions in terms of the 
application scope and fee rate of loan guarantees.  
 
RESPONSE: SBA only provides a guaranty on a loan when the lender certifies that it 
would not make the loan without a guaranty due to the perceived greater risk of the 
credit ( i.e., the borrower). Because of the perceived greater risk, the business seeking a 
loan is often left with the choice of not ge tting a business loan or obtaining a loan with 
an SBA guaranty. SBA charges to  take that risk (guaranteed shares vary from 50% to 
90% of the loan amount, depending on the loan size and program), which passes 
through to the borrower. The guaranty fee that SBA charges on the guaranteed portion 
of the loan is tiered: 2% on loans up to US$150,000, 3% on loans from 500,001 to 700,000, 3.5% on loans 700,001 to US$1 million, and 3.75% on the guaranteed portion 
over US$1 million. As a result , the borrower typically pays a higher total cost than it 
would if it were able to obtain financing without SBA participation.  
Page 80, Para 3.140 
The report states that "In most cases, subsidies take the form of grants, tax concession, loan guarantees, and direct payments. The agricult ure and energy sectors remain the largest 
recipients." 
 
Question 102: Please update the changes made to the energy subsidy policies of the U.S. during the period under 
review.  
 RESPONSE: The most recent information can be  found in our last subsidy notification 
(refer to G/SCM/N/253/USA). The next subsid y notification is due June 30, 2015. See 
also the response to question 96.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 154 - 
 
  Question 103: 
Please provide the assessment of the U.S. on th e roles of energy subsidies in the economic 
recovery.  
RESPONSE: Recovery tax incentives and spen ding were focused on countering the steep 
decline in GDP and employment. Incentives for energy, primarily clean energy, were a 
relatively minor part of the legislation.  Key targets included energy efficiency, 
renewable generation, and grid moderation. For further information on recovery 
spending, please see the response to question 105.   
 Question 104: 
Please provide the proportion of the annual tax ex emption (including federal, state and local tax 
exemption) in the aggregate annual tax income in recent years. Please describe the main tax exemption and other preferential programs and their legal basis. Please introduce how these 
programs are administrated and operated (e.g. regulating authorities, application qualifications 
and conditions, and the examinatio n and approval procedures).  
 
RESPONSE: While the nature of the information requested in this question is not entirely 
clear, information with respect to preferen tial tax programs, at both the federal and 
state levels, can be found in our most recent subsidy notification (see, G/SCM/N/253/USA).   
 
 Page 81, Para 3.142 
The report states that "As of September 2013,  outlays under the American Recovery and Re-
investment Act (ARRA) of 2009 have included tax cuts (US$212 billion), mandatory spending on 
programmes such as Medicaid and unemployment  benefits (US$296 billion), and discretionary 
spending (US$279 billion) for individuals and invest ments in infrastructure, energy, education, and 
health care. The most recent CBO estimates show that the fiscal support from the Recovery Act will total US$832 billion through 2019."  
Question 105: 
Will the fiscal support of US$832 billion under the Am erican Recovery and Re-investment Act cause 
unnecessary distortion to the domestic market an d foreign trade of the U.S.? Has the U.S. make 
any assessment in this regard? 
 RESPONSE: Most of the ARRA programs provid ed relief to individuals or to subnational 
governments. When analyzed for the 2009 through 2013 period, recovery spending can 
be broken down into seven broad categori es. (See Council of Economic Advisers, The 
Economic Impact of the American Recovery  and Investment Act Five Years Later, 
February 2014,  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def ault/files/docs/cea_arra_report.pdf ). 
 
As shown below, most of the fiscal support  was for individuals (45%) and subnational 
governments and public outlays (51%), with  business tax incentives accounting for the 
rest. The focus of the bill was on helping fami lies through a difficult economic period by 
encouraging job creation. Approximately half of public investment focused 
infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, wh ile the rest supported technology, such as 
scientific research and clean energy. The spending under the ARRA was intended to 
prevent the U.S. economy, and the world econ omy, from falling into further decline. 
Such stimulus spending was common among all governments that had the financial 
resources. 
 
 Functional Category 2009 through 2013 
1. Individual Tax Cuts 181.7 
2. Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Relief 69.0 
3. Aid to Directly Impacted Individuals 111.5 
4. State Fiscal Relief 143.0 
5. Public Investment Outlays 270.5 
6. Business Tax Incentives 28.8 
7. Total 804.6 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 155 - 
 
  Page 82, Para 3.149 
The report states that "By contrast, determining whether other restrictions to competition are illegal depends on applying U.S. courts' "rule of re ason", which is a court's assessment of actual or 
likely anticompetitive effect in a particular case." 
 
Question 106: Please describe the main factors to be considered by the U.S. courts while applying the "rule of 
reason".  
 RESPONSE: According to the United States Su preme Court, "the inquiry mandated by the 
Rule of Reason is whether the challenged agreement is one that promotes competition 
or one that suppresses competition." Nat'l Soc' y of Prof'l Eng'rs v. United States, 435 
U.S. 679, 691 (1978). Accordingly, courts must  determine whether a restraint is likely to 
have an anticompetitive effect and, if so, whether the restraint has sufficiently 
"countervailing procompetitive virtue[s]." FT C v. Ind. Fed'n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 
459 (1986).  
The "criterion to be used in judging the validity of a restraint on trade is its impact on 
competition." NCAA v. Bd. of Regents of  the Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 104 
(1984). Factors that may be relevant to a rule-of-reason analysis include the market 
power of the parties imposing the restrain t, the scope of the restraint, and the 
restraint's source. Leegin Creative Leathe r Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 
897-98 (2007); Bus. Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 725-27 (1988). Courts also consider whether the restrain ha s caused "actual detrimental effects, such 
as a reduction of output." Indiana Federati on of Dentists, 476 U. S. at 460-61 (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  
Page 85, Para 3.167 
The report states that "The United States passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments  for purchases of goods and services. When the 
law goes into effect, a 2% tax is to be applied to foreign entities not party to an international 
procurement agreement." 
 Question 107: 
This measure has obviously caused adverse impact on free trade and fair competition, and 
increased the goods and service purchasing cost of  the U.S. government, thus increasing its fiscal 
burden. Does the U.S. plan to annul this tax in future?  
 
RESPONSE: The effective date of the st atute was the date of its enactment, 
January 2, 2011. Under the Constitution of th e United States, only the U.S. Congress can 
repeal statutes such as the tax, and the Un ited States cannot speculate on any future 
action that the U.S. Congress may take with respect to the tax .  
 Page 85, Para 3.169 
The report states that "In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), issued pursuant to 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, remains the primary regulatory tool for acquisition and contracting procedures in the federal government." 
 
Question 108: Please describe whether Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) project is subject to the laws related to 
governmental procurement? Will the requirements  regarding governmental procurement still apply 
to project operators when they make procurem ent in the post-establishment operation of PPP 
projects?   
RESPONSE: Public-private partnerships (PPPs) is a generic term used to describe many 
different types of relationships between a government and the private sector. Those 
types of relationships include, but are no t limited to, government procurements. PPPs 
that are government procurements would be subject to all relevant procurement laws 
and, where applicable, inte rnational trade commitments, including the WTO Agreement 
on Government Procurement.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 156 - 
 
  Page 92, Para 3.197 
The report states that "In its Trade Policy Review and at the DSB, the United States also reported 
on legislative activities linked to implementation  of DSB recommendations concerning IP-related 
case." 
 
 Question 109: 
In the 2012 trade policy review, the U.S. introduc ed in its replies that the FTC and the DOJ had 
conducted public seminars to discuss the impacts of the PAEs on innovation, competition and anti-monopoly policies and enforcement. According to some reports, on 9 December 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Innovation Act proposed by Congressman Bob Goodlatte 
and Chairman of the Intellectual Property, Comp etition and the Internet Subcommittee in the 
House of Representatives. Please describe the latest progress of the Act. Please detail measures restricting Patent Troll behaviors under the Act.  
 
RESPONSE: The Innovation Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 5, 2013. The bill was referred to th e U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
on December 9, 2013. The United States is not in a position to characterize a draft bill 
that has not been adopted by the Congress or entered into force as law.   Page 94, Para 3.202 
The report states that "Patent timeliness, measur ed in terms of total pendency (time from filing 
date to final disposition), improved from 33.9 months in October 2012 to 27.8 months in June 2014, progressing towards the goal of 20 months by 2019." 
 
Question 110: What measures has the USPTO taken to shorten th e U.S. patent pendency from 33.9 months in 
2012 to 27.8 months in 2014? Are there any restrictions on the timing or number of the notices to 
be issued by examiners? Is accelerated review included in the calculation of pendency? Please 
describe further measures to be adopted by the USPTO in order to shorten the pendency from 
27.8 months to 20 months in 2019. 
 
RESPONSE: The USPTO is reducing the back log and pendency of unexamined patent 
applications while improving quality thanks to expanded training, improved technology, 
and the dedication of our highly capable em ployees. As a result, total patent pendency 
has fallen to approximately 27.4 months.  
 
The USPTO is realizing benefits from the success of various initiatives, pilots, and 
operational improvements. The agency has mo ved from a one-track patent examination 
process to a multitrack process by adopting procedures and initiatives that incentivize 
abandoning applications that are not import ant to applicants, accelerating critical 
technologies, permitting an applicant to a ccelerate applications, and exploring other 
incentive and accelerated examination options.  Specific initiatives include Quick Path 
Information Disclosure Statement pilot progra m, the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, 
and Track One Prioritized Examination program. 
 
The USPTO continues to increase its ex amination capacity by employing new 
recruitment and development models to hire , train, and retain a highly skilled and 
diverse workforce. For exam ple, the USPTO's satellite offices support the agency's 
mission to foster the growing contribution  that IP makes to the growing economy. 
 
In providing more effective training, the USPTO further enhances patent examination 
fundamentals, communication, and cooperatio n between the examiner and applicant. 
The USPTO utilizes a highly successful trai ning and refresher training program that 
encompasses over 20 modules designed to enhance examiners' knowledge and skills in 
procedural and legal topics pertaining to pa tent examination. In addition, as part of 
Executive Action No. 6, the USPTO expanded its Patent Ex aminer Technical Training 
Program (PETTP), which provides patent ex aminers with direct access to experts who 
are able to share their technical knowledge on  prior art and industry standards in areas 
of emerging technologies and established te chnologies. The PETTP provides an excellent 
opportunity for communication between patent  examiners and the experts who work in 
the various technologies that are examined  throughout the USPTO. This enhanced WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 157 - 
 
  communication contributes to improving over all patent quality an d decreasing patent 
pendency.  Question 111: 
Has USPTO established the track three system? If yes, who may submit the application and what 
are the conditions of applying for delayed examinations? RESPONSE: The agency has established a multitrack process. Further information 
regarding track one applications and qualifications can be found at the following 
website: http://www.uspto.gov/pa tents/init_events/Track_One.jsp. 
 Question 112: 
In addition to communicating with the USPTO regardomg specific patent applications, is there any 
channel for the applicants to communicate with th e USPTO about general affairs, e.g. application 
quality, establishment of rights and requirements and examination efficiency? 
 
RESPONSE: Several mehanisms exist for the USPT O to consider user feedback on various 
subject matter and issues. The USPTO regularly holds roundtables, open houses, and 
town hall meetings to receive user inputs. Additionally, the USPTO regularly will publish 
Federal Register notices requesting written comments from the public on specific topics and initiatives. Further, the Patent Public  Advisory Committee (PPAC) provides public 
input to the USPTO at regular intervals. See  http://www.uspto.gov/about-
us/organizational-offices/public-advi sory-committees/patent-public-advisory-
committee-ppac . 
 
Question 113: 
According to the U.S. patent law, patent application must be submitted in the name of the inventor. In case of an invention for hire, the inve ntor will transfer the patent application to his/her 
company in accordance with the employment cont ract. The company may only obtain patent as a 
patent transferee. As laws of other WTO member s permit companies to directly submit patent 
applications in their own names, will the USPTO cons ider permitting foreign applicants to apply for 
patents directly in the name of companies to streamline procedures and reduce unnecessary 
burdens on applicants? 
 RESPONSE: The assignee can be the applicant. However, the inventor  must still execute 
an oath/declaration. The assignee may only ex ecute a substitute stat ement in lieu of an 
oath/declaration where the inventor refuses to execute an oath/ declaration, cannot be 
found or reached after diligent effort, is deceased, or is legally incapacitated. 
 
Question 114: If the patent period is extended, especially due to FDA examination, it is difficult for the public to 
directly enquire about the actual expiry date of the patent and the public must rely on 
professionals to search for the actual expiry date . Will the U.S. introduce more convenient ways of 
searching the legal status of U.S. patents for easier  access of the public to the actual protection 
period of extended patents?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States Patent and Trad emark Office does not calculate expiration 
dates for patents. In response to patent  owner and public inquiry, the USPTO is 
providing a downloadable patent term calculat or (beta version) as a resource to help the 
public estimate the expiration date of a patent. The calculator can be used to estimate the expiration dates of utility, plant, or de sign patents. The calcul ator contains prompts 
to enter specific information related to th e patent in order to help in estimating 
expiration dates. This information can be ob tained from USPTO's online systems, links to 
which are provided below.  
Question 115: 
According to the IDS, the patent applicant is oblig ated to disclose to the USPTO information related 
to the patent eligibility under the patent application. This obligation remains in effect as long as 
there is any claim under examination. If the a pplicant intentionally violates the obligation of 
information disclosure, the patent application may be revoked or the future right to patent may not be implemented. At present, applicants usually  submit patent applications to several countries 
for one invention, in this case, they will be ob liged to disclose to the USPTO relevant examination 
information of the patent application in each co untry. This imposes extra burdens on applicants. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 158 - 
 
  Will the U.S. consider adopting measures to reli eve the applicant's disclosure obligation or legal 
liabilities?   RESPONSE: The duty of disclosure under U.S. law helps to ensure that effective 
examination of patent application is performe d by requiring known relevant prior art be 
submitted and thereby placed before the examiner that is making a determination as to whether the application should be allowe d to issue as a patent. Further, this 
requirement also ensures that inventors and those otherwise involved in prosecution do 
not "hide" relevant prior art that may be mate rial to the patentability of the application. 
 Page 95, Para 3.204 
The report states that "…a crowdsourcing initiative, making use of crowdsourcing techniques and 
resources, so as to expand ways for identifying prior art relevant to determining the novelty of 
claimed inventions." 
 
Question 116: Please introduce in detail the technologies and resources for crowdsourcing. Has this approach 
been used in examination practice? Please describe how it is operated.  
 RESPONSE: The USPTO held a roundtable on crowdsourcing on April 10, 2014 in Alexandria, VA and December 2, 2014 in New Yo rk City, NY to solicit public opinions 
regarding the use of crowdsourcing and third- party preissuance subm issions to identify 
relevant prior art and enhance the quality of examination as well as the quality of issued 
patents. Members of the public were invited to participate. For more information about 
both events, please see 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_event s/crowdsourcing_roundtable_04-2014.jsp  
and http://www.uspto.gov/ patents/ init_events/ 
crowdsourcing_roundtable_20141202.jsp. Fo r more information about third party 
preissuance submissions, please see http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-
regulations/america-invents-act-aia/am erica-invents-act-aia-frequently-asked . 
 
Page 95, Para 3.206 
The report states that "During the review period, the United States Supreme Court issued several significant decisions involving the issue of pa tent-eligible subject matter. Cases included 
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (concerning the patent-eligibility of a 
naturally occurring DNA segment, in which it found that it is "a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," in contrast with complementary DNA (cDNA), which 
is "not naturally occurring"); and Alice Corporation Pt y. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, in which it 
h e l d  t h a t  m e r e  c o m p u t e r  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  o f  a n  "abstract idea" in the form of the established 
commercial practice of intermediated settlement, was insufficient to form a patent- eligible invention." 
 
Question 117: Are these new and stricter rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court applicable to 
patents already granted by the USPTO? Will the pr evious patent right be denied under the new 
rules?  
RESPONSE: Patents that are challenged in cour t will be subject to precedential decisions 
of the Supreme Court.  Question 118: 
Please describe the other changes to the issue of patent-eligible subject matter in addition to the 
patent-eligibility in terms of commercial methods and genes.   
RESPONSE: Preliminary Examinat ion Guidelines in view of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. 
CLS Bank International, et al. , are provided on the USPTO website at the following: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/a nnounce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf. 
 
Question 119: Will the USPTO impose stricter authorization condit ions on such patent applications according to 
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court? If yes, please describe the progress in detail.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 159 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Preliminary Examination guidelines relating to subject matter eligibity etc., 
may be found at the following: http:/ /www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-
mayo_guidance.pdf.  
Page 99, Para 3.219 
The report states that "The Intellectual Property  Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) issued the 2013 
Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, which highlighted developments in 
enforcement since 2009." 
 Question 120: Please provide more detailed data regarding th e intellectual property enforcement in 2013, 
e.g. the total number of trademark infringement cases handled, the number of civil cases in the 
breakdown, the total amount involved in such ca ses and the total amount of the civil indemnities 
so judged.  
 
RESPONSE: Statistics on the number of crimin al trademark counterfe iting cases initiated 
(and some related information such as th e number of arrests and convictions) are 
published in annual reports issued by the Department of Justice. Through 2012 these 
statistics were included in appendices to the Attorney General's Performance and 
Accountability Report, but are now released as  part of the United States Attorneys' 
Annual Statistical Report. The most recent Annual Statistical Report, for fiscal 2013, is 
available at the following URL:  
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ files/usao/legacy/ 2014/09/22/13statrpt.pdf . 
Statistics regarding trademark crim es can be found on pages 118-119. 
 
The Department of Justice does not maintain statistics on the number or characteristics 
of private civil trademark la wsuits or other actions. 
Statistics regarding annual IPR seizures in  the United States are available at the 
following: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/prio rity-issues/ipr/statistics . 
 
Question 121: 
According to some Chinese companies encountering Section 337 investigations in the U. S., most 
Section 337 investigations are initiated by patent operation companies. These companies seek to initiate litigations in federal and local courts and at the ITC concurrently, so that they may 
threaten relevant enterprises with more rapid pr ocedures and severe consequences, forcing them 
to pay unreasonable royalties. This has deviated from the initial purpose of Section 337 and imposed enormous burdens on enterprises. Please  explain how the U.S. will ensure the compliance 
of Section 337 investigations with the National Treatment principle enshrined in Article 3 of TRIPS. 
 RESPONSE: Without commenting on the accuracy  of the factual assertion contained in 
the question, Section 337 is consistent wi th TRIPS Agreement Article 3 because it 
accords to the nationals of other members' treatment no less favorable than that it 
accords to U.S. nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property.  
Page 99, Para 3.221 
The report states that "There has been extensive discussion in the United States about the concept 
of "standard essential patents" that are encumbered by voluntary commitments to licence on fair 
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in high-tech industry sectors." 
 Question 122: Standard organizations in the U.S. are now formulating their own policies regarding standard 
essential patents without a uniform rule. This increases the uncertainty and cost of the whole 
procedure. Does the U.S. have any consideration on the balance of interests of patent owners, standard enforcement organizations and the pu blic? Will the U.S. consider promulgating a 
uniformed federal rule regarding standard essential patents?  
 RESPONSE: In some countries, governments themselves are involved in selecting 
technologies to be incorporated into vo luntary, collaborative standards, and in 
determining acceptable royalty and other licen sing terms. Such government involvement 
has the potential to undermine incentives to innovate and to participate in the standard-
setting process. Broadly speaking, experi mentation and competition among standard 
setting organizations (SSOs) regarding th e breadth and depth of member licensing WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 160 - 
 
  commitment obligations or options should help SSOs and their members determine 
which methods ultimately provide the best pl atforms for collaborative standard setting. 
 Question 123: 
Owners of standard essential patents may eliminate competitions or seek for unreasonable patent 
royalties by abusing their market dominant position granted by SEP, hence causing de facto market monopoly. Does the U.S. plan to introduce necessary legal constraints in this regard, 
e.g. strictly examining whether the owners have complied with the principle of "Fair, Reasonable 
and Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) in SEP patent litigations or Section 337 investigations?  RESPONSE: U.S. courts, the USITC, and U.S. antitrust enforcement agencies examine and 
rule on assertions regarding FRAND encumbrances on standard essential patents. See, 
for example, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc ., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 
 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Page 101, Para 4.2 
The report states that "The 2014 Farm Bill was prepared during a period (2012-13) of exacerbating budgetary pressures. Government expenditures are estimated at US$489 billion for 
the life of the new Farm Bill, with savi ngs of about US$5 billion (Chart 4.1)." 
China welcomes the U.S. efforts in reducing agricultural subsidies and decreasing the agricultural market distortion, but China also noted that the government expenditures during the period of the new Farm Bill still reached US$489 billion, i.e.  nearly US$100 billion each year on average, 
reduced by only approximately 1%. 
 Question 124: 
Please clarify whether the estimated expenditure of US$489 billion that of the federal government 
only or covers the spending of the federal, st ate and local governments. Please describe the 
proportion of the fiscal budget and expenditure directly used for agricultural production under the 
Bill. Is the proportion higher or lower compared with that under the 2008 Farm Bill? 
 RESPONSE: The US$489 billion projected expendit ure is for Federal programs enacted by 
the 2014 Farm Bill. The projected spending in support of agricultural production includes 
programs under the commodity, conservation, and crop insurance titles. Expenditures 
under these titles make up 19% of the to tal: commodity programs account for 5%, 
conservation programs for 6%, and crop insurance for 8 percent. Expenditures on 
programs under the nutrition title (domes tic food assistance) account for 80% of 
projected spending, and programs under the remaining titles account for 1%. These shares are the same as those projected for the period 2014-18 ha d the 2008 Farm Bill 
programs continued unchanged. 
 Question 125: Please describe the opinions of the U.S. on the di stortion of agricultural production and trade by 
unduly high agricultural subsidies. Does the U.S. plan to further reduce the amount of its 
agricultural subsidies?   
RESPONSE: The United States believes all WTO members should fully abide by their 
WTO commitments, which limit production- and trade-distorting forms of support. 
Further, the United States believes full transp arency of production- and trade-distorting 
domestic support, as well as all other po licies, is essential 1) to mitigating 
uncertainty/distortions in trade and 2) a well-functioning multilateral system. The 
United States calls upon all Members to brin g their notifications up to date and provide 
information regularly.  
 
The United States initially proposed that it would liberalize its agricultural policies as 
part of a broader reform in a Doha context.  This ambition was not evident in proposals 
from other Members, in particular those whic h focused on creating loop-holes to protect 
their sensitivities even as they requested co ncessions from their trading partners. If and 
when WTO Members are prepared to negotiat e seriously about meaningful reforms, in 
particular market access opening that has pr oven so difficult, the United States will be 
prepared to do its part.  Page 101, Para 4.2 
The report states that "The 2014 Farm Bill continues a long-term policy shift from the traditional WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 161 - 
 
  commodity, conservation, and disaster payments to wards subsidized crop insurance (Chart 4.2)." 
 Question 126: Please introduce the main reasons for this polic y adjustment. Will the changes in the ways of 
granting agricultural support under the new Farm Bill influence the position of the U.S. in the 
agricultural negotiations of the Doha Development Agenda?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill provides an updated farm safety net for producers, 
emphasizing farmers' participation in crop  insurance programs. Payments under the 
new programs continue to be decoupled from  actual farm production decisions. The 
2014 Farm Bill does not change the U.S. positi on in the agricultural negotiation of the 
Doha Development Agenda. The United States is prepared to negotiate seriously about 
meaningful reforms, in particular market a ccess opening, and will be prepared to do its 
part. 
 
Page 102, Para 4.3 The report states that "These three measures (DP, CCP, and ACRE) have been replaced by two 
new measures, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC ) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)." 
 Question 127: According to some experts, the only substantive difference between the new measures and the old 
ones is that farmers may obtain subsidies more conveniently and with higher amount under the 
new measure due to changed price setup and base period. Does the U.S. agree with this comment? 
 
RESPONSE: Under the 2014 Farm Bill, fixed a nnual payments came to an end with the 
repeal of the DP program. Commodity program payments under the PLC and ARC 
programs over the 2014-2018 period covered by the new Farm Bill will depend entirely 
on market and weather events. While payments under these two new programs will likely be more variable than the combinatio n of fixed and variable payments under the 
2008 Farm Bill, payments under these progra ms were projected by the Congressional 
Budget Office to be lower than projected payments over the same period had the 2008 
Farm Bill programs continued unchanged.   
Page 102, Para 4.4 
The report states that "In the PLC programme, de ficiency payments are provided when commodity 
prices fall below the statutory "reference prices". 
 
Question 128: Please describe how is the "reference prices" of the PLC programme determined. Will American farmers obtain subsidies more easily due to the higher reference price under the new Farm Bill? 
 
RESPONSE: The reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program were 
mandated in the 2014 Farm Bill. The prices refl ect a significant shift in market dynamics 
seen over the past several years. Under previous law, farmers received payments 
regardless of market situations. The new prog rams make payments when prices decline, 
but they continue to be decoupled from  actual farm production decisions.  
 
Page 102, Para 4.4 The report states that "The PLC payments are coupled to current prices, but decoupled from actual production, to the extent that payments are based on historical yields and a percentage of 
historical planted acres (base acres). Farmers ha ve a one-time opportunity under the new Farm 
Bill to update their historical payment yields and re-allocate base acreage, which may more closely align base acres with recent planting, thereby lin king payments to a more recent base period." 
 
Question 129: According to some comments, farmers are permitted under the new Bill to change their base 
period output level in programs such as the PL C and ARC, which will usually be higher than the 
output under the base period of the 2008 Farm B ill. This will enable farmers to obtain more 
subsidies. Would the U.S. please make some comments on this?  
RESPONSE: Landowners can reallocate (but not increase) their base acres and update WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 162 - 
 
  (increase) their program yields. More sp ecifically, between September 29, 2014 and 
February 27, 2015, owners of farms have a one-time opportunity to: (1) maintain the farm's 2013 base acres of covered commoditi es through 2018; or (2) reallocate base 
acres among those covered comm odities planted on the farm at any time during the 
2009-12 crop years (excluding upland cotton bases). Land owners are provided a 
one-time opportunity to update program paym ent yields for each covered commodity for 
which they have base acres using 90% of th e farm's 2008-12 average yield per planted 
acre, excluding any year in which the co vered commodity was not planted. Program 
payment yields are used to determine paym ent amounts for the PLC program; however, 
all farm owners have the option of updating  yields regardless of program participation. 
The ability to update yields and realloca te base will increase payments. More 
information on base reallocation an d yield updating can be found at: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsRelease s?area=newsroom&sub ject=landing&topic
=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail& item=pf_20140925_insup_en_arcplc.html . 
 
Question 130: How does the level of the reference price in the PLC program compare with that under the 
2008 Farm Bill? If the reference price is set at a higher level, will relevant subsidy programs be 
triggered more easily under the new Bill?   RESPONSE: See response to question 128. 
 
Page 102, Para 4.3, 4.7 and 4.8 The report states that "These three measures (DP, CCP, and ACRE) have been replaced by two 
new measures, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)…" and "Two 
long-standing pillars of dairy market support – price supports and export subsidies - have been removed. The dairy deficiency payment programme (Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program) 
has also been eliminated. Two new policy instruments are introduced in the 2014 Farm Bill. " 
 Question 131: The 2014 Farm Bill introduces some new supporting policies, e.g. PLC, AR C, SCO, STAX, DMPP and 
DDP. How will these new policy measures be classi fied according to the definition under WTO 
rules? Are they relevant to market price or output? Will they distort production and trade?  
RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of WTO 
classification of any programs established in  the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States will 
notify the classification of these programs as part of its official domestic support 
notification. 
 PLC, ARC, and the dairy programs are based on current market prices, but are decoupled 
from current production. Insurance-related pr ograms are based on both current prices 
and production. 
 Question 132: 
The coverage of such policies as crop insurance is expanded and includes fruits, vegetables among 
other horticultural crops in addition to traditional varieties like wheat, maize, soybean, cotton and peanut. Please explain in detail the difference between the cotton insurance programme and the 
previous cotton subsidy policy, and introduce th e specific content of the horticultural crop 
insurance programme.   RESPONSE: Under the 2008 Farm Bill, upland  cotton was included among covered 
commodities under the DP, CCP, and ACRE programs. Both the DP and CCP programs 
made payments on historical cotton area and yield, or base, and did not require 
continued production of cotton in order to receive payments. ACRE payments were 
based on current revenue, triggered by diffe rences from benchmark revenues at both 
the state and farm levels. Payments were limited to a percentage of the revenue difference and by the farm's total historical  base. Upland cotton producers were also 
eligible to participate in the marketing a ssistance loan and loan deficiency payment 
program. They could also purchase traditiona l crop yield or revenue insurance policies. 
 Under the 2014 Farm Bill, upland cotton is not covered under the PLC or ARC programs. 
Upland cotton producers continue to be eligible to participate in the marketing WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 163 - 
 
  assistance loan and loan deficiency paymen t program, although at a potentially lower 
loan rate. Traditional crop yield and reve nue insurance policies also continue to be 
available for upland cotton. The new Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX)  provides an additional insurance option 
for upland cotton producers only. Beginning  with crop year 2015, upland cotton 
producers are eligible to purchase policie s under STAX that cover a portion of the 
expected revenue in a producer's area, us ually a single county. STAX policies can 
supplement other insurance coverage availa ble through the Federal crop insurance 
program or be purchased as a stand-alone polic y. STAX offers coverage for up to 20% of 
the expected area revenue and can be purc hased in increments of 5, 10, 15 or 20%. 
Loss payments begin when area revenue falls below 90% of its expected level, unless a 
producer chooses a lower loss trigger, and reach their maximum when area revenue 
falls to 70% of expected levels, or to the le vel covered by a producer 's underlying policy.  
 
In crop year 2014, during the transition to  the new program, holders of cotton base 
acres under previous commodity programs ar e eligible to receive payments under the 
Cotton Transition Assistance Program (CTAP) . CTAP payments will be made on 60% of 
the cotton base acres on a farm as of Se ptember 30, 2013. In counties where STAX 
policies are not yet available in crop year 2015, an additional year of payments on 
36.5% of the same base acres will be availabl e. No production is required on the base 
acres and if producers choose to plant, there are no restrictions on what may be grown 
(including fruits and vegetables, and wild rice).  
 Producers of horticultural crops in commercial nurseries have been eligible to purchase 
insurance coverage under the Nursery Crop policy. USDA's Risk Management Agency 
also offers coverage for a variety of frui t and vegetable crops through the Actual 
Production History, Actual Revenue History, Whole Farm and Dollar plans of insurance. 
The 2014 Farm Bill does not directly increase  the availability of crop insurance for 
horticultural commodities, but it does provide for purchase of higher levels of coverage 
under for the Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP). For horticultural and other 
crops for which traditional crop insurance policies are not available, producers have 
been eligible to enroll in NAP for protec tion against yield losses above 50%. The 2014 
Farm Bill authorizes producers of all NAP elig ible crops (except those used for grazing) 
to elect higher coverage levels up to 65%. 
 
Page 102, Para 4.7 The report states that "The 2014 Farm Bill introduces a new subsidized insurance programme 
(Supplemental Coverage Option) that allows eligib le farmers to top up their crop insurance, in 
order to cover a portion of the deductible of the insurance."  Question 133: 
Please introduce the expected fiscal expenditures for premium subsidies during the implementation 
period of the new Farm Bill.   
RESPONSE: The Congressional Budget Office estimated in January 2014 that the total 
cost of the Supplemental Coverage Option under the 2014 Farm Act would be US$544million over the pe riod FY2014-2018.  
 
Page 103, Para 4.8 The report states that "Some of the biggest refo rms will be introduced in the dairy regime. Two 
long-standing pillars of dairy market support – price supports and export subsidies - have been 
removed. The dairy deficiency payment programme (Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program) 
has also been eliminated. Two new policy instruments are introduced in the 2014 Farm Bill."  
Question 134: 
Diary products have always been a key receiver of  the U.S. agricultural su bsidies. Will the subsidy 
reforms regarding diary products in the new Farm Bill help reduce the scale of subsidies in the 
area?  
 RESPONSE: Projections indicate that the new dairy programs in the Farm Bill will have 
outlays over the next five year s less than half as large as prior program outlays over the 
past five years.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 164 - 
 
  Page 104, Para 4.9 
The report states that "However, the move from decoupled direct payments to deficiency-payment 
type instruments linked to current prices could potentially cause an increase in trade and production distortions." 
 
Question 135: Will the move from direct payments to deficiency -payment in respect of agricultural subsidies 
intensify distortions in agricultural production and trade? Does the U.S. have any plan to properly 
mitigate such distortion?  RESPONSE: See response to question 126.  
Page 104, Para 4.10 
The report states that "The export credit guar antee programme (GSM-102) is maintained, though 
the maximum loan tenor has been reduced to 24 months, and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture is 
granted flexibility to adjust the programme on terms agreed with Brazil in the WTO cotton 
dispute." Question 136: 
Is there any difference between the export credit  guarantee program led by the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture and the guarantee provided by priv ate financial institutions in terms of scope of 
application and rates?   
RESPONSE: A response to this question woul d require speculation, as we know of no 
other organization, public or private, that  provides the degree of transparency on 
available coverage and fees that are provided by the United States under this program.  
 
Page 106, Para 4.14 The report states that "The PLC is open for enrolment by farmers with eligible historical acreage 
(base acres) of "covered" commodities." 
 Question 137: Please elaborate on such historical acreage, including the requirements of historical acreage for the 
types of crops to be planted and corresponding reasons. How is "eligible" defined? What's the 
proportion of such acreage in the total acreages of relevant crops? What are the requirements and 
procedures for new farmers to enter and current farmers to withdraw from such historical acreage? 
 
RESPONSE: Historical acreage refers to th e base acreage for the covered commodity 
(wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, soy beans, peanuts, rice, other oilseeds, and 
pulse crops) in effect on September 30,  2013 and was used to make direct and 
counter-cyclical payments and limit Average Crop Revenue (ACRE) payments under the 
2008 Farm Bill. The base acreage in effect on September 30, 2013, was first established 
under the 1996 Farm Bill by average planting s for crop years 1991-95 for wheat, corn, 
grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, an d rice (note that upland cotton is not a 
covered commodity under the 2014 Farm B ill). Base acreage was added for other 
oilseeds and peanuts under the 2002 Farm Bill  based on average plantings for crop 
years 1998-2001 and for pulse crops under  the 2008 Farm Bill based on average 
plantings for crop years 1998-2001. Under th e 2014 Farm Bill, producers may reallocate 
their farm's base acreage in proportion to the average of planted acreage of the covered 
commodities on the farm for crop years 2009-12. The base acreage may not increase 
from the base acreage in effect on Se ptember 30, 2013. The intent was to give 
producers an opportunity to reallocate their ba se acreage to reflect more recent planting 
history. No new base acreage may be esta blished for a farm. Any producer, new or 
current, may receive payments as long as the farm has base acreage. 
 Page 106, Para 4.16 
The report states that "The United States has notified the CCP programme in terms of 
non-product-specific AMS (de minimis), arguing th at payments cannot be ascribed to a specific 
product." 
 
Question 138: According to the information acquired by China, different products are subject to different target prices and subsidy rates under CCP. In such circumstances, what is the basis for the U.S. to list 
CCP as non-product-specific AMS in its notifications?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 165 - 
 
  RESPONSE: CCP payments were based on  fixed historical area and yields 
(i.e. production) and not current production. Recipients were not required to produce any product to receive payments. Any eligible  crop could be grown on the base acres. 
The 2014 Farm Bill eliminated CCPs. 
Page 107, Para 4.17 
The report states that "The ACRE programme, whic h also required acceptance of a reduced DP and 
lower marketing assistance loan rate, was much less popular among farmers than the 
CCP scheme." 
 Question 139: Please explain why the ACRE program is far less popular than the CCP scheme.  
 
RESPONSE: By participating in ACRE, a produc er forewent counter-c yclical payments and 
was subject to a 20% reduction in direct payments and a 30% reduction in marketing 
loan rates for the remaining life of the 20 08 farm bill. The program contained a two-
level trigger (both state and individual), and many perceived it as complicated. In 
addition to projecting potential ACRE vs. "t raditional program" payments when deciding 
whether or not to participate, producers ha d to consider two less quantifiable costs: 
(1) the learning costs associated with th e new revenue-based program, and (2) the 
negotiation costs due to the requirement th at all producers/landowners in the farm 
operation must agree to participate.  
 
Page 108, Para 4.1.1.2.5-4.1.1.2.6  
Question 140: 
In the notifications of the U.S., only sugar and da iry products are subject to MPS. Such measures 
as marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments that apply to ordinary commodities are 
notified as non exempt payment. Please explain the difference between the price support for sugar 
and dairy products and such measures as marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments.  RESPONSE: The marketing assistance loan  program does not set minimum market 
prices. Conversely, the sugar and dairy prod uct programs establish a minimum market 
price. The marketing assistance loan prog ram operates by providing producers with 
short-term financing until prod ucers sell their crop. The loan is made on a "per-unit" 
loan rate. When market prices are at or ab ove the loan rate, producers repay the loan 
principal (having sold their crop at the high er market price). When the market prices 
received by producers are below the loan ra te, producers repay the loan at the lower 
market price and keep the difference. 
 Page 113, Para 4.46 The report states that "The Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) is administered by USDA, 
which is required by statute to make US$5.5 billio n of loan guarantees available each fiscal year, 
to encourage U.S. private-sector financing of co mmercial exports of U.S. agricultural products, 
particularly to developing countries……the statutory requirement that fees cover the operating 
costs and losses of the programme over the long term." 
 Question 141: 
What are the conditions to be satisfied by enterprises to enjoy the export credit guarantee 
program?  RESPONSE: Qualification criteria can be found at the following 
website: https://www.federalregister.gov/ articles/2014/11 /18/2014-27129/ccc-
export-credit-guarantee-gsm-102-program- and-facility-guarantee-program-fgp#h-4 . 
 
Question 142: 
Is "over to long term" subject to any specific timeframe? Are the relevant legal requirements in compliance with the "Self-financing" provisions in  Appendix J 3 (b) of the 2008 Modalities Text 
(TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4)? Will this affect the position of  the U.S. in the DDA agricultural negotiations? 
Will this affect the U.S. in implementing the Mini sterial Declaration on Export competition in the 
Bali Package?   
RESPONSE: The definition of long term is contained in the authorizing statute for the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 166 - 
 
  Export Credit Guarantee program. Currently the statute defines long term as meaning a 
period of 10 years or more. Appendix J 3 (b) of the 2008 Modalities Text TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4 is merely draft text at this time. 
 
Page 113, Para 4.48 
The report states that "The Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA administers four export promotion programmes, which were reauthoriz ed until FY2018 without changes in funding." 
 
Question 143: Please introduce the expected total expenditure for export promotion during the implementation 
period of the new Farm Bill and the changes compared with before.  
 
RESPONSE: The Farm Bill authorizes annual levels of US$200 million for the Market 
Access Program (MAP), US$34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development program 
(FMD), US$10 million for the Emerging Mark ets Program (EMP), and US$9 million for the 
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program (TASC). However, these funds are 
sequestered, and the sequestration level has been different for each of the three 
sequestered years so far. In 2013 it was 5.1% , in 2014 it was 7.2%, in 2015 it is 7.3%.  
 
Table Total Expected Expenditure Levels for Agriculture Export Promotion Programs  
 Authorized Sequestration Expected 
FY Level (in millions ) Rate Expenditure 
2006 US$246.5 0.0% US$246.5 
2007 US$246.5 0.0% US$246.5 
2008 US$248.5 0.0% US$248.5 
2009 US$251.5 0.0% US$251.5 
2010 US$252.5 0.0% US$252.5 
2011 US$253.5 0.0% US$253.5 
2012 US$253.5 0.0% US$253.5 
2013 US$253.5  5.1% US$240.57 
2014 US$253.5  7.2% US$235.25 
2015 US$253.5  7.3% US$234.99 
2016 US$253.5  tbd tbd 
2017 US$253.5  tbd tbd 
2018 US$253.5  tbd tbd 
Note: sequestration levels have not yet been determined for 2016, 2017, and 2018. 
 
Page 113, Para 4.50 The report states that "The agency provides short-term and long-term loans at preferential 
interest rates, and guarantees up to 95% of pr ivate loans. Emergency loans are subject to an 
official disaster declaration of a county. In FY2014, US$5.5 billion are available for farm loan 
programmes." 
 
Question 144: Please introduce the expected total expenditure of agricultural credit subsidy during the 
implementation period of the new Farm Bill and the changes compared with before. 
 RESPONSE: The new Farm Bill makes relative ly minor changes to credit programs. 
Provisions which expand loan eligibility w ill increase program demand, but the number 
of farmers affected is expect ed to be relatively small. 
 Page 115, Para 4.57 
The report states that "The new Farm Bill retains the federal crop insurance programme, albeit 
with a number of amendments and increased spending for subsidized crop insurance".  
Question 145: 
Please introduce the expected total expendit ure of crop insurance subsidy during the 
implementation period of the new Farm Bill and the increase margin compared with before.  
RESPONSE: According to the Congressional Bu dget Office, direct spending outlays for 
the crop insurance program are projected to be around US$41.4 billion for FY2014-18. This includes a US$1.8 billion increase due to the Farm Bill. In the past, premium WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 167 - 
 
  subsidies have represented approximatel y two-thirds of total program cost.  
 Page 116, Para 4.64 The report states that "The average tariff on imports of agricultural products (WTO definition) into 
the United States in 2014 was 9.0%, slightly high er than in 2012 due to lower commodity prices, 
which led to higher ad valorem equivalents for tariff lines with specific or compound duties (Table 3.2)". 
 
Question 146: The U.S. tariff on agricultural products is re markably higher than its average tariff and a 
considerable number of commodities are subject to tariff peaks. While the U.S. has already 
supported its domestic industry by providing large am ount of agricultural subsidies, is it necessary 
to continue to maintain high tariff barriers to agricultural products?  
RESPONSE: The United States applies tariffs  at or below its WTO bound rates, in 
accordance with the commitments made  by the United States during the 
Uruguay Round. The U.S. applied tariff for ag ricultural products is below the Chinese 
applied tariff rate of 14.8%. 
 Page 117, Para 4.67 The report states that "Notifications by the United States to the WTO Committee on Agriculture 
cover domestic support through marketing year 2011. Total support to agriculture was 
US$139.5 billion, an 8% increase over the 2010 marketing year, largely because of higher expenditures for domestic food aid (Table 4.2)." 
 
Question 147: What changes does the U.S. expect to the total scale of agricultural support during the whole 
implementation period of the new Farm Bill? 
 RESPONSE: According to the Congressional Budget Office, expenditures under the 2014 Farm Bill, which covers a wide variety of types of support, are expected to be 
reduced as compared to projected expenditur es under the previous farm bill for the 
same period.   
Page 117, Para 4.68 
T h e  r e p o r t  s t a t e s  t h a t  " T h e  O E C D ' s  S i n g l e  C o mmodity Transfer (SCT) figures show that for 
commodities receiving commodity-specific support, sugar received the most support in 2010-12 
through price support and other measures, followed by sheep-meat and milk." 
 Question 148: Please describe the standards adopted by the U.S.  in determining the scope of the agricultural 
products covered by agricultural support and respective supporting amount for each product. 
Please describe the main factors considered by th e U.S. in providing higher subsidies to sugar, 
sheep-meat and milk.  
 
RESPONSE: Eligibility and payment levels for U.S. agricultural programs were specified 
in the 2008 Farm Bill and in implementing rules. 
 
Page 119, Para 4.75 The report states that "On 21 July 2010, the "Dodd-Frank Act" was signed into law, instituting the most sweeping set of reforms to the financial re gulatory system since the Great Depression." 
 
Question 149: Has the U.S. assessed the effects and deficiency of the Dodd-Frank Act since its implementation?  
 
RESPONSE: Please see the "Financial Stab ility Oversight Council 2014 Annual Report"; 
(http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/f soc/Documents/FSOC%202014%20Annual%20
Report.pdf ) 
 
Question 150: According to some analysis, the Act has not addressed the problem of erroneous pricing of 
government guarantee prevalent in the U.S. fina ncial institutions. And the distortion of the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 168 - 
 
  U.S. financial market caused by this problem still exist What's the U.S. comment on this? Does the 
U.S. plan to further improve relevant legislations?  RESPONSE: The Dodd-Frank Act is still being implemented. Further details on the 
U.S. response to the financial crisis are available in the Economic Report of the 
President, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ 
full_2014_economic_report_of_the_president.pdf . 
 
Question 151: Please describe the main contents and policy object ives of the Volcker Rules and its impacts on the 
global financial market.  
 
RESPONSE: The Volker Rule became effective in April 2014. It generally prohibits banks 
and their affiliates from engaging in prop rietary trading and sponsoring or investing 
hedge funds or private equity f unds. Details are available at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granul e/FR-2014-01-31 /2013-31476 . 
 
Page 119, Para 4.75 
The report states that "(a) the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) was created to identify risks to financial stability emanating from both large, interconnected banks and nonbank financial companies, promote market discipline by eliminat ing expectations of government bailouts, and 
respond to emerging threats to financial stability." 
 Question 152: 
What policy tools can FSOC apply within its authority to "respond to emerging threats to financial 
stability"?  
RESPONSE: FSOC highlights its recent efforts to respond to emerging threats to the 
stability of the U.S. financial system in its 2014 Annual Report, available at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/f soc/Documents/FSOC%202014%20Annual%20R
eport.pdf . 
 
Page 119, Para 4.78 The report states that "The U.S. banking agenci es have adopted most of the Basel III capital 
requirements by issuing a final rule in July 2013. They are currently engaged in rulemaking, or are 
planning to commence rulemaking, to adopt other Basel III capital and liquidity standards."  
Question 153: 
China welcomes the U.S. efforts to strengthen th e prudential supervision of its banking sector. 
Does the U.S. have a definite timetable for the comprehensive implementation of Basel III? 
 
RESPONSE: U.S. banking agencies have now adopted the final rules implementing Basel 
III standards. Those rules are now effectiv e. Full implementation is January 1 2019. 
Details are available in the final rule, availa ble at: "Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory 
Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Capita l Adequacy, Transition Provisions, Prompt 
Corrective Action, Standardized Approach for Risk-weighted Assets, Market Discipline 
and Disclosure Requirements, Advanced A pproaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and 
Market Risk Capital Rule"; Final Rule, Fe deral Reserve System, 12 CFR Parts 208, 217, 
and 225, Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 198/ October 11, 2013 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2013-10-11/pdf /2013-21653.pdf . 
 
 
Page 122, Para 4.81 The report states that "However, more progress is needed in some areas, notably in terms of 
"shadow banking", i.e. given the size and prominence of money market mutual funds in short-term 
funding markets, their regulation should be rein forced to further enhance financial stability". 
 
Question 154: 
Has the U.S. assessed the current scale of "shadow banking" in the U.S.?  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 169 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Details are available in the Offi ce of Financial Research's 2012 Annual 
Report, Page 14, available at:  
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/w sr/ofr/Documents/OFR_Annual_Report_071912
_Final.pdf . 
 
Question 155: China hopes that the U.S. may share its experience in regulating "shadow banking". What 
measures has the U.S. adopted to control the financial risks caused by "shadow banking" and what 
further steps are expected?  RESPONSE: The United States has made sign ificant progress in addressing potential 
systemic risks to financial stability eman ating from the shadow banking system. The 
Dodd-Frank Act has led to a stronger, better regulated, and more resilient financial 
system. The Dodd-Frank Act also gave the Financial Stability Oversight Council ("the 
Council") the ability to expand the regulato ry perimeter to subject certain nonbank 
financial companies that could pose a threat to  U.S. financial stability to Federal Reserve 
supervision and enhanced prudential standards.  
 
New policy measures are also in place or bein g developed to address the risks posed by 
shadow banking activities, including money market funds (MMFs), the tri-party repo 
market, and hedge funds. In July 2014, the SEC approved final rules to reform MMFs. 
The final rules, combined with initiatives undertaken in 2010, are intended to reduce 
MMFs' vulnerability to investor runs, particularly in times of  stress, as well as increase 
transparency to investors. U.S. banks have reduced their reliance on short-term funding 
and have largely shifted to secured funding tr ansactions with higher quality collateral. 
The U.S. has made substantial progress in reducing intraday credit exposure and 
reforming collateral practices in the tri-party repo market. The United States has taken 
steps to enhance oversight of hedge funds. Most hedge fund advisers are now required 
to register and to file comprehensive portfo lio risk information with U.S. regulators, 
making it among the most stringen t reporting regimes in the G-20. 
 
Page 122, Para 4.81 
The report states that "Moreover, the IMF has warned that "too big to fail" banks are still major sources of systemic risks and has called for tighter supervision. The implicit subsidy for "too big to 
fail" banks in the United States is estimated at about US$70 billion." 
 Question 156: 
Please describe the legal basis and ways for providing such implicit subsidy. 
 RESPONSE: See the 2011 FSOC Study & Recommendations Regarding Concentration Limits on Large Financial Companies, wh ich notes that Dodd-Frank "establishes a 
financial sector concentration limit that ge nerally prohibits a financial company from 
merging or consolidating with, or acquiring,  another company if the resulting company's 
consolidated liabilities would exceed 10% of th e aggregate consolidated liabilities of all 
financial companies…The financ ial sector's concentration lim it should help reduce the 
prospects for any increase in implicit subsidy for the nation's largest financial firms." Additional details are available at:  
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Doc uments/Study%20on%20Concentration%20Li
mits%20on%20Large%20Firms%2001-17-11.pdf?n=24624 . 
 
Question 157: 
China understands the concerns of the U.S. with  maintaining financial stability, but China is 
concerned about the significant implicit subsidy that the U.S. provided for the "too big to fail" banks to function. Although there are no prohibit ive provisions in the WTO agreements on service 
subsidies, such high amount subsidies granted to  the banking sector is transmissible and will 
severely distort the downstream real economy and ma rkets. Please offer the U.S. opinions of this 
issue.  
 
RESPONSE: Please see answer to question 156.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 170 - 
 
  Question 158: 
As the U.S. financial market gradually stabilizes, do es the U.S. plan to gradually reduce the scale 
of such implicit subsidies?   
RESPONSE: Please see answer to question 156. 
Page 123, Para 4.82 The report states that "The telecommunications market in the United States is the largest in the 
world by revenue (US$526 billion in 2011, up fr om US$400 billion in 2007), and ICT spending at 
US$1.2 trillion in 2013, i.e. about a quarter of worldwide spending." 
 Question 159: 
The U.S. telecommunications service has been grow ing rapidly in recent years. Please introduce 
the specific sub-sectors which have been the main growth points in the industry.   
RESPONSE: The greatest growth in the U.S in the telecommunications market, as in 
other countries, has been in the wireless sector, which now surpasses the wireline 
market both by subscribers (over 300 millio n, as compared with 110 million wireline 
subscribers) and revenue (over US$200 billio n). Driving this is the prevalence of 
smartphone, now accounting over 90 % of new devices sold, and the consequent explosion of mobile data, which increase d over 80% in 2013, and now accounts for 
almost half of mobile service revenue (CTIA). 
 
Page 124, Para 4.89 The report states that "The principal legislation covering telecommunications remains the 
Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for "regulating interstate and international communications by radio, televisi on, wire, satellite, and cable. The National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce is the 
principal advisor to the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. The International Communication and Information Policy (CIP) Office in the Department of State, along with the FCC and NTIA, represent the United States in bilateral and multilateral affairs concerning 
telecommunications, the Internet, and information technology. The United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) is responsible for developing and coordinating trade policy, including the negotiation and enforcement of specific provisio ns relating to telecommunications in the trade 
agreements to which the United States is a party." 
 Question 160: 
Please describe the positions and roles of FCC, NTIA, CIP and USTP in the policy-making regarding 
foreign-invested telecommunications services. Is there any other legal basis besides the Telecommunications Act of 1996?  
RESPONSE: The WTO report quoted above is accurate. In addition to the 
Communications Act of 1934, amended in 1996,  there are various laws that address 
specific policy issues relevant to teleco mmunications policy, such as the Open-market 
Reorganization for the Betterment of Inte rnational Telecommunications Act ORBIT Act 
(relating to satellite services); the Digi tal Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA—which 
includes provisions relating to ISP liability)  and the Children's Online Privacy Protection 
Act (COPPA).  
 Page 124, Para 4.90 The report states that "Section 310 of the Communications Act, restricts granting of a common 
carrier wireless licence to foreign governments, as well as to any non-U.S. citizens or corporations, 
or any corporation with more than 20% fore ign ownership. However, under its statutory 
"forbearance" authority, the FCC has determined that it will not apply the 20% limit to the class of 
common carrier wireless licensees in which the foreign investment is held in the licensee through 
U.S.-organized entities that do not control the licensee, to the extent the FCC determines, upon the filing of a petition for declaratory ruling by th e licensee, that the particular foreign investment 
is consistent with the public interest. In addition, where a common carrier wireless licensee is 
controlled by a U.S.-organized parent company, Section 310 allows foreign individuals, corporations, or governments to own and vote 25% of  the U.S. parent's capital stock. In all cases, 
whether an applicant is domestic or foreign, the FCC is authorized to attach conditions to a licence, 
or to deny a licence, if it finds it is in the public interest to do so." WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 171 - 
 
  Question 161: 
We note that in 2014 the FCC conducted internal voting for such issues as 310 license issuance and examination, and thereafter the FCC has actually expanded its review authority and discretionary power over the qualification of 310  license applicants, which are realized mainly 
through employing the so-called "public interest". Pl ease describe the definition of "public interest" 
by the FCC. Is there any legal basis for "public inte rests"? How is "inconsistent with public interest" 
determined? Is such determination based on qual itative or quantitative analysis? Are there any 
criteria of measurement?  
 RESPONSE: We do not understand the statemen t that "the FCC has actually expanded its 
review authority and discretionary power over the qualification of 310 license 
applicants, which are realized mainly through employing the so-called 'public 
interest.'" This statement appears to be  based on a misunderstanding of the 
Commission's forbearance decisi on referred to in the excerpt from Page 124, Para 
4.90. In fact, the FCC's forbearance decisi on specifically implemented a means for 
common carrier wireless licensees to exceed the 20% foreign ownership limit in the Communications Act under the same "public in terest" standard that it has used in 
exercising its discretionary authority to allow common carrier wireless licensees' U.S. 
parent companies to exceed the 25% foreign ownership limit.   The public interest standard for granting common carrier wireless licenses to companies 
with foreign ownership that would exceed the limits in the Communications Act has not 
changed for WTO investors. Following the WT O conclusion of negotiations on basic 
telecommunications and adoption of the Four th Protocol, the FCC adopted a "rebuttable 
presumption" that foreign investment from  WTO Member countries  in common carrier 
licensees does not pose competitive concerns  in the U.S. market. The FCC continues to 
apply that presumption. The FCC also continues to  consider, as part of its public interest 
analysis, any national security, law enforcem ent, foreign policy or trade policy concerns 
that may be raised by proposed foreign inve stment that would exceed the limits of the 
Communications Act.   
Page 124, Para 4.91 
The report states that "The FCC seeks the advice of other government agencies on matters concerning national security, law enforcement, foreign policy and trade policy concerns when it 
considers an application from an entity with foreign ownership interests to provide international 
telecoms services or to acquire control of, or the regulated telecom assets of, an existing provider 
of domestic or international telecoms services." 
 
Question 162: Please provide details of the advice-seeking me chanism, including the involved governmental 
departments, the procedure and schedule of seeking advice, how to address disagreement among 
relevant departments, how will the advice impact the FCC decision, and the remedies available to 
applicants whose applications are rejected.  
RESPONSE: Executive Branch agencies have th e opportunity indicate their interest in 
reviewing any application to the FCC within three weeks of the FCC publication of such 
application. Such review is an opportunity for the Executive Branch to offer advice to the 
FCC regarding any foreign applicant seeking a lic ense to operate in the United States or 
to provide international services from the United States. Such agencies communicate 
their advice to the FCC, and any resulting co nditions imposed on a licensee by final FCC 
action become part of a public record. To date, the FCC has not denied an application 
based on foreign ownership. 
 Question 163: 
Please clarify the relationship between the advice-seeking mechanism in the context and the 
"telecommunications team", as well as CFIUS.  
RESPONSE: Executive Branch advice relati ng to new telecommunications licenses and 
transfers of control of licenses is conducte d directly with the FCC, under licensing 
procedures governed by FCC re gulations. CFIUS decisions only relate to acquisitions, as 
opposed to new licenses. Such  deliberations may involve the same Executive Branch 
agencies, but the process is governed by a se parate statute, and the process is chaired WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 172 - 
 
  by the Department of the Treasury. 
 Question 164: Please list the departments whose advice may be solicited. The application for 214 license 
submitted by China Mobile is still pending and has exceeded the time limit of policy review. Is this 
related to the advice-seeking process? Which department disagreed to issue the license?  
RESPONSE: Executive Branch agencies that typically provide advice with respect to 
license applications include the Department  of State, Department of Commerce, and 
Office of the United States Trade Repres entative, the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice. China Mobile's 
application is being reviewed for law enforc ement and national se curity concerns, the 
expertise for which reside in the last three agencies noted above.  
Page 125, Para 4.92 
The report states that "The United States' commitments on basic telecommunications attached to the Fourth Protocol of the GATS cover most services." 
 
Question 165: Please describe the status quo of foreign investments in the U.S. telecommunications market, including the number, business scope and home co untries of foreign-invested enterprises.  
 
RESPONSE: There are hundreds of foreign te lecommunications suppliers operating in the 
U.S. market, and most global operators, incl uding those from China, have a presence in 
the U.S. market. The third largest mobile op erator (Sprint), and fourth largest mobile 
operator (T-Mobile) are both foreign-owned. Although China Mobile's license application 
for common carrier services is still pending, it  has operated in the United States since 
2013, offering a variety of unlicensed services, such as Internet Protocol transit service. 
 Question 166: For foreign telecom companies applying for tele communication business licenses, which kind of 
license application should be filed to the U.S. fe deral government's approval and which kind to the 
state government? Please describe the application procedures and main legal basis respectively.   
RESPONSE: The main licensing processes a pplicable to foreign operators are those 
relating to international common carrier se rvices, and submarine cable landing station 
licenses. Companies seeking to offer wire less services also need a radio license. 
Companies seeking to operate satellite servic es need a special license for satellite 
services. All of these licenses are administ ered by the FCC, pursuant to regulations 
governed by the 1934 Communications Act. The same licenses are required for domestic operators. 
 
Companies offering intra-state common carrie r services (e.g. local voice services, or 
intra-state long distance service) genera lly also need a state authorization, the 
application procedures for which vary state by  state. The same licenses are required for 
domestic operators.  
Question 167: 
China notices the open attitude claimed by the U. S. in the area of telecommunications, but also 
notes that in practice, the national security review for the telecommunication sector is overly strict and in bad need of transparency. As a result, ma ny foreign companies including Chinese ones can 
not enjoy the market opening committed by the U.S.  
 RESPONSE: No response required because there is no question. 
 
Question 168: Does the U.S. plan to correct the abuse of the national security review in the telecom sector? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States does not agree with the premise of this question.  Page 125, Para 4.93 
The report states that "In November 2012, the FCC adopted the Report and Order (FCC-12-145) WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 173 - 
 
  and eliminated the International Settlements Policy (ISP) in order to modernize its international 
telephony rules, further lower the price for intern ational calls, and increase competition. At the 
same time, the FCC adopted safeguards to protect against anticompetitive conduct in specific cases. Nonetheless, the FCC maintains a "List of Foreign Carriers that are Presumed to Possess 
Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets". This list of carriers is used for the purposes 
of implementing certain FCC rules on switched se rvices over private lines and U.S. international 
common carriers and cable landing licensees." 
 
Question 169: Please list the respective contributions made by the FCC and telecommunications operators in the Connect America Fund (CAF) and the CAF Mobility Fund. Are there any internet companies that 
make investment in the construction of mobile broadband infrastructures? 
 RESPONSE: In 2011, the FCC set a budget of US$4.5 billion for the Connect America 
Fund, which included US$500 million for the Mobility Fund. The Connect America Fund 
provides support to telecommunications operat ors to extend infrastructure that delivers 
voice and Internet services in areas that are uneconomic to serve without a subsidy. 
Internet companies, depending on how define d, do invest in such infrastructure. For 
example, AT&T and Verizon, which are tele communications carriers and Internet service 
providers, both have deployed expansive 4G  LTE networks that together cover a large 
percentage of the country's population. AT&T currently receives Connect America 
support for its mobile operations in some areas; Verizon does not receive any such 
support for its mobile operations. Intel, a company which is not a telecommunications 
carrier nor a Connect America Fund support  recipient, was an investor in WiMax 
projects. 
 Question 170: 
What is the relationship between CAF and USF sp ecified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 
Do the "VoIP providers" under USF refer to te lecommunications service providers or internet 
service providers?   
RESPONSE: CAF is one program under the USF. To receive support from the Connect 
America Fund, a VoIP provider must fi rst be designated as an "eligible 
telecommunications carrier" by the state where th e provider is offering service or by the 
FCC if the relevant state does not have jurisdic tion over the VoIP provider. As an eligible 
telecommunications carrier, a VoIP provider would be required to offer VoIP on a 
common carrier basis. 
 
Page 127, Para 4.95 The report states that "In December 2010, the FCC issued a Report and Order (FCC 10-201) to adopt open internet rules. The FCC prohibited  fixed broadband providers from unreasonably 
discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffi c and from blocking lawful content, applications, 
and services. The FCC also imposed more limit ed anti-blocking rules on mobile broadband 
providers, and required both fixed and mobile broadband providers to disclose their network 
management practices. In September 2011, Verizon appealed the FCC's Open Internet Order. In 
January 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dist rict of Columbia Circuit overturned the FCC's 
blocking and discriminations rules for the internet , but also upheld the FCC's authority to adopt 
open Internet rules under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act." 
 Question 171: The open internet (internet neutrality) rules ad opted by FCC are mentioned in this paragraph. 
Please describe the authority and power that FCC enjoys over the internet under section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act.   
RESPONSE: Both the U.S. Court of Appeals fo r the District of Columbia Circuit and the 
10
th Circuit have upheld the FCC finding that , if the FCC determines that advanced 
telecommunications capability is not being de ployed to all Americans in a reasonable 
and timely fashion, Section 706 provides the FCC with the authority to take immediate 
action to ensure that advanced telecommunications capabilities are available to consumers in the United States, by addressing  any barriers to infrastructure investment 
and promoting competition in the telecommunications market.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 174 - 
 
  Question : 172 
The FCC formulates or make adjustment to the rule s on "open internet". Does this mean that the 
FCC has become the (main) regulatory authority of the internet in the U.S.? Or the FCC only exercises its power within the scope of "use of the internet" under section 706? 
 
RESPONSE: Most Internet-related services in  the United States are unregulated, and it 
would be inaccurate to characterize the F CC as the "main regulatory authority of the 
Internet." Efforts to ensure that consumer s and businesses continue to have access to 
an open Internet largely focus on the narrow issue of access by the end-user customers, for which there are a range of statutory auth orities available, including but not limited 
to section 706. 
 
 Page 128, Para 4.96 
The report states that "In response to the Court's decision, on 15 May 2014 the FCC proposed new 
Open Internet rules, so as to enhance the ex isting transparency requirement, reinstate the 
no-blocking rule with certain clarifications, and require fixed (and potentially mobile) broadband 
providers to ensure that their practices are commercially reasonable. The FCC also sought 
comment on whether it should adopt legal presumptions that certain practices by broadband providers are commercially unreasonable, including wi th respect to prioritization of traffic from 
affiliated services. The FCC sought public comment on these proposed rules and on alternative 
proposals to protect the open Internet, including those that would regulate broadband providers as 
common carriers under certain circumstances. The deadline for submitting initial comments was 15 July 2014, and replies to those comments were due on 15 September 2014. New Open Internet 
rules are expected to be adopted by the end of 2014." 
 Question 173: 
As mentioned in this paragraph, the FCC reinstated the neutrality policies in response to the 
Court's decision. FCC intends to promulgate policies permitting prioritization of traffic from affiliated services of broadband providers, which is  a policy of preferential treatment for oneselves 
and indirect discrimination against others. Please cl arify the considerations of FCC. FCC intends to 
treat "broadband providers" as "common carriers" under certain circumstances, what scenarios do 
"certain circumstances" refer to?   
RESPONSE: As this is an open proceeding, it  would be premature to conclude what such 
circumstances might be; the purpose of the proceeding is to explore that question, 
among others.  
 
Page 128, Para 4.97 The report states that "On 4 March 2014, the United States announced its intention to negotiate Telecommunications Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with selected countries "to facilitate 
U.S. exports of telecommunications equipment." The United States has negotiated MRAs with a 
number of multilateral organizations and econom ies, including in the context of APEC." 
 
Question 174: 
We note that the U.S. is negotiating MARs for the U.S. export of the telecommunications 
equipment with several countries/regions, including Chinese Taipei. Does the U.S. have any plan 
to negotiate an agreement with mainland China in the future? 
 RESPONSE: The United States has requeste d on numerous occasions over the past 
decade that China engage with the United  States to conclude a bilateral Mutual 
Recognition Agreement (MRA) for confor mity assessment of telecommunications 
equipment, consistent with China's stated commitment at APEC-TEL in 1998. The United States is pleased with China's renewe d interest in this matter, and remains ready 
and willing to proceed with such a negotiation.  
 Question 175: 
Please explain the standards of selecting negotiatin g partners of MARs, i.e. requirements to be met 
by an economy for the launch of negotiation. If any such agreement is concluded, what 
preferential treatment is given to the telecomm unication products exported by the agreement 
signatory to the U.S.? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 175 - 
 
  Page 139, Para 4.120 
The report states that "The main recent regulato ry development concerning the U.S. health system 
is the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (see main provisions, Table A4.3) The PPACA represents a significant reform of the U.S. health care system. An important objective 
of the Act is to increase access to care by prov iding insurance coverage to previously uninsured 
individuals as of 2014."  
Response: The APEC Tel MRA is already in pl ace and the United States is prepared to 
implement it with any APEC Tel signatory,  including China. Once implemented with 
particular economy, the agreement provides for the mutual recognition of conformity 
assessment of telecommunications equipment.  The value is that manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment can have thei r products tested and approved with 
conformity assessment bodies located in their own country. This will help in the speed 
and cost of placing new telecom produc ts on the market. Further detail on 
U.S. implementation can be found here: 
http://transition.fcc.gov/oe t/ea/mra/implementation.html . 
 
Question 176: 
China pays great attention to PPACA, one of the most important economic reform measures adopted by the U.S. in recent years. Please provid e the data of increased fiscal expenditures of the 
federal, state and local governments for implementing the Act. How is the current scale of 
expenditure expected to change in the future? 
 RESPONSE: The Congressional Budget Office  (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation 
(JCT) have projected that the overall effect  o f  t h e  A f f o r d a b l e  C a r e  A c t  w o u l d  b e  t o  
reduce federal deficits.
5 In their most recent estimates, CBO and JCT estimate that the 
coverage provisions alone will result in a net Federal cost of US$36 billion for 2014 and 
US$1,383 billion for 2015-2024, which is US$104 billion less than previous projections.6 
We are not aware of a comprehensive analysis of the costs to state and local government related to the Affordable Care Act,  but note that the costs to states for the 
expansion of Medicaid
7 coverage is expected to be approximately US$63 billion between 
2013 and 2022.8 We also note that the costs fo r states to implement the Health 
Insurance Marketplaces as well as the costs to subsidize consumers' costs for coverage 
in the Marketplaces are paid by the Fede ral government. States must generate the 
financing for the ongoing operational costs of  Marketplaces they run, either through 
user fees or other general revenues available to the state.  
Question 177: 
As the U.S. concluded its asset purchase program and adopts stringent fiscal policies to control deficits, how will the significant governmental expe nditures incurred by medical reform affect the 
fiscal positions of the U.S.? Will this affect the real ization of the fiscal policy objectives of the U.S.? 
 
RESPONSE: A recent analysis of national heal th spending found that in 2013, the rate of 
health care spending decreased by 0.5 percen tage points compared to the previous year, 
and that the share of gross domestic produc t devoted to health care spending has 
remained at 17.4% since 2009.
9 Key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as 
adjustments to Medicare10 payments, increased Medicaid  prescription drug rebates11, 
                                               
5 http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471. 
6 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf. 
7 Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that helps with medical costs for some people with low 
incomes and limited resources. Medicaid programs vary from state to state, but mo st health care costs are 
covered if you qualify for both Medicare and Medica id. https://www.cms.gov/apps/glossary/search.asp?Term= 
medicaid&Language=English&SubmitTermSrch=Search#Terms. 
8 http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Financing-and-
Reimbursement/Actuarial-Report-on-Financial-Outlook-for-Medicaid.html, 2013 Report. 
9 http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/ early/2014/11/25/hlthaff.2014.1107.full.pdf+html. 
10 Medicare is the federal health insurance program fo r: people 65 years of age or older, certain younger 
people with disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure with dialysis or a 
transplant, sometimes called ESRD). https://www.cms.gov/apps/glossary/search.asp?Term=medicare& Language=English&SubmitTermSrch=Search. 
11 The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program is a program that includes CMS, State Medicaid Agencies, and 
participating drug manufacturers th at helps to offset the Federal an d State costs of most outpatient WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 176 - 
 
  and the medical loss ratio12 for private insurers, has ha d the impact of exerting 
downward pressure on health care cost growth.13 However, many of the major coverage 
provisions of the Affordable Care Act first to ok effect in 2014 and have not yet been fully 
accounted for. The National Health Expenditur e Projections for 2013-23 indicate that the 
expansion of insurance coverage under the A ffordable Care Act, as well as improving 
economic conditions, and the aging of the popu lation is expected to drive faster growth 
in health spending in 2014 (5.6%) and beyond (6.0% for 2015 through 2023), and that 
health spending will make up 19.3% of GDP by 2023.14 
 Question 178: To what extent will the expansion of the medial insurance coverage further promote the 
development of health care and medicine service market? Has the U.S. made corresponding 
assessment?  
RESPONSE: As noted in the Secretariat Report, a basic purpose of the recent reforms of 
the U.S. health care system was to ensure increased access to health care services by 
providing insurance coverage to previously uninsured individuals. The National Health 
Expenditure Projections for 2013 through 2023
15 provides information on estimated 
growth in certain health care  sectors related to the Afford able Care Act. Specifically, 
increased health insurance coverage is expected  to lead to increased growth in hospital, 
physician and clinical services, and prescripti on drug use. The report found at this link 
provides additional analysis on this issue:  
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/10/1841.abstract . 
 
Page 140, Para 4.129 
The report states that "Regarding health insurance services, the limitations listed in the U.S. schedule, for insurance, notably numerous sub-federal level limitations, apply also to health 
insurance services. These restrictions have been described in some detail in previous TPR reports." 
 Question 179: Foreign enterprises encounter significant difficultie s in providing medical insurance services in the 
U.S. due to the sub-federal level restrictions and legislative inconsistency among the states. Does 
the U.S. plan to properly unify the relevant le gislative provisions and reduce the corresponding 
limitations, so as to facilitate the business operation of foreign investors? 
 
RESPONSE: The market for health insurance serv ices in the United States is regulated at 
the sub-Federal level. There are no plans to change that structure. We are not aware of 
significant difficulties provided by this system . Indeed, as noted in the Secretariat report 
at paragraph 4.135, "[t]he health insurance ma rket of the United States is largely open 
and proportionally bigger than other develo ped countries' markets where public social 
security systems are dominant, thus making  it an attractive destination for the 
establishment of foreign-based health insurers."  
 Page 143, Para 4.141 
The report states that "Cabotage of goods and pass engers continues to be restricted by Section 27 
of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act) and the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. 
Under the Jones Act, cabotage is reserved for ships registered, built, and maintained in the 
United States, owned by a domestic individual, including corporations, and three-quarters of the 
crew must be U.S. citizens."  
                                                                                                                                               
prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid patien ts. http://www.medicaid.gov /medicaid-chip-program-
information/by-topics/benefits/prescription -drugs/medicaid-drug-rebate-program.html. 
12 Under the health care law, insurance companies must spend at least 80% of premium dollars on 
medical care. Insurers that don’t meet this requiremen t must provide rebates to policyholders -- usually an 
employer that provides a group heal th plan. Employers who get these prem ium rebates must determine if the 
rebates constitute plan assets, and if so, allocate the rebate properly. https://www.healthcare.gov/small-businesses/other-aca-information-for-business/. 
13 http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/ early/2014/11/25/hlthaff.2014.1107.full.pdf+html. 
14 http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-
Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsProjected.html. 
15 http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-
Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsProjected.html. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 177 - 
 
  Question 180: 
Please describe the considerations of the U.S. in continuing to implement this market access restriction imposed 96 years ago, in today's world of ever deepened economic globalization. Does the U.S. plan to further open its cabotage market in future? 
 
RESPONSE: Restrictions on domestic cabo tage remain common among WTO members. 
U.S. objectives underlying the cabotage re gime include ensuring the availability of 
experienced seafarers and maintaining dome stic shipbuilding capability, which are 
important national security objectives.   Page 143, Para 4.144 
The report states that "The United States has not made any commitment on maritime transport 
under the GATS and did not table an offer with respec t to maritime transport in its services offer in 
the Doha Development Agenda." 
 
Question 181: Please clarify why the U.S. has long refused to ma ke an offer with respect to maritime transport. 
 
RESPONSE: The TPR is not a negotiating foru m. Requests made in the context of the 
DDA services negotiations should be taken up in that forum.  
 
 
Part II. Questions based on Policy Statem ent by the United States (WT/TPR/G/307) 
 
 
1. THE UNITED STATES IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM  
Question 182: 
Could the United States explain its consideration behind the change of wording from "Multilateral 
Trading System" in the heading of Part 1 of the 2012 Statement to "Global Trading System" in this 
Statement? 
 
RESPONSE: China is reading too much into th is wording. The words "multilateral" and 
"global" can be used interchangeably.  
 
Question 183: Paragraph 5 in Part 1 of the 2012 Statement stated that "The fundamental features of U.S. trade 
policy – maintenance of open, competitive markets, compliance with WTO obligations, and 
leadership in the multilateral trading system-remain unchaged……" However, neither such expression nor a description of the features of U. S. trade policy can be found in this Statement. 
Even the word "multilateral" is not mentioned throughout Part 1. Does it mean that the 
United States openly admits attaching less importance to the multilateral system compared with 
before?  
RESPONSE: The United States places signific ant importance on the multilateral trading 
system, as witnessed just in the past twelve  months by our significant contributions at 
Bali and in seeking to lift the impasse relate d to the TFA, the first multilateral agreement 
in the history of the WTO.  
 Page 4, Para 1.4 The Statement states that "More broadly, the United States will appropriately utilize every 
available policy tool – and will continue to develop new tools – to pursue the most efficient and 
productive pathways to expand trade and foster economic growth, consistent with WTO rules…", 
while in the 2012 Report, the counterpart statement was that "As part of its broader efforts to 
liberalize trade within the scope of WTO rules,  the U.S. pursues a number of broad domestic, 
bilateral and regional initiatives that complement multilateral approaches.".  Moreover, the 2012 Statement stated that "US conti nues to adhere strongly to the percept that 
trade liberalization at the multilateral level holds the highest potential for securing wide-ranging 
market-opening outcomes.", but similar statement was not found in the Statement this year.  Question 184: 
Does this mean that the United States has expressly diverted its focus on the international WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 178 - 
 
  economic and trade rule-making from the multilatera l front to bilateral, regional and plurilateral 
arrangements?  RESPONSE: The United States places signific ant importance on the multilateral trading 
system, as witnessed just in the past twelve  months by our significant contributions at 
Bali and in seeking to lift the impasse relate d to the TFA, the first multilateral agreement 
in the history of the WTO. However, rule -making at the multilateral level is not 
something the United States alone can deliv er. We look forward in 2015 to intensive 
discussions, including on a post-Bali work  program, which will lead, we hope, to 
additional multilateral agreements.  
 
Page 4, Para 1.3 
The Statement states that "The United States will also utilize the WTO's network of committees to consider emerging challenges, such as state-owned enterprises, electronic commerce, food 
security, and regulatory trade barriers.", while in the 2012 Statement, the U.S. showed more 
concern on "regional trade agreements, export restrictions, food security and government involvement in commercial activities". 
 
Question 185: Except for food security, the primary concerns of  the United States have changed significantly 
compared to those in 2012. Please explain the reasons for such change. 
 
RESPONSE: Regional trade agreements, export restrictions, food security and government involvement in commercial acti vities remain of concern to us and we 
continue to pursue specific issues or prob lems in the relevant Committees. However, as 
the updated sentence notes, we view state- owned enterprises, electronic commerce and 
regulatory trade barriers - along with food security - as emerging challenges that 
require new or additional attention in Committees. 
 Page 4, Para 1.6 Compared the 2012 Statement, new expressions such as "…innovation is promoted… and high 
environmental and labor standards are respected…" were added in the 2014 Statement. 
 Question 186: 
What's the opinion of the United States on the ro le of these new factors in the system of global 
trade rules?  
RESPONSE: The United States pl aces a high value on the protection of innovation and 
intellectual property rights, labor rights, and the environment. International trade 
agreements and initiatives are valuable tool s to raise the bar for the protection of 
innovation, worker rights, and the environment, and we seek to ensure that our 
international trade policies support and reinforce these objectives and values, so that 
the benefits of trade are shared broadl y by workers, businesses, and consumers 
throughout the global trading system.  
 
Question 187: Please list the departments and authorities responsible for performing the U.S. obligations under 
environment provisions or chapter under its free trade agreements. What environmental clauses 
will be covered in the FTA negotiations of the U.S.? How will the United States enforce such 
environmental agenda after signing it into FTAs? For instance, which departments will participate in such enforcement and what are their respective role and duty? 
 
RESPONSE: While the precise terms of obligations may vary by FTA, the Environment Chapters of our FTAs generally require Parties to: 
 
• Maintain high levels of environmental protection; 
• Not fail to effectively enforce domestic environmental law in a manner affecting 
trade or investment; 
• Not waive or derogate from domestic environmental law to attract trade or 
investment; 
• Provide opportunities for public participation; and 
• Ensure that interested persons ca n request competent authorities to WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 179 - 
 
  investigate alleged violations of environmental laws.  
 Some of our FTAs require the Parties to im plement certain multilateral environmental 
agreements. In FTAs under negotiation, we are seeking commitments to address 
pressing environmental challenges, such as wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and 
marine conservation and protection.  
The Office of the United States Trade Repr esentative coordinates the implementation 
and enforcement of the environment provisions  of U.S. FTAs. Other agencies that play 
substantial roles in these matters include the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Inte rior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration, and the Department of Justice. 
 Question 188: 
How does the United States view the role of the environmental dispute settlement mechanism in a 
free trade agreement? Apart from NAFTA, does the United States have other practical experience in resolving environmental disputes under an FTA? Please give examples. What benefits were 
delivered by including an environment chapter in an FTA involving the U.S., in particular, for the 
improvement of environment?  RESPONSE: The environmental commitments in  our FTAs along with related technical 
assistance and capacity building have re sulted in significant improvements in 
environmental protection in FTA partner countries, including by strengthening environmental protection and oversight inst itutions, supporting conservation efforts, 
and enhancing public participation in envi ronmental decision-making. Monitoring and 
enforcing the implementation of the environmen t provisions of our FTAs is a priority for 
the United States. We seek to monitor and enforce these provisions in the same manner 
as commercial obligations. We have resol ved issues related to the environment 
provisions of our FTAs through a range of mechanisms, including through FTA institutional bodies, governmental dialogues,  and environmental cooperation. To date, 
none of these matters has led to formal, government-to-government dispute settlement 
proceedings. Information regarding our agreem ents and initiatives is available on the 
website of the Office of the Unit ed States Trade Representative ( http://www.ustr.gov/ ). 
 
2. THE UNITED STATES ECONOMIC AND TRADE ENVIRONMENT 
 Page 5, Para 2.1 
"the United States is committed to opening foreign markets through negotiating trade agreements, 
whether multilateral, regional, bilateral, or plurilateral, as well as maintaining the integrity of existing trade agreements and enforcing U.S. rights under those agreements."  
Question 189: 
"Plurilateral" is a newly-added negotiation approach to market access in the U.S. toolkit. Please outline the U,S, overall considerations for plurilate ral negotiations and their relationship with the 
multilateral negotiations under the WTO framework. 
  RESPONSE: Plurilateral approaches are not ne w, neither for the United States nor the 
WTO. On the rules side, for example, the Subsidies and TBT Agreements started as 
plurilrateral codes. The GPA is also plur ilateral. On the market access side, the 
ITA Agreement is a plurilateral agreement, even though its benefits extend to all 
WTO Members. In those ar eas where some WT O Members be unable or unwilling to 
move forward, the United States considers pl urilateral agreements to be valuable way to 
liberalize trade among those in a position to do so.  
 
Page 5, Para 2.3 
"In 2013, U.S. goods and services exports supp orted an estimated 11.3 million jobs in the 
United States alone……Over half of U.S. imports in 2013 were intermediate inputs." 
 
Question 190: Compared to 2011, U.S. goods and services expo rts created 1.6 million more new jobs in 2013. 
What is the main reason for such growth? Over half of U.S. imports in 2013 were intermediate 
inputs. How does this figure compare with previous years and why is there such a development? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 180 - 
 
    
RESPONSE: Jobs supported by goods and serv ices exports have increased by 1.6 million 
between 2009 and 2013 (from 9.7 million in 2 009 to 11.3 million in 2013). This increase 
in jobs supported by exports is largely due to  the growth in U.S. exports over the same 
time period. During this global economic recovery, U.S. exports grew by nearly 
50 percent. For a discussion of jobs suppo rted by exports and its methodology, see 
http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/group s/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent
/tg_ian_005313.pdf . 
 
In 2013, an estimated 52% of U.S. imports were intermediate goods. This compares 
with 55% in 2004, 53% in 2007, and 54% in 2012. 
Page 5, Para 2.4 
"The United States maintains one of the world's most open trade regimes……and U.S. regulatory processes are transparent and accessible to the public." 
 
Question 191: The United States claims that its regulatory proc esses are transparent and accessible to the public. 
However, under its Foreign Investment and National Security Act, the requirements for national 
security review are too general, CFIUS is endowed with too much discretion, the procedures are complicated and opaque, and no reasons are provided for rejected transactions. Please explain why. Does the United States have any plan for making improvements in this respect? 
 
RESPONSE: The CFIUS process is fully describe d in the CFIUS statut e, executive order, 
and regulation, all of which are ava ilable at www.treasury.gov/cfius.  
 
CFIUS has published guidance on types of tran sactions that have posed national security 
considerations. (See guidance that Treasury  published on December 8, 2008, in the 
Federal Register,  available on the CFIUS webpage at:  
http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). Furthermore, the stat ute, executive order, 
regulations, and guidance setting forth the CFIUS process are fully and publicly 
disclosed on the CFIUS website. 
 Page 6, Para 2.6 
"Both U.S. real exports and imports of goods an d services increased between 2011 and 2013, with 
exports up 6.4% and imports up 3.5%. Over th e past 20 quarters of recovery (through 2
nd quarter 
of 2014), real exports of goods and services have  contributed 0.7 percentage point to U.S. GDP 
growth, roughly one-third of the growth in U.S. GDP." 
 Question 192: What is the main reason for a significant decline in  the growth rates of both U.S. real exports and 
imports of goods and services between 2011 and 2013 compared to those between 2009 and 
2011? Why of two sides of the trade coin, export, for the period of 2011-2013, replaced import, for 
the period of 2009-11, as a contributor to the GDP growth. Why? Has it to do with the National 
Export Initiative launched by the U.S. government? 
 RESPONSE: Both export and import real growth rates have declined between 2009-11 
and 2011-13. The real growth rate for export s declined from nearly 20% to over 6%, 
while the real import growth rate declined from 19% to 3.5%. Among other factors, the 
large increase in the growth rate in the ea rlier period was a func tion of the economic 
recovery from the Great Recession – real expo rts declined by nearly 9% in 2008 and real 
imports declined by nearly 14%.  
 In the more recent period, the slowdown in trade, a global phenomenon, may be a 
consequence of weak global economic growth , most notably in Europe, but also in many 
emerging market economies, relative to the pre-crisis rates of growth. Over the same 
period, import growth has slowed, mainly due to a decline in both the volume and price 
of oil imports. 
 The National Export Initiative has contribu ted to U.S. export growth by promoting 
exports (through trade advocacy and increa sing market access th rough market opening 
trade negotiations), and enforcing U.S. rights under trade agreements. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 181 - 
 
   
Page 6, Para 2.7 "The budget deficit dropped from US$1.3 tr illion (8.4% of GDP) in fiscal year 2011 to 
US$1.1 trillion (6.8% of GDP) in fiscal year 2012, and to US$680 billion (4.1% of GDP) in fiscal 
year 2013……The primary deficit (non-interest ou tlays less receipts) is projected to become a 
primary surplus in FY2021 and grow through the end of the forecast horizon……The progress in 
reducing the deficit as a share of GDP reflects both the stronger U.S. economy and the deficit 
reduction plan put into place by the United States." 
 Question 193: The Statement states that the budget deficit in 2011 was US$1.3 trillion (8.4% of GDP), which is 
different from the data disclosed in the 2012 Statement (US$1.19 tr illion and 7.9% of GDP 
respectively). Please explain the reasons for such discrepancy.  
RESPONSE: According to official U.S. accounts, the Federal Government posted a deficit 
of US$1,299.6 billion at the end of FY2011 (October 2010 – Septem ber 2011). The final 
deficit differs slightly from  the initial estimate of US$1,298.6 billion, published in 
October 2011, due to additional reporting and revisions to data following the release of 
the Final Monthly Treasury Statement for FY20 11. At the end of the last fiscal year 
(FY2014), the Federal Government posted a deficit US$483.4 billion (2.8% of GDP), the 
lowest deficit since FY2008. The Federal de ficit has fallen by about US$929.3 billion 
since the peak of US$1,412.7 billion, reached in FY2009. 
 Question 194: 
The Statement states that the decline of the deficit as a share of GDP is attributable to both the 
stronger U.S. economy and the deficit reduction plan. Please give more details of this plan. Does it refer to the Budget Control Act passed in Augu st 2011, committing the U.S. to US$2.1 trillion in 
deficit reduction over the next ten years? Has the United States made any assessment of the 
enforcement of this Act and its implication for the economic recovery of the United States?  RESPONSE: Legislative actions (e.g. cuts to discretionary spending and mandatory 
sequestration included in the Budget Control Act and the restoration of tax rates on the 
highest earners to 1990s levels in the Amer ican Taxpayer Relief Ac t) have lowered the 
deficit by almost US$4.0 trillion in the past fe w years. More recently, the United States 
passed the Bipartisan Budget Act in Decemb er 2013, which reaffirmed its commitment 
to deficit reduction. The legislation includ ed US$85 billion in total savings, achieved 
through a combination of lower outlays an d new revenue, and replaced some of the 
automatic budget cuts set to occur over  FYs2014 and 2015 for an additional 
US$22 billion in deficit reduction through FY2023.  Question 195: 
"The primary deficit (non-interest outlays less receipts) is projected to become a primary surplus 
in FY2021 and grow through the end of the forecast  horizon." Could the United States introduce 
the specific methodology and basis for making this projection, in particular, how does the influence 
of such non-economic factors as general election be assessed? 
 RESPONSE: Many – if not most –of the government's programs are affected by the state 
of the economy, including variables such as th e rate of inflation, the unemployment rate, 
and changing demographics. Likewise, revenues  reflect the size of the economy and tax 
rates. The federal budget must be negotiated and agreed upon by both Congress and the President, and general election resu lts can influence fiscal policy.  
 
Page 6, Para 2.8 "The increase in gross saving of US$598 billion between 2011 and 2013 was primarily due to an 
increase in government saving of US$613 billion." 
 Question 196: 
Compared with the period between 2009 and 2011 , the increase in U.S. gross saving between 
2011 and 2013 was primarily due to an increase in  government saving rather than that in 
commercial savings. Why was there such a change?  
RESPONSE: Between these two periods, the U.S. government enacted policies that WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 182 - 
 
  reduced the budget deficit and restrained  the accumulation of national debt. 
 Page 6, Para 2.9 "U.S. gross investment increased by US$367 billio n between 2011 and 2013, 60% the increase in 
U.S. gross saving. With levels of U.S. saving grow ing faster than domestic investment, a decline in 
net inflows of capital occurred, from US$461 billion in 2011 to US$454 billion in 2012, and 
US$401 billion in 2013." 
 
Question 197: A decline in net inflows of capital occurred in th e United States between 2011 and 2013. Is there 
any other reason for such decline in addition to that saving outgrew domestic investment? 
 
RESPONSE: A major source of the increased saving was the reduction in the Federal government budget deficit. In addition, th e moderate, but sustained, growth of the 
economy held down the need for additional  investment since the rate of capacity 
utilization remained below its long-term average. Another reason for increased 
U.S. saving is the continued deleveraging  by U.S. households  since 2008, which has 
increased private savings. 
 Page 6, Para 2.11  "Most measures of labor compensation have also been rising slowly – another indication of the 
significant slack which remains in the U.S. labor market." 
Paragraph 2.11 states that labor compensation ha s been rising slowly, and the significant slack 
remains in the U.S. labor market. 
 
Question 198:  
Could the United States explain why the labor market remains slack and what challenge this will 
have on its further economic recovery?  
 RESPONSE: While the unemployment rate, at 5.8% , is very close to what many consider 
to be its structural value of 5.4%, and the short term unemployment rate is below its 
pre-recession average, other indicators such  as those working part time for economic 
reasons, and those marginally attached to th e labor force, remain elevated and point to 
slack in the economy. 
 
The long-term unemployed are another group that may indicate slack in the economy, and recovery for this group has markedly accelerated in 2014. Steps to strengthen the 
economy and encourage best practices for hi ring the long-term unemployed, both of 
which the Administration has long-championed, are critical for continuing the rapid pace 
of recovery seen in 2014. For further detail on these plans see the following reports on the labor force participation: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fil es/docs/labor_force_participation_report
.pdf and the Opportunity, Growth, and Security initiative 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default /files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/opportun
ity.pdf . Also for steps on the long-term unemployed:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2014/01/31/fact-sheet-opportunit y-all-president-s-call-action-give-long-
term-unempl . 
 
Page 7, Para 2.12 "Labor productivity, as measured by output pe r hour worked, grew by nearly 2% between 2011 
and 2013 (up 1% in 2012 and up 0.9% in 2013). Ma nufacturing productivity grew nearly 60% 
faster, up 3.0% between 2011 and 2013 (up 1.0% in 2012 and up 2.0% in 2013)." 
 Question 199:  
Please describe the main reasons for the growth in labor productivity and manufacturing 
productivity of the United States.  
RESPONSE: Over the last decade, increases in productivity have mostly reflected 
technological change as well as the scale of  markets and organization of production 
processes. The relatively slower  pace of productivity growth in the recent period likely 
reflects, in part, the sustained weakness in capital investment over the recession and 
recovery period. Moreover, the cyclical element to the growth in labor productivity with WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 183 - 
 
  it being strong at the beginning of the business cycle, then slowing as the cycle 
progresses as more employment accelerates is also a factor in the slower pace in the 
recent period.  
Page 7, Para 2.14 
"The United States was the recipient of 16.9% of goods and services exports from the rest of the 
world (excluding intra-EU exports) in 2013. The United States supplied 14.3% of goods and 
services imports to the rest of the world (excluding intra-EU imports)." 
 Question 200: As the largest economy and consumer worldwide, U. S. and its demand is critical for boosting the 
global economic recovery. Does the United States plan to further trade facilitation to promote 
imports and undertake its responsibility as the largest economy in the global economic recovery? RESPONSE: The U.S. is the largest importer in the world, with imports of goods and 
services totaling US$2.8 trillion in 2013. Sinc e 2009 and the end of the Great Recession, 
imports have increased by 40%. The U.S. has agreed to implement the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement, which when other parties implemen t as well is estimated to increase global 
GDP by hundreds of billions.  
 3. OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY: BUILDING SUPPORT FOR TRADE  
Page 9, Para 3.8 
"Throughout 2013 and 2014, USTR has issued Federal Register Notices to solicit public comment and has held public hearings at USTR regarding a wide array of trade policy initiatives. Public 
comments received in response to Federal Register Notices are available for inspection online at 
http://www.regulations.gov. Some examples of trad e policy initiatives for which USTR has sought 
public comment include those related to th e Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), the 
Environmental Goods Agreement, in addition to th ose related to the ongoing negotiations of the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (T-TIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."  
Question 201: 
After login on the website www.regualtions.gove, we found that it seems only to publish brief and 
simple notices, without making available substantial information regarding the said negotiations or 
initiatives. For instance, under "Request for Public Comments Regarding the Interim Environment 
Review of the TPP Agreement" with the Docket  ID "USTR-2013-0028", Angela Clapp, a website 
visitor commented on Sep. 26, 2013: "We must have details before we can comment. Where do 
I go to read more??" It seems that the American people share the concern of the international 
community about transparency of the negotiations of mega-FTAs, such as TPP. Could the United 
States please explain what measures it will take to ensure transparency?  
RESPONSE: U.S. negotiators meet with stakehol ders on a regular basis, including before, 
during, and after each negotiating round. In ad dition, U.S. negotiators brief stakeholders 
and the press following each negotiating round. 
 
For example, alongside each of the T-TI P rounds, USTR and the EU have hosted 
stakeholder consultation sessions. During  each of the rounds held in the U.S., 
negotiators met with and listened to over 50 presentations from representatives of a 
wide array of interests, including indust ry, small business, academia, labor unions, 
environmental groups, and consumer advo cacy organizations. The stakeholder 
presentations and briefings consistently dr aw approximately 300 global stakeholders.  
 
In addition, before the launch of the T-TI P negotiations, USTR published a Federal 
Register Notice to seek public comment on the objectives for a U.S.-EU free trade 
agreement and held a public hearing. USTR received over 365 comments from a diverse 
array of stakeholders and 62 stakeholders participated in  the hearing. These comments 
continue to guide our participation in the negotiations.  
 
Page 10, Para 3.10 "The United States continues to rely on its trade advisory committee system as an integral part of its efforts to ensure that U.S. trade policy and tr ade negotiating objectives adequately reflect U.S. 
public and private sector interests. The trade ad visory committee system consists of 28 advisory WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 184 - 
 
  committees, with a total membership of over 500 advisors. It includes committees representing 
sectors of industry, small business, and agricult ure; labor, environment, consumer, and health 
organizations; as well as state and local interest s. The system is arranged in three tiers: the 
President's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN); five policy advisory 
committees dealing with environment, labor, agriculture, Africa, and state and local issues; and 
22 technical advisory committees in the areas of industry and agriculture."  
Question 202: 
The total number of advisors disclosed in the 2 012 Statement was nearly 700, while it is over 
500 in this Statement. Apart from the maximum number of 45 advisors in the President's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations, are there any ceiling for the number of members in 
other 27 advisory committees?  
 RESPONSE: The Agricultural Policy Advi sory Committee and Agri cultural Technical 
Advisory Committees do not have membership caps. The Industry Trade Advisory 
Committees may have up to 50 members. The Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee may have up to 35 members. The Labor Advisory Committee for Trade 
Negotiations and Trade Policy may have up to 30 members. The Trade Advisory 
Committee on Africa may have up to 30 members. The Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee may have up to 35 members.  
Page 10, Para 3.15 
"For day-to-day communications, pursuant to the NAFTA and Uruguay Round implementing legislation and Statements of Administrative Action, USTR created a State Single Point of Contact 
(SPOC) system. The Governor's office in each state designates a single contact point to 
disseminate information received from USTR to relevant state and local offices and assist in relaying specific information and advice from the states to USTR on trade-related matters. The 
SPOC network ensures that state governments ar e promptly informed of Administration trade 
initiatives so their companies and workers may take full advantage of increased foreign market access and reduced trade barriers. It also enables USTR to consult with states and localities directly on trade matters which may affect them." 
 
Question 203: Please describe the U.S. working mechanism fo r subsidy noitification, including and the 
coordination between the federal and local governments. Are SPOCs in the states responsible for 
collecting information on local subsidies?  
RESPONSE: The SPOCs are not responsible fo r collecting local subsidies information. 
 4. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2012  
Question 204: 
China has noticed that the regional and bilateral preferential trade arrangements signed by the 
United States include both Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA). 
Please describe the difference between FTA and TPA. 
 RESPONSE: There is no substantive difference between U.S. FTAs and TPAs.  
 
Page 16, Para 4.35 "In August 2014, the AGOA Forum was held in conjunction with the first ever U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington DC. The U.S. Trade Represen tative and other U.S. participants met with 
numerous African heads of state, trade minist ers, leaders of African regional economic 
organizations, and representatives of the African and American private sectors and civil society to 
discuss issues and strategies for advancing trade, investment, and economic development in Africa 
as well as ways to increase two-way U.S.-African trade." 
 Question 205: 
Please introduce the main deliverables of the first U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. 
 RESPONSE: A broad spectrum of new initiati ves and announcements were made at the 
Summit, focusing on a range of areas, in cluding: shared investment in youth; 
U.S.-African cooperation on global health, on food security, and on advancing gender WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 185 - 
 
  equality; combatting wildlife trafficking; support for peacekeeping and partnering to 
counter terrorism. In addition, Presid ent Obama announced US$7 billion in new 
financing to promote U.S. exports to and in vestments in Africa under the Doing Business 
in Africa Campaign. U.S. companies announc ed new deals in clean energy, aviation, 
banking, and construction worth more than  US$14 billion. Also, US$12 billion in new 
commitments  under the President's Power Africa  initiative were announced. 
A Presidential Advisory Council on doing bu siness in Africa was created to promote 
broad-based economic growth in the Unit ed States and Africa by encouraging 
U.S. companies to trade with and invest in Africa. The President also announced establishment of a USG steering committee to develop a comprehensive approach for expanding sub-Saharan Africa's capacity fo r trade and investment. On the margins of 
the Summit, a symposium hosted by the First Lady Michelle Obama announced more 
than US$200 million to support programs f ostering improved education, health, and 
economic opportunity for more than 1 million Africans across the continent . A full list 
and description of the deliverables ar e available on the Summit's website  
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/ us-africa-leaders-summit ). 
 
5. TRADE-RELATED CAPACITY  BUILDING INITIATIVES 
 Page 23, Para 5.2 "In April 2014, USTR and the U.S. Agency fo r International Development (USAID) hosted a 
meeting with Ministers and heads of development banks to discuss donor efforts to help 
developing countries implement the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), and to ensure coordination among donor entities. The meeting provided an opportunity for donor institutions to 
share best practices and updates on the broad rang e of trade capacity building projects that are 
already in place."  
Question 206: 
In April 2014, USTR and USAID hosted a meetin g with development banks. Which development 
banks participated in the meeting and what achievements were made at the meeting?   
RESPONSE: Those development banks who atte nded included the African Development 
Bank, Inter-American Develo pment Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the 
World Bank. Additional information on  the meeting can be found online at:  
https://ustr.gov/about-us/polic y-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2014/April/Readout-Meeting-USTR-Froman-USAID-Shah-Support-WTO-Trade-
Facilitiation-Agreement . 
 
Page 25, Para 5.11-5.13  Question 207: 
Please describe the respective objectives, prog ress and achievements of such programs as 
Trade Africa, Power Africa and Feed the Future , the timing consideration for launching these 
programs and the source of funding and the instit utional arrangement for the utilization of funds. 
  
RESPONSE: Both Power Africa and Trade Africa were launched during President Obama's visit to Africa in 2013. Both initiati ves are interagency efforts within the 
U.S. government and include partnershi ps with the private sector and other 
donors. Funding for the initiatives is from both Development Assistance and Economic 
Support Fund accounts and it is implemented through a range of mechanisms, including multi-donor funded projects, and other contracting mechanisms. For the objectives for 
both programs, please see the following links to the White House factsheets that 
accompanied the launch of the programs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/06/30/fact-sheet-power-africa ; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/07/01/fact-sheet-trade-africa . For information on Feed the Future, refer to 
the following report:  
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/de fault/files/ftf_progressreport_2014.pdf  
 
Page 25, Para 5.17 "In November 2012, the United States launched a ne w U.S.-sponsored assistance facility called the 
"Standards Alliance" with the goal of building ca pacity among developing countries to implement 
the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). The Standards Alliance WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 186 - 
 
  provides resources and expertise to enable developing countries to effectively implement the 
TBT Agreement. The focus of these efforts in developing countries includes efforts: to improve practices related to notification of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures to the WTO; to strengthen domestic practices related to adopting relevant international standards; 
and to clarify and streamline regulatory processes for products." 
 Question 208: 
Which governmental department is the lead agency for the work of "Standards Alliance"? Which 
departments are involved?   RESPONSE: In May 2013, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and 
the American National Standards Institut e (ANSI) entered into a public-private 
partnership that will coordinate privat e-sector subject matter experts from 
ANSI member organizations in the delivery of training and other technical exchange 
with interested Standards Alliance countri es on international standards and best 
practices. USAID and ANSI consult closely with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). 
 
6. TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT  Page 26, Para 6.3 
"In July 2013, the President issued an Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking in order 
to enhance U.S. Government efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. The Executive Order established a Presidential Task Force to develop and implem ent a National Strategy for combating wildlife 
trafficking. ……In June 2014, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum on Combating Illegal 
Fishing and Seafood Fraud. The memorandum establis hed a Presidential Task Force and directed it 
to develop a comprehensive framework to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and 
seafood fraud." 
 Question 209: Which departments are represented respectively in the Presidential Task Forces for combating 
wildlife trafficking and illegal fishin g and seafood fraud respectively? 
 RESPONSE: The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney 
General co-chair the Task Force on Wildlif e Trafficking. The Task Force includes 
representatives from a broad range of U.S. Government agencies. See Executive Order 
13648, Combating Wildlife Trafficking (July 1, 2013). The Secretary of State and the 
Secretary of Commerce co-chair the Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and 
Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud. This Ta sk Force likewise is comprised of a broad 
range of U.S. agencies. See Presidential Memorandum – Establishing a Comprehensive 
Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud 
(June 17, 2014).  
 7. TRADE AND LABOR 
 
Page 27, Para 7.3 "As an essential component of the Administration's trade agenda, President Obama signed into law 
renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs to assist workers, firms and farmers 
adversely affected by global competition. On 21 October 2011, President Obama signed the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA). The renewal of TAA preserves the key goals of the 2009 TAA program reforms, such as co vering service workers and workers whose jobs 
shift overseas. It helps ensure that American work ers affected by global competition are given the 
best opportunity to acquire skills and credentials to get good jobs. The TAA program currently offers the following services to eligible workers:  training; weekly income support; out-of-area job 
search and relocation allowances; case management and employment services; assistance with 
payments for health insurance coverage through the utilization of the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC); and wage insurance for some older workers. In FY2013, US$756,353,000 was available to 
carry out the program." 
 Question 210: Compared with the 2009 version, what supporting measures were added to the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Extension Act of 2011 signed by Pr esident Obama? Are there any other changes? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 187 - 
 
   
RESPONSE: The 2011 amendments mainly restored the provisions of the 2009 amendments, however, the differences between the 2009 and 2011 amendments include: 
 
 The elimination of group eligibility for pu blic agencies (no public agency petitions 
were received under 2009 amendments) 
 Changes to Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA) to include Completion TRA, 
which resulted in the following changes: 
• Availability of Completion TRA – to provide up to 13 weeks additional TRA 
payments for a worker who has exhauste d the maximum weeks of Additional TRA 
and requires additional income support to  complete an approved training program 
that results in a degree or an industry  certified credential. Workers who qualify 
must also meet training benchmarks, which are also new under the 2011 
amendments (described below). 
• The reduction of the maximum number of weeks of income support (TRA) from 
156 under 2009 amendments to 130 under 2011 amendments. 
• Reduction of Additional TRA from a ma ximum of 78 weeks of payments, payable 
over a period of 91 weeks under 2009 amendments to 65 weeks of payments, 
payable over a period of 78 weeks under 2011 amendments. 
• The elimination of Remedial TRA (Rem edial training is still allowable). 
• Reduction in the number of criteria for waivers of the training requirement for 
Basic TRA from six criteria to three. 
• Establishment of a Federal Good Cause provision that allows a waiver for good 
cause of deadlines relating to time limitations on filing an application for TRA or 
enrolling in training. 
Establishment of training benchmarks at the beginning of the worker's training 
program where the approved training program will extend beyond the duration of 
available Basic and Additional TRA in order to establish eligibility for Completion TRA 
(referred to above). 
Establishment of a single funding source (t raining cap) for job search allowances, 
relocation allowances, case management an d employment services, training, and state 
administration of benefits, which allows for increased flexibility of funds. 
Changes to the minimum and maximum levels  of case management and employment 
services and state administ ration funds percentages. 
Job Search and Relocation Allowances beca me optional for states to administer 
under the 2011 amendments. Only one state (IL) opted not to offer job search and 
relocation allowances. 
The 2011 amendments included changes to the sunset provisions and termination 
provisions to the TAA program.  
These changes are fully described in the Op erating Instructions for Implementing the 
Amendments to the Trade Act of 1974 Enacte d by the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA) TEGL No. 10-11 located at:  
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directi ves/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=9853  
 
Please note that the Health Coverage Tax Credit was extended under the 2011 
amendments, but expired on December 31, 2013. 
 You may also find this side by side benefi t and services comparison helpful, as it 
includes the 2009 and 2011 amendments, along with the 2002 amendments and 
Reversion 2014 (sunset provision to the 2011 amendments): 
http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/pdf/side-by-side.pdf . 
 
 
8. SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESS TRADE  
Page 28, Para 8.1 
"In October 2009, USTR announced a Small Business initiative aimed at ensuring that the specific export challenges and priorities of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and their workers are 
reflected in our trade policy and enforcement activi ties. This effort also supports the goals of the 
Administration's National Export Initiative (NEI) to double U.S. exports by the end of 2014 to WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 188 - 
 
  support millions of American jobs. The NEI highlights priority attention to expanding SME exports." 
 Question 211: According to its progress assessment, will the goal s of NEI to double U.S. exports by the end of 
2014 be realized as scheduled? 
 RESPONSE: We did not reach the President's goal of doubling exports under the NEI – in 
part because of unexpectedly strong glob al economic headwinds and macroeconomic 
factors outside our control.   Feedback from customer surveys on the NEI and focus groups across the country – 
reaching more than 6,000 clients and partne rs – showed that U.S. companies are well-
positioned to capitalize on growing opportunities around the world and offered suggestions on how to improve upon the NE I. NEI/NEXT is a new customer service-
driven strategy with improved information resources that will help  American businesses 
capitalize on existing and new opportunities  to sell Made-in-America goods and services 
abroad. NEI/NEXT is focused on improvin g data useful to exporters, providing 
information on specific expo rt opportunities, working more closely with financing 
organizations and service prov iders to expand access to export-related resources, and 
partnering with states and communities to empower local export efforts and make it 
easier for small businesses to understand where to go for help. 
 
 Part III. Other Questions  
 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME Investment flows and regimes 
 
Question 212: The two-way investment data published by the Bure au of Economic Analysis (BEA) under the U.S. 
Department of Commerce has been revised from time to time, and occasionally is adjusted 
substantially. Please describe the statistical method and correction mechanism of two-way 
investment data.  
RESPONSE: U.S. Direct Invest ment statistics are based on quarterly and annual sample 
surveys as well as 5 year benchmark surveys. The data are revised on a regular schedule 
to incorporate new and revised source data  and periodically incorporate changes in 
definitions, classifications, and estimation  methods. A comprehensive methodology is 
available on BEA's Web site at http://www.bea.gov/inter national/concepts_estimation_methods.htm  as well as 
a detailed analysis of revisions 
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/ 2012/11%20November/1112MNCs.pdf  
 
This past summer, as part of the comprehensive restructuring of the international 
economic accounts, the direct investment stat istics were revised to be presented on a 
gross basis according to whether the financial fl ow or position is derived from an asset 
or a liability rather than on a directional basi s. On the gross (asset/liability) basis, direct 
investment assets cover U.S. assets for bo th outward (U.S. parents) and inward (U.S. 
affiliates) direct investment. Direct investment  liabilities cover U.S. liabilities for both 
inward (U.S. affiliates) and outward (U.S. pa rents) direct investment. In the previous 
presentation, direct investment was shown on  a directional basis. On the directional 
basis, direct investment assets (liabilities)  covered only outward (inward) investment; 
U.S. parents' assets were netted against U.S.  parents' liabilities, and U.S. affiliates' 
liabilities were netted U.S. affiliates' asse ts. Detailed information about these changes 
are available on BEA's website 
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf /2014/07%20July/0714_annual_in ternational_transactio
ns_accounts.pdf  
 
Question 213: Under the U.S. International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act, foreign companies are 
required to submit a form entitled "Benchmark  Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the 
United States" (Form BE-12) every five years. Acco rding to the analysis of BEA, it takes 96 hours WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 189 - 
 
  to complete this form on average. 
Has the United States assessed the effect of this regime? The highly complicated information filing process constitutes a heavy burden for foreign-invested enterprises, particularly small- and medium-sized ones. Does the United States have any plan for 
streamlining the filing procedure? 
 RESPONSE: Surveys conducted pursuant to th e International Investment and Trade in 
Services Survey Act are critic al to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's (BEA) ability to 
produce statistics on foreign direct investment  in the United States. These statistics help 
policymakers and the general public understand the impact of foreign investment on the 
U.S. economy, and are used widely within an d beyond the United States for a variety of 
purposes (including by the World Trade Organi zation, for example in Section 1.6 of the 
Secretariat's Report). BEA has developed a number of resources to assist survey 
respondents completing the Benchmark survey report. These resources include a series 
of online video tutorials that walk respondent s through each step in the survey process; 
published answers to frequently asked qu estions about the surveys; guides to 
completing the surveys; links to e-filing plat forms and instruction materials; and direct 
contact information (via both telephone and email) for BEA survey experts available for 
additional assistance. In addition, to reduce  the burden on smaller companies, BEA has 
developed more streamlined forms which request less data: Form BE-12C, which is available for filing companies with assets, sale s, or income (or loss ) of US$60 million or 
less; and Form BE12-B, for companies wi th assets, sales, or income between 
US$60 million and US$300 million.  
Question 214: 
Many Chinese enterprises with investment in the Unit ed States reported difficulties in getting visas 
for their managers, engineers and technicians seco nded to the United States, which has affected 
the normal business operation of some enterprises. Does the United States have any plan for 
providing necessary facilitation and guarantee in th e visa application of Chinese-funded companies 
in the U.S.?  
RESPONSE: The United States is committed to facilitating legitimate travel for qualified 
foreign officials, business persons, touris ts, and students, including from China. 
Appointment wait times for appl icants at U.S. consular posts in China remain under five 
days for all applicants, and these posts curre ntly operate several facilitation programs 
specifically for business travelers, as well as  offering expedited services for those with 
urgent travel needs. The overwhelming majo rity of state-owned enterprise management 
personnel may renew their visas without inte rview if they apply to renew their visas 
within 12 months of the expiration of thei r previous visa, and they possess a valid 
petition. The United States is continually look ing for ways to simplify the visa application 
process for senior management personnel from enterprises with offices in the 
United States, within the bounds of applicable laws and regulations. 
  
TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Customs procedures and requirements  
Question 215: 
What preferential policies are granted to bonded  warehouses in the United States? Are they 
permitted to store imported goods and exported goods simultaneously? What conditions must be satisfied and what formalities need to be comple ted for a bonded warehouse to be established? 
Does the U.S. customs authority charge any fees ? How does the U.S. customs authority supervise 
and regulate bonded warehouses? Has any specific information management system been put into place? What steps will the customs take if goods in a bonded warehouse are lost or damaged or in 
the event of any wear and tear during storage? 
 RESPONSE: Authority for establishing bonded warehouses is set forth in 19 U. S. Code, 
section 1555 and the regulations can be found at 19 CFR Part 19. There is no fee for 
establishing or operating a warehouse. An ap plication is submitted to the port director 
who has final approval of the establishment of the facility. In the application, the operator needs to provide the following befo re the port director will provide approval: 
the exact physical location of the facility; the class of warehouse desired; an estimate of WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 190 - 
 
  the maximum value of the merchandise being st ored in the facility; a blueprint showing 
measurements, openings, etc., of the building or space to be bonded; evidence of fire insurance, and a list of names and addresses of  all officers and managing officials of the 
warehouse and all persons who have a direct  or indirect financial interest in the 
operation of the warehouse facility.  
 While duties and taxes are paid upon the form al entry of cargo into the United States 
commerce, placing cargo into a bonded ware house allows the importer to defer the 
payment of these duties and taxes for a period  of up to 5 years. After 5 years in the 
warehouse from the date of importation, the cargo must (1) enter the commerce of the 
United States; (2) be exported from the Unit ed States; (3) be destroyed; or (4) sold at 
public auction.  
 While bonded warehouses are permitted to store imported and exported good 
simultaneously, they must be kept separate  using security measures approved by the 
local Port Director. Liability for the safekeeping of the cargo while in the facility falls under the warehouse operator.  
While the warehouse operator has the respon sibility for day-to-day oversight of the 
safekeeping of the merchandise, CBP has the au thority to enter any facility to determine 
the status of any cargo being maintained in the facility. Accordingly, each bonded facility is required to maintain a custodial bond under  which the cargo maintained in the facility 
are covered in case the items are mi ssing or cannot be accounted for. 
  
Technical regulations and standards 
 Question 216: 
Regulatory discrepancy between the federal, stat e and local laws in the U.S. has hindered the 
effective market access for trade and investment. For instance, the chemical testing standards for toys in Washington State are stricter than the federal standards. Companies which fail the testing 
of Washington State can not sell their products ther e even if they have passed the federal testing. 
What plans do the United States have in unifying its testing standards across the country? 
 RESPONSE: We are not aware of problems caus ed in terms of differing state and federal 
level requirements with respect to chemical  testing, though we welcome additional 
information Members may wish to share in this  regard. We have a constitutional system 
that ensures that any conflicting state level laws can be pre-empted by federal law.  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements  Question 217: 
According to some Chinese enterprises, the United States has transferred the power to regulate 
leiocassis longirostris imports from FDA to USDA, while other aquatic products remain regulated by 
FDA. Please clarify the reasons for having special regulatory measures for the import of leiocassis 
longirostris. Will this cause unnecessary burden or restrictions on exports of leiocassis longirostris 
by other WTO members?  
RESPONSE: The species Leiocassis longirostris is  of the family Bagridae, within the order 
Siluriformes. In the 2014 Farm Bill of the United States, the regulatory food safety 
oversight of all Siluriformes fish was mandat ed by Congress to be moved from the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) to the U.S. De partment of Agriculture's Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS). The 2014 Farm B ill amended the provisions of the 2008 Farm 
Bill in which Congress first mandated the tran sfer of the inspection of catfish from the 
FDA to FSIS. FSIS published a proposed rule on  catfish inspection on February 24, 2011. 
The rule was notified to the WT O SPS Committee on March 1, 2011.  
 The United States intends to notify the fi nal rule to the WTO SPS Committee. FSIS will 
work closely with foreign countries intere sted in exporting Siluriformes to the 
United States.   Question 218: 
In 2004, in the absence of any necessary basis for risk assessment, U.S. banned the import of WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 191 - 
 
  Chinese cooked poultry has been prohibited from being imported to the United States. It was not 
until November 5, 2014 that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of USDA announced the eligibility of four Chinese poultry processors to  export processed poultry products to the United 
States, on the condition of using raw materials fr om c ountri e s  re c og ni zed  b y the  U.S. to make 
their poultry products. Could the United States clarify the basis for imposing such restrictions on 
Chinese cooked poultry products?  
RESPONSE: Section 381.195 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets out the 
procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export poultry and 
poultry products to the United States. China's application with respect to poultry slaughtered in China is currently under review. FSIS is awaiting clearance by AQSIQ for 
visas for its inspectors to conduct the necessary audits to continue the U.S. review 
process.   
Question 219: 
As far as we know, USDA recognizes the veterina ry certificate issued by the government of an 
exporting country for its animals, plants and their products, while the sanitary and phytosanitary 
certificates so issued by the government of an exporting country are recognized by FDA. Please 
explain why two government agencies in the same country of U.S. adopt such distinct approaches.  
 RESPONSE: FDA is a food safety regulator, while AHPIS has the mission of protecting 
animal and plant life and health. They each ha ve different requirements that reflect their 
different missions.  
Intellectual property rights 
 Question 220: 
In the case of preliminary injunction, if litigation is delayed longer than expected, can the 
defendant request the court to increase the amount  of the security provided by the plaintiff? 
 
RESPONSE: Often, a plaintiff will be required to put up a bond as security in the event 
the court finds there was no infringement or the PI was in error. A defendant who feels 
that the bond is insufficient can ask the district court to increase it (or can even petition 
the court of appeals to increase it. 
 
Question 221: If an application for patent is filed in the United States alone, USPTO may allow such application to 
be disclosed after authorization. In some case , relevant technology might have been applied 
widely before the patent information is published. As a result, the public is unable to know such application in time, therefore fails to avoid usin g the same technology in their own design, An 
adverse impact is imposed on the entire indust ry. How will the United States strike a balance 
between information publication and patent protection? Will the United States consider making 
changes to this regime?  
RESPONSE: The United States patent system  strikes an appropriate balance between 
providing public notice and providing e ffective intellectual pr operty protection. 
 
Question 222: 
To the knowledge of the Chinese government, the Un ited States protects geographical indications 
(GI) in the form of collective trademarks and ce rtification trademarks, and provides "common law 
protection" to GIs which have not been registered as collective or certification trademarks. Please 
detail the definition of "common law protection ". What is the difference between "common law 
protection" and legal protection provided by collective or certification trademarks? 
 
RESPONSE: Under U.S. law, a GI rights holder can prevent others from registering 
and/or using its GI, even without registration  in the USPTO, if it can be shown that 
purchasers in the United St ates primarily understand that  it refers to the product 
originating only in the region named in the GI.  
 There are additional benefits gained from  registration, however. For example, the 
registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the mark, and the owner's 
ownership of the mark for those products; th e registration confers a right of priority, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 192 - 
 
  nationwide in effect, against any other subs equent party; the registration facilitates 
filing suit in U.S. courts; and, for U.S. owne rs, the registration can be used as the basis 
for registration in a foreign country.  
Question 223: 
What requirements need to be met during USPTO' s review of the certification trademark of a GI? 
Is it a pre-condition for a geographic origin being recognized that it be widely known to 
consumers? 
 RESPONSE: The applicant for a regional certificat ion mark must be able to show why it is 
entitled to control use of the geographical term. Along with providing information about 
what the mark certifies, the applicant must  also provide a copy of its standards for a 
product's qualification for certification. The standards would include such things as the demarcations of the territory where the produc t is grown; the desirable characteristics; 
the climate and topography that produc e those characteristics; and testing 
qualifications.  
 
TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Health and medical services  Question 224: 
Does the United States have any plan or intention to further open its market to the traditional 
Chinese medical service and medicine, and to establish specific procedures for their examination and approval, and certification?  
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. market is open to traditional Chinese medical services and 
medicine, provided they are offered in a ma nner consistent with generally applicable 
federal, state, and local laws designed to protect health of patients, and to prevent 
misleading claims.   Financial Service 
 
Question 225: Are the stock exchanges and commodities exchanges in the U.S. open to foreign investment? 
Please describe the legal framework and competent authorities for the regulation of the sector. 
 RESPONSE: The commitments of the United St ates with respect to financial services 
sectors and subsectors are undertaken in accordance with the Understanding on 
Commitments in Financial Services subject to the limitations and conditions set forth in 
the United States' headnotes and schedule. There are no limitations and conditions so inscribed with respect to mode 3 of subsec tor (xiv) of the definitions of financial 
services from the GATS Annex on financia l services i.e., "settlement and clearing 
services for financial assets…" Information about regulation of "national securities 
exchange" or other exchanges regist ered with the SEC under Section 6 
(http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf#page=67l ) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 can be found at:  http://www.sec.gov/divisions/ marketreg/mrexchanges.shtml . 
Certain exchanges are self-r egulatory organizations. Information regarding SRO 
rulemaking can be found at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml . 
 
Advertising Service Question 226: 
Have any changes occurred to the legal system app licable to the advertising service in the United 
States during the review period? Are foreign investors accorded national treatment in establishing advertising companies in the United States? 
 
RESPONSE: As it did as well before the review  period, the United States accords foreign 
investors national treatment in establishing advertising companies in the United States.  
 
Legal Service  
Question 227
： 
Please explain why 35 states in the United States do not allow representative offices of foreign law WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 193 - 
 
  firms to be opened. Does the United States plan to relax this restriction to further open its legal 
service sector?  RESPONSE: The basis of the question is in correct. No state disallows the opening of 
offices of foreign law firms.  
 Energy 
Question 228: 
In the NAFTA Annex I (USA), a term "Naval Pe troleum Reserves" (10U.S.C.§7435) is mentioned 
under the Mining Sector. Please provide its definition.  
RESPONSE: The definition of "Naval Petroleum Reserve" is contained in 
10 U.S.C.§7420: http://www.law.cornell.ed u/uscode/text/10/7420. A description of 
the current status of the Naval Petroleum Reserves can be found 
here: http://energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-reserves/naval-petroleum-reserves .  
 
Question 229: 
China is very concerned about subsidies offered by the United States to its PV enterprises. Please 
describe the programs under which its PV enterprises receive subsidies. How much has the United States spent in subsidizing the industry in the past four years?  
RESPONSE: Please see the latest U.S. subsidy notification to the WTO 
(G/SCM/N/253/USA).  
Question 230: 
China learns that the U.S. Department of Ener gy has recently announced a US$4 billion loan 
guarantee program for the solar energy industry, an d The U.S. Department of Energy has provided 
many such guarantee for the solar and other re newable energy industries before. Why did the 
United States provide huge subsidies to its domestic enterprises, while initiating anti-dumping and countervailing investigations into Chinese PV enterprises in the name of "maintaining fair competition"? 
 
RESPONSE: Under the Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures, Members 
are permitted to provide subsidies if they  are not "prohibited" and do not cause 
"adverse effects," as defined by the Agr eement. Antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations are initiated in response to  petitions filed by the U.S. industry. The 
decision to impose an antidumping/counter vailing duty measure is based purely on a 
factual determination of whether dumping/ subsidization exists and whether that 
dumping/subsidization has caused material injury to a domestic industry. Where dumping/subsidization, injury, and a causal  link between the two have been found, the 
United States will impose an antidu mping/countervailing duty measure.  
 
Environmental products and services Question 231: 
Could the United States please provide the output value of its environmental products and services 
of each year between 2008 and 2013?  
RESPONSE: The United States does not collect  domestic output data on environmental 
goods and services. However, there are priv ate organizations that collect and publish 
such data, such as Environmental Business International ( www.ebiresearch.com ).  
 
Question 232: 
What actions has the United States taken to promote environmental goods negotiations under the multi-lateral framework, and at regional and bilateral level? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has taken a leadership role in promoting trade 
liberalization in environmental goods at the mu ltilateral, regional, and bilateral level. At 
the multilateral level, the United Stat es has been a proponent for increased 
liberalization of environmental goods and serv ices trade in the WTO for over a decade, 
and is a founding member of the coalition of 14 WTO Members that launched the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) negotiatio ns earlier this year, an initiative aimed 
at achieving global free trade in environm ental goods. At the regional level, the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 194 - 
 
  United States leveraged its leadership in th e Asia Pacific Economic  Cooperation (APEC) 
in 2011, to shepherd an agreement among AP EC Leaders to reduce applied tariffs on 
environmental goods to 5% or less by the end of 2015. Finally, at the bilateral and 
regional level, the United States has pressed for and achieved ambitious trade 
liberalization commitments for environmenta l goods and services in its free trade 
agreements, and continues to prioritize market access for environmental goods and services in its ongoing FTA negotiations, such as TPP and T-TIP. 
 
Question 233: Please describe the regulatory regime and main legal and policy framework for the environmental 
products and services in the United States? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States maintains an environmental policy and regulatory 
framework that supports a competitive and innovative environmental goods and 
services sector. Regulations issued under laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water 
Act have helped to drive demand and inno vation in air pollution control and water 
treatment technologies. Proposed actions to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power 
plants are expected to further increase  demand for clean and renewable energy 
technologies, as well as pollution control and abatement technologies. Further information on relevant U.S. enviro nmental regulations and the broader 
U.S. environmental policy framework can be found at www.epa.gov .  
 
Question 234: Please enumerate the bilateral or regional environmental cooperation agreements signed by the 
United Stated. How many of these agreements are under FTAs? Which agreements are still under 
negotiations?  
RESPONSE: The United States has trade-rela ted environmental cooperation mechanisms 
and programs related to U.S. FTAs with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea. The United States also carries out an active environmental cooper ation program with Central America and the 
Dominican Republic under the United States  – Dominican Republic – Central America 
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), and with Canada and Mexico under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The United States is also 
pursuing environmental cooperation mechanisms or programs in connection with the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership agreement, which currently are under negotiation. 
 
Electronic products  Question 235: 
Manufacturers or retailers are required to pay recyc ling fees for the electronic products they sell by 
many states in the U.S. The legislative discrepan cy among various states and legal complexity in 
certain states has become a burden for some Chinese enterprises newly accessing the American 
market. Does the United States plan to promulgate a streamlined and uniform federal legislation in 
this respect?  
RESPONSE: In the United States, there is  no federal (national) law mandating 
electronics collection and recycling. Twenty-f ive states have enacted electronics waste 
recycling laws. At this time, there are no plan s for the United States to enact a national 
law that covers nationwide elec tronics collection and recycling. 
 
Question 236: Currently, the states collect recycling fees for elec tronic products mainly based on the volume or 
value of sales regardless of the actual environmen tal impact caused by these products, which is 
unfair for the manufacturers who select environment-friendly materials and processes at the stage of production. Does the United States plan to  make necessary adjustment to such policy? 
 
RESPONSE: In the United States, there is  no federal (national) law mandating 
electronics collection and recycling. Twenty-f ive states have enacted electronics waste 
recycling laws. At this time, there are no plan s for the United States to enact a national 
law that covers nationwide elec tronics collection and recycling. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 195 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM CHINA 
  Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
Page 15, Para 1.9 The report states that "Other factors, such as increasing labour costs in some developing 
countries, the depreciating U.S. dollar, and the hi ghly competitive workforce in the United States, 
have also played a crucial role in th e recent recovery in manufacturing." 
 Question 1: 
How does the U.S. assess the role of the depreciation of the U.S. dollar in its manufacturing 
recovery and export expansion? Is there an y assessment on how the depreciation of the 
U.S. dollar affected the global economy and trade? 
 
RESPONSE: Conditions in the U.S. manufactu ring sector have improved considerably 
since the bottom of the "Great Recession," with  production rising back to approximately 
pre-recession levels. While the value of the U.S. dollar is one factor in the 
competitiveness of U.S. goods and services, other factors likely played more influential 
roles in the improved condition of the manufacturing sector.  
Page 15, Para 1.10 
The report states that "In 2013, the U.S. current account deficit shrank to a four-year low, as a consequence of a boom in shale oil/gas production and reduced demand, leading to a sharp 
reduction in the oil trade deficit, which accounts for nearly half of the total deficit in trade in goods 
and services."  
Question 2: 
How is the ratio of the current account deficit to GDP expected to change with the gradual recovery of the U.S. economy? What are the main factors behind such a change?  
RESPONSE: According to unofficial estimates from the U.S. Treasury, Office of 
International Affairs, the current account defi cit as a percentage of GDP is expected to 
be 2.3% in 2014 and reach 2.9% by 2018. The main factors behind this potential 
increase between 2014 and 2018 include pr ojections of stronger U.S. demand and 
appreciation of the U.S. dollar, partially offs et by a projected reduction in oil imports. 
 
Page 38, Para 2.43 
The report states that "The United States is a signatory to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a plurilateral agreement negotiated among 11 trading partners. The ACTA aims to combat infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular piracy and counterfeiting. 
It provides for enhanced international cooperat ion, promotion of enforcement practices, and a 
legal framework for IPR enforcement. Although the agreement was finalized in 2011, it has not yet entered into force. The agreement reportedly does not require any statutory changes to U.S. law." 
 
Question 3: Please introduce whether the U.S. trade procedures  will be affected after the Anti-Counterfeiting 
Trade Agreement (ACTA) takes effect? In particular, will the period of customs clearance be 
prolonged? Will there be any additional requirements on declaration documents?  RESPONSE: ACTA, which has not yet entered into force, is fully consistent with U.S. law, 
and will neither alter customs clearance period s nor provide for additional requirements 
for declaration documents.  
Page 52, Para 3.39 
The report states that "In 2010 the United States passed legislation providing temporary duty suspensions on several hundred products that would lower the manufacturing costs for many 
U.S. companies. While there were initiatives to ex tend these provisions in Congress, they expired 
on 31 December 2012, and no new legislation has been passed to date."   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 196 - 
 
  Question 4: 
Please introduce the latest progress of the legisl ation providing temporary duty suspensions. Does 
the U.S. plan to expand the scope of tax credits granted to certain products?   
RESPONSE: The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancem ent Act was passed by Congress in 2010. 
The United States is not in a position to  speculate on whether Congress might take 
action in the future to provide new or extended temporary duty relief through new 
legislation. 
 Page 44, Para 3.9 The report states that "In late 2011, CBP an nounced the Simplified Entry Pilot project for 
expedited treatment of imports arriving by air tr ansport. The purpose of Simplified Entry is to 
reduce transactions costs, expedite cargo release, and enhance security."  
Question 5: 
Please introduce the development of the U.S. air cargo transportation sector during the review 
period.  
 
RESPONSE: The Simplified Entry pilot (now known as ACE Cargo Release) has been expanded and now supports Cargo Release proc essing in the air, truck, ocean and rail 
modes at select ports. As of December 2014, over 850,000 ACE Cargo Release Entries 
(formerly known as Simplified Entries) have  been filed for over 1000 importers of 
record. CBP is continuing to build upon th e ACE Cargo Release pilot to reach the ACE 
mandatory filing date of November 1, 2015 for all electronic cargo release and entry 
summary filings. For additional information on  Simplified Entry/Cargo Release, including 
the Frequently Asked Questions, please  continue to check the CBP website at  
http://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated .  
 
Question 6: Does the U.S. grant other policy support to the air cargo transportation sector in addition to the 
Simplified Entry Pilot? If any, please describ e the supporting measures, sources of funds, 
application requirements and relevant legal basis.  
 RESPONSE: No, the U.S. does not grant other support to the air cargo transportation 
sector.  
 Page 54, Para 3.50 
The report states that "U.S. excise taxes are assessed at the federal level on a variety of goods 
and services. Some excise taxes are allocated to trust funds for specific purposes, while others are generally available for expenditure (general fund) (Table 3.5)."  
Question 7: 
Please introduce the rate, target and levying method of the excise tax on air transportation indicated in Table 3.5. If the federal excise tax is  levied on travelers, will it be listed separately 
from the air ticket price? 
 RESPONSE: For further information, refer to the following online sites: http://www.irs. 
gov/pub/irs-prior/p510--2012.pdf;  
http://www.faa.gov/about/off ice_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/14.1.17E
xciseTaxStructureCalendar2014.pdf . 
 
Question 8:  
Please describe the usages of the Airport and Airway  Trust Fund generated by the excise tax on air 
transportation. Is there any corresponding law and regulation? In addition to the federal 
government, do state governments also levy this excise tax? If the state governments also levy 
this excise tax, is there any difference between th e federal excise tax and the state excise tax in 
terms of charging stage, methods and rates? 
 
RESPONSE: For further information on the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, please refer to the following site: www.faa.gov/about/off ice_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 197 - 
 
  For further information on excise taxes pertaining to air transportation, refer to the 
following online sites: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p510--2012.pdf ; 
http://www.faa.gov/about/off ice_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/14.1.17E
xciseTaxStructureCalendar2014.pdf . 
 
 Question 9: 
Please describe the difference between the general "hydrocarbon oil excise tax" and the excise tax 
on aviation fuels in terms of rates,  levying methods and tax exemptions.  
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service levies federal excise taxes on a variety of 
fuels, including oil, petroleum products and aviation fuels. Excise taxes fund specific 
trusts such as the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and the Oil Spill Trust Fund. Information about rates, ta xable events, requirements and exemptions 
is published in IRS Publication 510, available at http://www.irs.gov/publications/p510 . 
 
Page 66, Para 3.69 
The report states that "The trend for countervailing duty investigations during 2010-14 was similar 
to that of anti-dumping investigations. They remained relatively low with the exception of 2013 when 19 investigations were initiated. Asian countries, in particular China, were the most affected with countervailing duty investigations (Chart 3.6)." 
 
Question 10: After the DS379 case, the U.S. Department of Commerce amended its standards on "public 
bodies" in countervailing investigations. However, according to the amended standards, whether 
the state has controlling stakes in an enterprise is still regarded as the essential criterion for recognizing a "public body." Based on such st andards, the U.S. Department of Commerce has 
improperly recognized Chinese state holding in dustrial and commercial enterprises and state 
owned commercial banks as the "public bodies" th at may provide subsidies, making countervailing 
investigations against Chinese downstream enterprises much more likely to be initiated. Please explain this practice which has obviously violated  the WTO rules and the rulings of the WTO DSB. 
 
RESPONSE: As China acknowledges in its qu estion, the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(Commerce) amended its "public bodies" analys is, consistent with the findings of the 
Appellate Body in DS379. The factual ba sis and rationale for all of Commerce's 
preliminary and final counterva iling duty determinations , including those involving 
Commerce's revised public bodies analysis, are detailed in various decision memoranda 
for each countervailing duty proceedin g, which are publicly available 
at: http://enforcement.tra de.gov/frn/index.html . 
 
Page 66, Para 3.76 
The report states that "The Institute has identifi ed 10,590 citations of standards incorporated by 
reference in regulatory documents (as of June 2014)."  
Question 11: 
Please describe the types of these standards as well as channels for their enquiry . 
 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not maintain statistics on the type of standards 
incorporated by reference in U.S. regulations. The Standards Incorporated by Reference database does have a list of the standa rds along with the Standards Developing 
Organizations (SDO) whose standards have been  incorporated. It also provides selective 
statistics for the number of standards inco rporated by the top SDOs. Please see: 
https://standards.gov/sibr/query /index.cfm?fuseaction=home.main ; 
https://standards.gov/sibr/q uery/index.cfm?fuseaction=rs ibr.complete_regulatory_sib
r. 
 
The U.S. WTO TBT Inquiry Point notifies to the WTO technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures, including those incorp orated by reference or any other method. 
 Page 75, Para 3.108 The report states that "In 2009, President Obama launched the ECR Initiative to review and reform 
the U.S. export control system (e.g. licences, pr ohibitions, monitoring, controls). This review WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 198 - 
 
  determined the current system was overly complic ated, and fragmented and needed updating to 
address the changing economic and technological landscape. The review also determined that fundamental reform of the U.S. export system was required and recommended the creation of a 
new export control system based on comprehensive reform in four key areas…" 
 
Question 12: Has the U.S. made any assessment on the implementation and effects of its current export control 
policies and their impacts on the economy, indust ry, employment and international trade of the 
U.S.?   RESPONSE: It would be premature to asse ss such questions because most of the 
categories only recently beca me effective. Indeed, the rules pertaining to the second 
largest category - military electronics - only  became effective on December 30, 2014. 
Moreover, the categories each have a two-ye ar grandfathering provision that allows 
exporters to continue to use their previously issued authorizations for up to 
two years. Thus, the full economic impact of  the changes will not be known for several 
years. 
 
Question 13: Please describe the reform of the U.S. export cont rol system, especially the latest development of 
"a single export control agency" and the "unified control list". 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has publishe d revisions to 15 of the 21 munitions list 
categories. Most of the remaining categori es will be published in 2015. Additional 
proposals to harmonize the regulations will also be published in 2015. The creation of a 
single agency and a single lis t will require legislation.  
 
Question 14: 
Information available to China indicates that the Bureau of Industry and Security of the 
U.S. Department of Commerce has set up an Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security to take charge of the export control of relevant commodities. Is there any specific definition of the 
"strategic industries" and "economic security"? Please elaborate on the specific control policies and 
their legal basis.   
RESPONSE: The new division created within the Office of Strategic Industries and 
Economic Security is responsible for regulati ng the export of military items that were 
formerly subject to the jurisdiction of the State Department. Thus, its scope of 
responsibility is exclusively limited to item s that are munitions items on the Wassenaar 
Arrangement's Munitions List.  Page 81, Para 3.141 
The report states that "While the United States has been progressively phasing out its fiscal 
stimulus measures, some programmes have been maintained. These were set up in the aftermath of the global crisis of 2008-12, when the government took unprecedented action to restore 
demand, stabilize financial markets, and put people back to work." 
 Question 15: 
Please describe the subsidizing methods and am ounts for foreign trade enterprises by the 
Department of Commerce of the U.S. Federal Gove rnment, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, 
the Small Business Administration and other relevant authorities, with a view to promoting economy and employment since the financial crisis in 2008. Please specify the stimulus measures 
still in force. 
 RESPONSE: As noted previously, most of th e stimulus measures provided relief to 
individuals or to subnational governments. When analyzed for the 2009 through 2013 
period, recovery spending can be broken down  into seven broad categories. (See Council 
of Economic Advisers, The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Investment 
Act Five Years Later, February 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 
sites/default/files/do cs/cea_arra_report.pdf ). Most of the fiscal support was for 
individuals (45%) and subnational govern ments and public outlays (51%), with 
business tax incentives accounting for the rest . The focus of the stimulus generally was 
on helping families through a difficult economic period by encouraging job WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 199 - 
 
  creation. Approximately half of public inve stment focused on infr astructure, such as 
roads and bridges, while the rest supported te chnology, such as scientific research and 
clean energy. The stimulus spending was intended to prevent the U.S. economy, and the world economy, from falling into further de cline. Such stimulus spending was common 
among all governments that had the financial resources. For further details on specific 
programs, please see the United States' subsidy notification (G/SCM/N/253/USA). 
 
Page 91, Para 3.195 
The report states that "One music industry report estimated digital revenues at 60% of the domestic music market, following 3.4% growth in 2013."  
Question 16: 
The U.S. digital copyright industry has become increasingly important in its domestic market. 
Please describe the U.S. authorization and license  mechanism to ensure efficient, transparent and 
convenient granting of digital copyrights. What  preventive measures has the U.S. adopted to 
prevent infringements of digital copyrights?  
RESPONSE: We would like to clarify that "aut horization and licens[ing]" is distinct from 
the "granting of digital copyrights." Indeed, "digital copyrights" are not "granted" under 
United States law; they are secured auto matically upon fixation, as are any other 
copyrights. With respect to description of the authorization and licensing mechanisms 
under U.S. law for works fixed in digital fo rm, U.S. law supports a variety of licensing 
systems. These mechanisms present numer ous options, i.e. several possibilities 
depending on the kind of work and the right at issue.  
 
With respect to the second question rega rding measures to prevent infringement, 
U.S. law affords civil and criminal measures  against copyright infringement. The Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998,  addresses online issues in the civil 
context. For example, Sectio n 512 affords a limitation on civil remedies for copyright 
infringement in certain online situations fo r online service providers who accept certain 
obligations (including the obligation to "take down" material upon receiving notification 
or otherwise obtaining knowledge that the materi al is infringing). Chapter 12 of Title 17 
of the U.S. Code provides both civil and criminal measures to protect against the circumvention and trafficking in technologica l protection measures and protects rights 
management information. Furthermore, Title 18 of the U.S. Code includes provisions 
regarding criminal copyrigh t infringement, and the U.S. Department of Justice's 
Prosecuting Intellectual Property  Crimes Manual outlines the various causes of actions 
available in particular fact situations (see: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ 
cybercrime/docs/prosecuting_ip_crimes_manual_2013.pdf ). 
 
Investigative actions taken by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination 
Center have resulted in the removal of thou sands of domain names allegedly involved in 
the unauthorized distribution of piratical and counterfeit 
materials (see: http://www.iprcenter.gov/ip-theft ). In addition, the Administration 
supports voluntary initiatives by the private sector to address online infringement in 
both the copyright and the trademark spheres.  
Page 120, Para 4.75 (c) 
The report states that "the Office of Credit Rating (OCR), within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), was established to administer the SEC's rules regarding credit rating agencies, registered as nationally-recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs) and to conduct annual 
examinations of NRSROs. Concerns over credit rating agencies also led the U.S. Congress to 
mandate that the SEC adopt additional rules inte nded to increase transparency and improve the 
integrity credit ratings within a year as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC proposed new draft 
rules by May 2011 but so far no final rules have  been adopted. Congress also mandated that 
U.S. Government agencies remove certain refere nces to credit ratings from their rules and 
regulations". 
 
Question 17: Why were the new draft rules proposed by the SEC not adopted by the U.S. Congress? Please 
describe the main contents of the draft of the ne w credit rating rules proposed by the SEC, the 
reasons for its failed adoption and the expected time of its promulgation.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 200 - 
 
  RESPONSE: SEC adopted a final rule governing Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating 
Organizations (NRSRO) on August 27, 2014. Th is rule was effective November 14, 2014, 
except for certain amendments which are effe ctive June 15, 2015. The final rule can be 
found at: http://www.sec.gov/rule s/final/2014/34-72936.pdf .  
 
Question 18: Please list the "certain references to credit ratings" removed by the U.S. Government as 
authorized by the U.S. Congress. Please describe the main reasons for removing these references.  
 RESPONSE: Title IX, Subtitle C of the Dodd -Frank Act mandates that the Commission 
prescribe rules to improve regulation of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating 
Organizations (NRSROs). Section 931 of the Dodd-Frank Act, "Findings," introduces Title 
IX, Subtitle C of the Dodd-Frank Act and prov ides context to what motivated Congress to 
enact these provisions with respect to NRSROs. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC 
adopted a final rule governing NRSRO on August 27, 2014. This rule was effective 
November 14, 2014, except for certain amendments which are effective June 15, 2015. The final rule can be found at: http://www.sec.gov/rule s/final/2014/34-72936.pdf .  
 
Question 19: According to the annual report issued by the OCR regarding NRSROs, NRSROs include the statistical and rating agencies outside the U.S. These agencies are also obliged for providing the 
SEC with the credit rating information of the country where they are located. Can Chinese rating 
agencies apply to become NRSROs? Please describe the qualification for such applications. Will the SEC consult CSRC on this? How to settle the conf lict between the requirement of SEC, i.e. the 
obligation for an overseas NRSRO to provide cred it rating information, and the laws where the 
NRSRO is located?  
 
RESPONSE: Please review the SEC's website on NRSROs at:  
http://www.sec.gov/ocr/rati ngagency.html#nrsroorders . 
 
Page 121, Para 4.75 (h) 
The report states that "Title VII of the Act addressed the gap in U.S. financial regulation of 
derivatives, by providing a comprehensive framewor k for the regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) 
swap markets. Standardized OTC derivative instruments will generally have to be cleared through 
central counterparties, traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, 
and reported to trade repositories. Non-centrally cleared contracts should be subject to higher 
capital and margin requirements." 
 
Question 20: What are the definitions of the "standardized OTC derivative" and "non-standardized OTC derivative"? Please describe the definition of "generally" having to be cleared through central 
counterparties. Are there any exceptions? Please describe the definition of "where appropriate".  
 RESPONSE: The Dodd-Frank Act is still being im plemented. Further details on Title VII's 
implementation are available at: 
http://www.cftc.gov/lawregula tion/doddfrankact/index.htm  and 
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/d odd-frank/derivatives.shtml . 
 
Question 21: Is there any corresponding notification arrangement if a swap involves several countries? How to settle the possible conflicts between the notification requirements and local laws (e.g. national 
security law and privacy protection law)? 
 RESPONSE: The Dodd-Frank Act is still being im plemented. Further details on Title VII's 
implementation are available at: 
http://www.cftc.gov/lawregula tion/doddfrankact/index.htm  and 
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/d odd-frank/derivatives.shtml .  
 
Question 22: Are there specific definitions of the "standardized OTC derivative" and "appropriate exchanges or electronic trading platforms" under the U.S. laws? If any, please introduce relevant stipulations; 
and if not, please describe how the U.S. author ities make relevant recognition in practice.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 201 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Dodd-Frank Act is still being im plemented. Further details on Title VII's 
implementation are available at: http://www.cftc.gov/lawregula tion/doddfrankact/index.htm  and 
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/d odd-frank/derivatives.shtml .  
 
Question 23: Please introduce in detail the "higher capital and margin requirements" raised by the 
U.S. authorities on non-centrally cleared OTC derivative contracts.  
 RESPONSE: The Dodd-Frank Act is still being im plemented. Further details on Title VII's 
implementation are available at: 
http://www.cftc.gov/lawregula tion/doddfrankact/index.htm  and 
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/d odd-frank/derivatives.shtml ; and 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2014-09-24/pdf /2014-22001.pdf .  
  
Page 121, Para 4.77 The report states that "The implementation of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act on OTC derivatives 
has been entrusted by the Act to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). To resolve regulatory differences regarding the regulation of cross-border swap activities, most  of which are conducted within or between the 
European Union and the United States, the CFTC and the European Union recently agreed that 
jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other when it is justified by the quality 
of their respective regulation and enforcement regimes."  
Question 24: 
Please describe the main difference between the U.S. and the EU in terms of regulation and enforcement. What is the possible solution?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States cannot comment on EU regulation and enforcement. The Dodd-Frank Act is still being im plemented. Further details on Title VII's implementation 
are available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/d odd-frank/derivatives.shtml . Final 
guidance from the CFTC regarding cross-border  application of Title VII is available at: 
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/gro ups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-
17958a.pdf , and the final rule from the SEC rega rding cross-border application of Title 
VII is available at: http://www.sec.gov/rule s/final/2014/34-72472.pdf . 
 
Question 25: 
What are the main contents of the cooperation memorandum between the CFTC and Japan? 
 RESPONSE: Details on the Memorandum of  Cooperation between the CFTC and the 
Financial Services Agency of Japan are available at: 
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@in ternationalaffairs/do cuments/file/cftc-
jfsamoc031014.pdf . 
 
Question 26: 
Please describe the respective roles of the SEC and the CFTC in financial regulation. The SEC seems to be less active than the CFTC in international regulatory cooperation. Why? 
 
RESPONSE: The mission of the U.S. Securities  and Exchange Commission is to protect 
investors, maintain fair, orderl y, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. 
The mission of the Commodity Futures Tradin g Commission (CFTC) is to protect market 
participants and the public from fraud, mani pulation, abusive practices and systemic risk 
related to derivatives – both futures and swaps – and to foster transparent, open, 
competitive and financially sound market s. More information is available at: 
http://www.sec.gov/index.htm  and http://www.cftc.gov/index.htm .  
 
Question 27: 
Please define "jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other". For example, 
does "deferring to" mean that, when one country is going to conduct investigations in and take evidence from the other country for a certain case, the jurisdictions and regulators of the other country will be entrusted to render assistance, or the regulator of one country will directly conduct WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 202 - 
 
  the investigations and take evidence upon appr oval of the competent authorities of the other 
country?   RESPONSE: Consistent with the G-20 guidance, the United States supports the use of 
deference when it is justified by the qu ality of the respective regulatory and 
enforcement regime, is based on similar outc omes, is non-discriminatory, and pays due 
respect to home country regulation regimes. Of note, CFTC staff has provided extensive 
regulatory relief—principally through the issu ance of no-action letters—to global market 
participants operating in foreign jurisdiction s that do not yet have comparable rules in 
place.  
Question 28: 
In case China and the U.S. will cooperate in the re gulation of cross-border OTC derivative market 
in the future, which cooperation modality will the U.S. prefer? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States cannot comment on potential future regulations at this 
time. 
 
Page 30, Para 2.19 The report states that "The United States mainta ins a strong record of notifications, however, 
three notifications on agriculture are overdue or require updating (on export subsidies, domestic 
support, and tariff quota utilization)." 
 Question 29: 
Please explain why the three agricultural notifications have not been updated. When does the 
U.S. plan to submit relevant new notifications?   
RESPONSE: The United States submits annual notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture regularly. The United States recently submitted its domestic support 
notification for agriculture, G/AG/N/USA /100, dated December 8, 2014. Please see 
G/AG/N/USA/99, dated November 5, 2014, for the latest U.S. notification on export 
subsidies. On tariff quotas, please see G/AG /N/USA/94, dated February 5, 2014 for the 
latest MA:2 notification on quota fill.   
Page 38, Para 2.49 
The report states that "The specific points in the new and expanded program include: …Creating for the first time single points of contact for investors looking to locate in the U.S." 
 
Question 30: Please list the institution(s) that home the "single points of contact" under the SelectUSA Program.   
RESPONSE: The SelectUSA office is the single point of contact. SelectUSA is housed in 
the U.S. Department of Commerce.  
Page 39, Para 2.50 
The report states that "It does not offer direct incentives but provides a link to federal government programmes offering incentives to businesses." 
 
Question 31: Please list the federal government programmes offering incentives. Please describe the methods adopted by such programmes to offer incentives.  
 
RESPONSE: A list of federal government progra ms offering incentives available to any 
investor in the US, whether that investor is foreign or US-headquartered, including a 
description of criteria and incentives offe red and links to further information can be 
found at http://selectusa.commerce. gov/investment-incentives . 
 
Page 41, Table 2.4 
 Question 32: Are China and other WTO members subject to the same restrictions in the 8 sectors with foreign 
investment restrictions listed in the table (i.e. maritime transportation, aircraft, mining, energy, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 203 - 
 
  lands, communications, banking and investment company regulations)? In the Sino-U.S. BIT 
negotiation, will the U.S. relax the restrictions on Chinese investment in the above 8 sectors? 
Which sectors are most likely to be open to Chinese investment through the BIT talks? RESPONSE: The longstanding policy of the Un ited States is to be open to foreign 
investment. Foreign investors benefit from an open, transp arent, and, with very few 
exceptions, non-discriminatory system. Most of  the small number of existing restrictions 
are narrow, do not significantly constrain in vestment in the relevant sector, and are 
applied consistent with the most-favored-n ation principle. We cannot comment on an 
ongoing negotiation.  Page 75, Para 3.113 
The report states that "However, no report has been issued since the 2012 report, which focused 
on the National Export Initiative (NEI) and on  reducing trade barriers for U.S. exports." 
 
Question 33: 
Please describe the reasons why the TPCC has issued no annual National Export Strategy report since 2012.  
 
RESPONSE : In November 2013, Commerce Secretar y Penny Pritzker announced that 
federal agencies would take a fresh look at  the National Export Initiative (NEI) and 
propose a new strategy to help broaden and deepen the base of U.S. exporters. In 
May 2014, Secretary Pritzker announced th at the Administration would build on 
progress made through the NEI with a successor initiative, NEI/NEXT. The TPCC 
Secretariat published the NEI/NEXT strategic framework (available at 
http://www.trade.gov/neinext/ne inext-strategic-framework.pdf ) in May 2014. The 
TPCC Secretariat anticipates reporting out on pa st year's efforts and upcoming priorities 
under NEI/NEXT in a National Export St rategy during the first half of 2015. 
 
Page 79, Table 3.14  Question 34: 
The number of the countries where the OPIC has ac tive business was reduced by 4 in 2012 and 1 
in 2013 respectively. Please list these 5 countries and describe the reasons why OPIC business becomes less active in these countries.  
 
RESPONSE: OPIC is largely a demand-driven institution, and supports investments that 
private investors bring to OPIC for insurance and/or financing. Therefore, at any given 
time, OPIC may not have active projects in  all of the countries where the Agency is 
authorized to operate. For example, in 2012 OPIC was authorized to operate in 162 countries. However, as noted in Table 3. 14, in 2012 OPIC had active investments in 
103 of those 162 authorized countries. In 20 13, OPIC's investment projects in Gabon, 
Saint Kitts & Nevis, and Venezuela concluded,  leaving OPIC without active portfolios in 
those countries. During the same year, OPIC committed new projects in Malaysia and Uruguay, countries where OPIC did not have active portfolio in 2012. As a result, in 
2013 OPIC had active projects in 102 countries, a net decrease of one country from 
2012.  
Page121, Para 4.75 (g) 
The report states that "Although the Volcker Rule came into effect on 1 April 2014, the Federal Reserve has extended the period for covered bank ing organizations to bring their activities and 
investment into conformity with the rule until 21 July 2015." 
 
Question 35: Please describe the main reasons for the Federal Reserve to extend the deadline for the 
compliance by banking organizations until 21 July 2015, while the Volcker Rule came into effect on 
1 April 2014.  
RESPONSE: Details on the extension are available at 
http://www.federalreserve .gov/newsevents/press/bc reg/bcreg20131210b1.pdf . See 
also http://www.federalreserve .gov/newsevents/press/bc reg/bcreg20 141218a1.pdf .  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 204 - 
 
  Page 135, Para 4.114& Table 4.10 
 Question 36: Please describe the U.S. information collection mechanism regarding the local support schemes for 
the film and television program production. Please describe the reason why the table only lists 
certain state-level support schemes. Is there any channel for the U.S. to obtain the complete information of state-level support schemes? 
 
RESPONSE: Not every state maintains a support program for local production. As indicated in the original answer, the United  States and any other interested party can 
find the most current and accurate information on such programs through the websites 
of each state's film promotion board. Certain organizations such as MPAA also 
periodically compile st ate-level information. 
 
Page 139, Para 4.124 
The report states that "Several states actually did have restrictions on medical underwriting, but most did not." 
 
Question 37: Which states impose restrictions on medical underwriting? What are the restrictions specifically?   
RESPONSE:  Medical underwriting is a process used  by insurance companies to try to 
figure out a person's health status when he  or she is applying for health insurance 
coverage to determine whethe r to offer coverage, at what price, and with what 
exclusions or limits. For example, prior to 2014, many health insurance plans could 
charge people more because they had what was known as a pre-existing condition, a 
health problem that existed before the date that the coverage started. Because of the 
Affordable Care Act, beginning on January 1,  2014, all individual and group health plans 
must guarantee issue health policies/plans to all applicants, regardless of health status, 
and can only vary premiums based on age, to bacco use, family size, geographic location 
and plan category: https://www.healthcare.gov/low er-costs/how-plans-set-your-
premiums/ . 
 
Page 141, Para 4.132 
The report states that "health industry is largely open to foreign investment……it can be 
challenging for foreign firms to enter the U.S. ma rket due to state level regulations and licensing 
requirement". 
 
Question 38: How is the U.S. going to settle the contradiction between the statement that "health industry is 
largely open to foreign investment" and the statement that "it can be challenging for foreign firms 
to enter the U.S. market". Does the U.S. plan to  unify the regulations and licensing requirements 
of various states?   
RESPONSE: As the Secretariat noted, the United States welcomes foreign investment in 
the health care sector, just as it does in a ll other sectors. The mark et for investment in 
health care is largely open. We are unaware of plans to change any regulations for this 
purpose. 
 Part II. Questions based on Policy Statem ent by the United States (WT/TPR/G/307) 
 
Page 23, Para 5.1 
"Through "aid for trade," the United States focuses on giving countries, particularly the least trade-active, the training and technical assistance needed to: make decisions about the benefits of 
trade arrangements and reforms; implement their obligations to bring certainty to their trade 
regimes; and enhance these countries' ability to take advantage of the opportunities of the multilateral trading system and to compete in a global economy." 
 
Question 39: Is there any assessment on the current progress and achievements of the "aid for trade" program?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 205 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Through "Aid for Trade," the United States has focused on giving developing 
countries the training and technical assistance needed to (1) make decisions about the benefits of trade arrangements and reforms;  (2) implement their obligations to bring 
certainty to their trade regimes; and (3 ) enhance these countries' ability to take 
advantage of the opportunities of the mult ilateral trading system and compete in a 
global economy. As of 2013, the U.S. Govern ment had obligated more than US$15 billion 
for TCB to developing countries since 2001. For further information on the outcomes of 
particular programs, please re fer to USTR's annual reports ( https://ustr.gov/about-
us/policy-offices/press-offi ce/reports-and-publications ) and USAID's website, at 
www.usaid.gov . 
 
Part III. Other Questions  
 Question 40: 
Which U.S. authority is in char ge of the WTO Trade Policy Review and related matters, What's the 
corresponding working mechanism and procedure?  
 
RESPONSE: The Office of the U.S. Trade Re presentative (USTR) is responsible for 
WTO Trade Policy Review matters. USTR consul ts with other government agencies on 
trade policy matters through the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). These groups, ad ministered and chaired by USTR, are 
composed of 19 Federal agencies and offices.  
 In recent years, China has made significant progress in banking regulation. China has joined main 
international financial organizations formulating the new international regulatory standards. 
Chinese commercial banks have adopted Comprehensive Consolidated Supervision (CCS) and been performing well since the crisis in 2008. However,  the Federal Reserve still refuses to recognize 
the conformity of Chinese banks with the Comprehensive Consolidated Supervision standards so 
that the Chinese banks having commercial existence in the U.S. have been subject to many unnecessary restrictions under the Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act of 1991, including extremely long periods of examination and approval (even aslong as 10 years in certain cases) and 
a large number of obstructions in such aspects as setting up subsidiaries, conducting M&A and 
retail banking business and participating in deposit insurance of the FDIC.   
Question 41: 
Please describe the reason why the U.S. refused to  officially recognize the conformity of Chinese 
banking regulation with the Comprehensive Consolidated Supervision standards. Does the 
U.S. plan to review this decision in the near future?  
 RESPONSE: The Federal Reserve determined that several Chinese banks were subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision (" CCS") in approving the establishment of 
U.S. branches and a U.S. bank subsidiary. See 
http://www.federalreser ve.gov/newsevents/pre ss/orders/20120509c.htm , 
http://www.federalreser ve.gov/newsevents/pre ss/orders/20120509b.htm , and 
http://www.federalreser ve.gov/newsevents/pre ss/orders/20120509a.htm . CCS 
standards under U.S. law apply with respect to  specific banks rather than with respect 
to a country's bank supervision generally. Moreover, the Federal Reserve must review 
CCS standards each time a foreign bank subm its an application to the Federal Reserve. 
 Question 42: Please describe the working mechanism, main measures and achievements of the U.S. poverty 
reduction policies in recent years.  
 RESPONSE: The United States employs numerous and extensive mechanisms and 
measures in an effort to reduce poverty both  in the United States and around the world. 
It would not be possible, or within the bounds of this trade policy review, for us to attempt to outline them all. 
 
Question 43: Has the U.S. imposed any restriction on foreign inve stments in civil airports? If any, please give a 
detailed introduction.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 206 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States Government does not restrict foreign investment in civil 
airports. Most airports are owned, operated, and financed by public 
municipalities. These municipalities can and do offer many varied opportunities for 
foreign investment ranging from service cont racts to profit sharing partnerships in 
development, finance, and operations mana gement. Further, the FAA also operates the 
Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP), desi gned to explore the potential for airport 
privatization in the United States and mini mize legal and financial barriers. The APPP 
facilitates the long-term lease or sale (gener al aviation airports only) of participating 
airports resulting in the transfer of operat ing certificates to a private sector entity, 
including foreign investors. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 207 - 
 
  COLOMBIA 
  Part II: Questions on the Government Report (WT/TPR/G/307): 
 
1 LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN EL SISTEMA MUNDIAL DE COMERCIO  
El párrafo 1.6 del informe de Gobierno señala que… "Los Estados Unidos seguirán vigilando las 
actividades en la OMC para hacer cumplir las normas comerciales, y al mismo tiempo vigilarán y harán cumplir los compromisos asumidos en los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales, plurilaterales y regionales que ha suscrito, a fin de mantener la igualdad de condiciones y defender el estado de 
derecho. Los Estados Unidos siguen comprometidos a colaborar con sus interlocutores comerciales 
para crear un sistema mundial de comercio en el que se proteja la propiedad intelectual, se promueva la innovación, los reglamentos agrícolas e industriales se basen en principios científicos, 
se apliquen normas y reglamentos transparentes sin discriminación y se respeten normas 
ambientales y laborales estrictas."  
Question 1. ¿Qué mecanismos consideran necesario implementar para crear un sistema mundial 
de comercio en el que se proteja la propiedad intelectual y se promueva la innovación? Lo anterior, teniendo en cuenta los diferentes niveles de avance de los países en relación con la observancia de la PI y la promoción de la innovación al interior de sus territorios.  
 
RESPONSE: The United State promotes adeq uate and effective IPR protection and 
enforcement worldwide. IPR infringement , including trademark counterfeiting and 
copyright piracy, causes significant financia l losses for rights holders and legitimate 
businesses globally. It undermines innovati on and creativity, to the detriment of 
businesses and workers. In its most pernicio us forms, IPR infringement endangers the 
public. Some counterfeit products, such as  semiconductors, automobile parts, and 
medicines, pose significant risks to consumer  health and safety. In addition, trade in 
counterfeit and pirated products often fuel s cross-border organized criminal networks 
and hinders the sustainable economic de velopment of many countries. Promoting 
intellectual property protection fosters innovation and creativity, which are in turn 
essential to prosperity, economic  growth, and competitiveness.  
 
The United States conducts a balanced assessment of U.S. trading partners' IPR 
protection and enforcement, as well as relate d market access issues. This assessment is 
necessarily conducted on a case-by-case basis,  taking into account diverse factors such 
as a trading partner's leve l of development, its inte rnational obligations and 
commitments, the concerns of rights holders and other interested parties, and the trade and investment policies of the United States. Each assessment is based upon the specific 
facts and circumstances that shape IPR pr otection and enforcement regimes in a 
particular trading partner. 
 4.3.3 Tratado de Libre Comercio entre los Estados Unidos y Chile 
El párrafo 4.48 del Informe de Gobierno indica que... "El TLC entre los Estados Unidos y Chile 
entró en vigor el 1º de enero de 2004. Este acuerdo elimina los aranceles y abre los mercados, reduce los obstáculos al comercio de servicios,  protege la propiedad intelectual, asegura la 
transparencia de la reglamentación, garantiza la no discriminación en el comercio de productos 
digitales, obliga a las Partes a mantener leyes de competencia que prohíban prácticas empresariales contrarias a la competencia y exige el cumplimiento efectivo de las disposiciones laborales y ambientales. En 2013, las exportaciones estadounidenses de mercancías a Chile 
alcanzaron un valor de 17.500 millones de dólares EE.UU. y las importaciones estadounidenses de 
mercancías procedentes de Chile tuvieron un valor de 10.400 millones de dólares EE.UU.  
Question 2. ¿Bajo qué mecanismos se protege la propiedad intelectual en el marco de la 
implementación del APC entre EE.UU. y Chile?   
RESPONSE: The U.S.-Chile FTA provides strong protection and enforcement of IPR, 
including, copyrights, patents, trademarks, tr ade secrets. The text of the agreement can 
be found here: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreemen ts/free-trade-agreements/chile-
fta/final-text .  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 208 - 
 
  4.3.9 Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre los Estados Unidos y Omán 
 El párrafo 4.70 del informe de Gobierno indica que... "El Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre los Estados Unidos y Omán, que entró en vigor el 1º de enero de 2009, complementa los otros ALC 
concertados para promover la reforma económica y la apertura en la región. El cumplimiento de 
las obligaciones previstas en el amplio acuerdo generará oportunidades de exportación para los proveedores de mercancías y servicios de los Estados Unidos, consolidará los esfuerzos de Omán 
por liberalizar el comercio y la inversión y fortalecerá la protección y la observancia de los 
derechos de propiedad intelectual."  Question 3. ¿Cómo el cumplimiento de las amplias obligaciones previstas en ALC entre EE.UU y 
Omán fortalecerá la protección y la observanci a de los derechos de propiedad intelectual?  
 RESPONSE: The U.S.-Oman FTA provides strong protection and enforcement of IPR, 
including, copyrights, patents, trademar ks, trade secrets. Compliance with these 
provisions will promote the protection an d enforcement of IPR. The text of the 
agreement can be found here: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements/oman-fta/final-text .  
 
8 COMERCIO DE LAS PEQUEÑAS Y MEDIANAS EMPRESAS  
El párrafo 8.3 del informe de Gobierno mencio na que... "Algunas de las características del 
programa de política comercial del USTR son particularmente adecuadas para ayudar a aumentar las exportaciones de las pymes. Entre ellas cabe citar la mejora de las actividades de facilitación 
del comercio, el fortalecimiento y observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual y la 
identificación de los obstáculos que afectan a los servicios y que perjudican especialmente a las pymes, como la obligación de establecer una oficina con personal en cada uno de los países a los 
que las empresas quieren exportar. Los obstáculos arancelarios, los onerosos procedimientos 
aduaneros, las normas discriminatorias o arbitrarias y la falta de transparencia de la reglamentación pertinente en los mercados extranjeros son algunas de las dificultades a las que se enfrentan las pymes que venden en el extranjero. Con carácter interinstitucional, el Grupo de 
Trabajo sobre la Pequeña Empresa del Comité de Coordinación para el Fomento del Comercio 
(TPCC) reúne a varios organismos gubernamentales estadounidenses para promover las exportaciones de las pequeñas empresas y poner a disposición de las pymes información comercial 
y recursos para ayudarlas a comenzar a exportar, o a incrementar sus exportaciones, y a sacar 
provecho de los acuerdos comerciales vigentes."  
Question 4. Agradeceríamos conocer con mayor especificidad, el rol que juega la propiedad 
intelectual dentro de la Iniciativa para las pequeñas empresas.  RESPONSE: SMEs play a critical role in  the economy. In the United States, 
entrepreneurship plays an e ssential role in generating innovation and stimulating 
economic growth. New firms account for m ost net job growth, and small businesses 
employ 30% of high-tech workers. Beyond thes e economic gains, it is critical to keep 
the social gains of SME innovation in mind as well. The social gains from innovation 
typically greatly exceed the private return. The United States has a variety of policies 
and programs in place to promote innovation by SMEs. A core principle incorporated in 
all of these policies is the need to mainta in a stable and predictable environment for 
SMEs to develop and benefit from innovation , including by rewarding the risks inherent 
to the creative process.  
Part I: Questions on the Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/307): 
 RESUMEN 
 
El párrafo 12 del informe de la Secretaría señala que… "Los Estados Unidos han mantenido su posición destacada en el comercio relacionado con los derechos de propiedad intelectual. Así lo 
demuestran sus ingresos en concepto de cánones y derechos de licencia, que en 2012 
representaron el 43% del total mundial. Aunque el sector de la propiedad intelectual de los Estados Unidos es uno de los más desarrollados y más firmemente establecidos del mundo, hubo varias novedades durante el período objeto de examen, dado el carácter dinámico del sector en la 
economía estadounidense. Entre ellos cabe citar 21 modificaciones legislativas, reformas WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 209 - 
 
  reglamentarias en materia de patentes y la formulación de una Estrategia para reducir el robo de 
secretos comerciales de los Estados Unidos y del Plan estratégico conjunto de observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de 2013."  
Question 5. Nos gustaría conocer de forma más específica ¿cómo las 21 modificaciones 
legislativas, las reformas reglamentarias en materi a de patentes, la formulación de una Estrategia 
para reducir el robo de secretos comerciales de los Estados Unidos y el Plan estratégico conjunto 
de observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de 2013 han influido en el desarrollo del 
sector de la propiedad intelectual en los EE.UU.?  RESPONSE: These legislative and regulatory changes as well as these strategies and 
plans form an important part of the landscap e of IPR protection and enforcement in the 
United States. They all reflect the importance  of IPR protection and enforcement to the 
U.S. economy, including with respect to its trade policy. These initiatives promote 
innovation and creativity, and in turn support U.S. business and workers in IPR-
intensive industries.   
2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
2.1.1 Mandato de promover el comercio  Los párrafo 2.4. a 2.6 del Informe de la Secretaría mencionan que… "2.4. Un mecanismo 
fundamental de procedimiento, que atestigua el si ngular equilibrio establecido entre los poderes 
ejecutivo y legislativo en materia de política comercial, es el mandato para promover el comercio (TPA), que permite delegar y compartir determinadas facultades y disposiciones relacionadas con 
la negociación de asuntos comerciales. La Constitución asigna determinadas atribuciones al 
Congreso, como la reglamentación del comercio exterior, incluida la facultad de imponer y recaudar derechos, y al Presidente, como la facu ltad de negociar tratados. Esta separación de 
poderes, combinada con las características singulares de los acuerdos comerciales, ha conducido al 
establecimiento, mediante leyes vigentes durante varios años, de procedimientos de examen, negociación y aprobación de acuerdos comerciales, así como de la forma en que el poder ejecutivo debe consultar al Congreso. Desde que se estableció formalmente mediante la Ley de Comercio de 
1974, los principales elementos del mandato de promover el comercio son la tramitación acelerada 
de los acuerdos en el Congreso y las disposiciones sobre notificación y consulta entre el Presidente y el Congreso.  
En ulteriores renovaciones de ese mandato se  incluyeron disposiciones sobre objetivos de 
negociación, por ejemplo, disposiciones sobre las condiciones de trabajo y el medio ambiente. Históricamente, este mandato, cuando ha sido aprobado, ha recibido el respaldo de los dos 
partidos. 
 2.5. Los procedimientos establecidos en la Ley de Comercio de 1974 y su antecesora se han empleado en las consultas y la aprobación de la mayoría de los acuerdos comerciales 
multilaterales y recíprocos concertados por los Estados Unidos en los últimos años. Desde su 
establecimiento, el mandato de promover el comercio se ha renovado periódicamente, excepto en el período 1995-2002, y más recientemente, desde que quedó sin efecto en 2007 (gráfico 2.1). 
 
2.6. Hace poco, en 2013 y 2014, el Presidente destacó la importancia del mandato de promover el comercio en vista de las dos principales negociaciones regionales que los Estados Unidos tienen la 
intención de concluir o en las que quieren realizar  progresos significativos. En 2014 se presentó en 
el Congreso la propuesta de renovar el mandato, pero hasta la fecha no se ha aprobado ninguna 
ley."  
Question 6. ¿Podría los Estados Unidos brindar mayor información sobre la perspectiva de 
aprobación de las facultades del TPA, así como los posibles cambios en el alcance y profundidad de dichas facultades al Ejecutivo? 
 
RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 
2.1.2 Función del sector privad o y otras partes interesadas 
El párrafo 2.7 del informe de la Secretaría señala que... "En los Estados Unidos, el sector privado participa desde hace mucho tiempo en la labor de asesoramiento en asuntos de política comercial. 
En 1974 se creó un sistema de comités consultivos en cuestiones comerciales, dirigido por el WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 210 - 
 
  Representante de los Estados Unidos para las Cuestiones Comerciales Internacionales (USTR), 
para que los sectores público y privado pudieran contribuir a la formulación y aplicación de las políticas comerciales. Actualmente hay 28 de esos comités, que se ocupan, entre otras, de cuestiones agropecuarias, intergubernamentales, laborales y ambientales, así como de las 
relaciones entre los Estados Unidos y África. También existe un sistema de comités consultivos 
sobre distintas ramas de producción, que comprende 16 comités consultivos en cuestiones comerciales (ITAC), 13 comités especializados en ramas de producción y tres comités funcionales 
encargados de la propiedad intelectual, los asuntos aduaneros y las normas y los obstáculos 
técnicos, y un Comité de Presidentes de los ITAC (cuadro 2.1)."  Question 7. ¿De qué manera participa el sector privado en el Comité Especializado de propiedad 
intelectual? 
 
RESPONSE: Representatives from the private sector serve as members of the Industry 
Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) on Intellectual Property Rights. Committee members 
are welcome to participate in any committee business. Typical ITAC committee business 
includes regular meetings, briefings, draf ting letters and reviewing U.S. proposals. 
 
2.3 Acuerdos y arreglos comerciales 2.3.1 Participación en la OMC  
Los párrafos 2.15 y 2.17 del Informe de la Secret aría señala que... "2.15. Los Estados Unidos 
participan activamente en la OMC y, con arreglo a su programa de política comercial, prevén seguir desempeñando un papel destacado en el fortalecimiento del sistema multilateral de 
comercio. Han determinado una serie de esferas prioritarias en el marco de las actividades o 
iniciativas de la OMC, como la conclusión de las negociaciones sobre la ampliación de los productos abarcados por el Acuerdo sobre Tecnología de la Información (ATI), la iniciación de negociaciones 
acerca de un acuerdo sobre bienes ambientales, el apoyo a la aplicación del Acuerdo sobre 
Facilitación del Comercio (AFC) y el apoyo a las negociaciones de adhesión, en particular las de Kazajstán. Firmes defensores de la transparencia, los Estados Unidos están decididos a fomentar y fortalecer las funciones básicas de la OMC. Por lo que se refiere al Programa de Doha para el 
Desarrollo (PDD), los Estados Unidos han declarado que se proponen tomar la iniciativa tras la 
Conferencia Ministerial de Bali, marcar un nuevo rumbo y buscar nuevas formas de encarar otros aspectos de la Ronda. 
 
2.17. En la Ronda de Doha, los Estados Unidos desempeñaron un activo papel en las negociaciones sobre facilitación del comercio, durante las cuales presentaron 31 propuestas nuevas o revisadas. 
Fueron un firme defensor del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio, al que se han adherido, y 
contribuyeron a la consecución de un resultado positivo en la Conferencia de Bali. Siguen prestando apoyo a los países en desarrollo y los PMA mediante actividades de asistencia técnica. Durante el período examinado, los Estados Unidos no presentaron propuestas a ningún otro 
órgano de negociación." 
  
Question 8. ¿Podría los Estados Unidos profundizar en su visión como líder en la implementación 
del Acuerdo de Facilitación del Comercio de la OMC, tanto en el escenario multilateral como al interior del país?  
 
RESPONSE: We have supported trade facilitation reforms throughout the negotiations, and will continue to do so to promote effect ive implementation of the agreement. The 
United States is committed to helping support  developing countries' ability to implement 
the TFA. Bilaterally, we have worked with over 27 countries in conducting WTO Trade 
Facilitation needs assessments, and nineteen countries have received U.S. assistance 
under the continuing Partnership for Trade Facilitation. While we explore additional 
bilateral cooperation, we are also provid ing support in other ways, such as our 
contribution to the World Bank Group's Trad e Facilitation Support Program. Throughout 
our efforts, we continue to reach out to ca pital based donors to coordinate and share 
information about all of our efforts. We welc omed the effort by the Director General to 
establish a new WTO "Facility" to help deve loping countries and LDCs implement the 
TFA and have begun discussions with the WTO Secretariat to determine how those 
programs can inform and work with the new WTO mechanism. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 211 - 
 
  3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
3.1 Medidas que afectan direct amente a las importaciones 
3.3.6.7 Observancia de los dere chos de propiedad intelectual 
 
El párrafo 3.194 del informe de la Secretaría señala que... "La Comisión de Comercio Internacional 
de los Estados Unidos (USITC) señaló que era difícil medir el comercio digital internacional ("comercio de productos y servicios suministrados a través de Internet"), y dio algunos ejemplos 
concretos que indicaban que el comercio internacional de productos digitales crecía rápidamente 
(por ejemplo, el caso de "composiciones musicales en formato digital pertenecientes a una parte en un país dado descargadas por consumidores de otros países"), pero concluyó que "los datos sobre ese tipo de operaciones son escasos, y la necesidad de disponer de más información es un 
tema recurrente tanto en este sector como entre y los investigadores".  
 Al analizar las preocupaciones relacionadas con la propiedad intelectual en la esfera del comercio, 
la Comisión señaló que, según los sectores que creaban contenidos (programas informáticos, 
música, películas, libros y videojuegos), la piratería en Internet era "el mayor obstáculo al comercio digital en esos sectores"; indicó, además, que los intermediarios de Internet estaban 
preocupados "por la falta de claridad de los marcos jurídicos y por qué se los consideraba 
responsables de las infracciones o conductas ilegales de los usuarios de sus sistemas".  Question 9. ¿Qué medidas han tomado los EE.UU. para superar la falta de claridad que tienen los 
Proveedores de servicios de Internet sobre los marcos jurídicos relacionados con su 
responsabilidad sobre los contenidos protegidos por propiedad intelectual?   
RESPONSE: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), with specific provisions 
related to ISPs codified in 17 U.S.C. §512,  and regulations promulgated under the DMCA 
provide legal frameworks governing po tential liability for Internet Service 
Providers. Additional clarity is provided via court decisions, consistent with the 
U.S. system of common law jurisprudence. ISP liability has also been addressed during 
the ongoing copyright review by the Ho use Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 
Property, and the Internet, discussed above in response to Question 22 from Canada. On 
March 13, 2014, the Subcommittee held a hearin g on "Section 512 of Title 17" and heard 
testimony from online service providers, co ntent owners, and academics. Information 
about the hearing can be found at h ttp://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/ 
hearings?ID=3A1D170D-D431-486F-AEFA-3724B0D95AE9. The U.S. Department of 
Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force has also hosted a Multistakeholder Forum in which representatives of copyright owners, Internet Service Providers and users have 
discussed nonlegislative ways to improv e the operation of the DMCA notice and 
takedown system, For more information, see http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-
resources/ip-policy/copyrights .  
 
Question 10. ¿Qué respuesta se ha dado a los Proveedores de Servicios de Internet (PSI) 
cuando preguntan por las razones por las que se los considera responsables de las infracciones o conductas ilegales de los usuarios de sus sistemas? 
 
RESPONSE: Court determinations that may re sult in the imposition of liability on 
Internet Service Providers are accompanied by a written opinion providing the reasons 
therefore.  
 4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES 4.1 Agricultura 
4.1.1 Ley de Agricultura de 2014 
4.1.1.1 Panorama general  
Los párrafos 4.3 y 4.5 del informe de la Secretaría señalan que… "4.3. Uno de los cambios más 
significativos que afectaron a la estructura del sist ema de protección de los ingresos en el sector 
agropecuario fue la eliminación del Programa de Pagos Directos (DP). Con arreglo a este 
programa, que había sido la piedra angular de las reformas de la política agraria desde que 
concluyeron las negociaciones de la Ronda Uruguay, cada año se efectuaban pagos a los agricultores y los propietarios de tierras aproximadamente 5.000 millones de dólares EE.UU. en concepto de apoyo a los ingresos no vinculado.  También se suprimieron el Programa de Pagos 
Anticíclicos (CCP) y el Programa de apoyo a los ingresos agrícolas (ACRE). Estos tres programas WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 212 - 
 
  (DP, CCP y ACRE) fueron sustituidos por dos nuevas medidas, el Programa de cobertura de 
pérdidas relacionadas con los precios (PLC) y el Programa de cobertura de riesgos agrícolas (ARC).  4.5. Como alternativa al Programa PLC, los agricu ltores pueden participar en el nuevo Programa 
ARC, un plan de primas de complemento basadas en los ingresos, vinculado a los precios 
corrientes y también a una proporción de la su perficie de base, entre otros parámetros. Los 
programas PLC y ARC comprenden los mismos productos básicos que los programas cancelados 
(cereales, arroz, semillas oleaginosas, legumbres,  cacahuetes (maníes)), con exclusión del algodón 
americano (upland)."  En relación con los nuevos programas sustitutos mencionados: 
 
Question 11. ¿Cuáles son los criterios para el cálculo y otorgamiento individual o grupal de las primas de complemento que se prevé entregar mediante estos programas? 
 
RESPONSE: The criteria for triggering ARC/ PLC payments, including examples, can be 
found through accessing the ARC/PLC webpage at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ 
FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=arpl&topic=l anding. In particular, see the ARC/PLC 
fact sheet at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsR eleases?area=newsroom&subject= 
landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet &type=detail&item=pf_20140925_insup_en_
arcplc.html . The ARC/PLC regulation (as well as other Farm Service Agency regulations) 
is at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/federalNo tices?area=home&subject=lare&topic= 
frd-ii .  
 
Question 12.  ¿Cómo es la metodología para la fijación de los precios de referencia 
anunciados para el PLC y ARC?  
RESPONSE: The reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program were 
established by the 2014 Farm Bill.   Question 13. ¿Cuáles serían los montos máximos de las primas que se prevé otorgar en 
desarrollo de los programas mencionados? 
 RESPONSE: There is no aggregate cap or limit for ARC or PLC payments.  
 
El párrafo 4.9 del Informe de la Secretaría seña la que... "En líneas generales, la nueva Ley de 
Agricultura supone un gran cambio en la política agrícola con respecto a algunos productos. Su 
repercusión dependerá de varias opciones que deben escoger los productores (por ejemplo, entre 
los programas PLC y ARC; entre los programas ARC y SCO; la reasignación de la superficie de base, etc.). La nueva Ley elimina las medidas de sostenimiento de los precios del mercado y las subvenciones a la exportación para los productos lácteos, así como los pagos directos en función 
de la producción agrícola de períodos anteriores. No obstante, la sustitución de los pagos directos 
desvinculados por instrumentos tales como las primas de complemento vinculadas a los precios corrientes podría causar mayores distorsiones del comercio y la producción." 
 
Question 14.  Sobre las primas de complemento vinculadas a los precios corrientes, se solicita una descripción más amplia acerca de sus características, particularmente, sobre sus 
montos máximos, condiciones de otorgamiento y demás aspectos relativos a su funcionamiento. 
 RESPONSE: With the 2014 Farm Bill, the new co unter-cyclical covered commodity safety 
net programs are the Agricultural Risk Co verage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 
programs. The Farm Service Agency's ARC/ PLC web page provides information on 
maximum per-farm payment amounts and calc ulations, eligibility requirements, and 
other information at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject= 
arpl&topic=landing .  
In particular, see the ARC/PLC fact sheet at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/ 
newsReleases?area=newsroom &subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&ty
pe=detail&item=pf_20140925_insup_en_arcplc.html . The ARC/PLC regulation (as well 
as other Farm Service Agency regulations) is at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ 
FSA/federalNotices?area=home&subject=lare&topic=frd-ii .  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 213 - 
 
  The Margin Protection Program for Dairy is also a counter-cyclical protection program. 
Information on payment calculations, eligib ility requirements, and other information can 
be found at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/web app?area=home&subject=dmpp& 
topic=landing .  
 
Question 15. ¿Se han previsto mecanismos para controlar que las primas de complemento de los nuevos programas no lleguen a causar los efectos desfavorables y perjuicio grave por 
subvaloración de precios a que hacen referencia los artículos 5.c, 6.3.c del Acuerdo de 
Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias de la OMC?  RESPONSE: New programs are paid on historic al production without reference to current 
production, removing incentives that co uld lead to surplus production. Because 
producers cannot increase their payments as a result of current planting decisions, 
plantings will be based on market incentives.  
 
4.1.1.4.2 Garantías de cr édito a la exportación 
 
El párrafo 4.46 del Informe de la Secretaría señala  que... "El Programa de Garantía de Créditos de 
Exportación (GSM-102) es administrado por el USDA, que está obligado por ley a prever la concesión de 5.500 millones de dólares EE.UU. en garantías de préstamos cada ejercicio, con el fin de alentar al sector privado de los Estados Unidos a financiar las exportaciones comerciales de 
productos agrícolas estadounidenses, en particular a países en desarrollo. El programa garantiza 
los créditos concedidos por los exportadores estadounidenses, o, más frecuentemente, por instituciones financieras estadounidenses a bancos extranjeros aprobados para la compra de 
productos agrícolas estadounidenses por extranjeros. En el ejercicio de 2013, los exportadores 
estadounidenses obtuvieron garantías de créditos en el marco del programa por un total de 3.000 millones de dólares EE.UU.  
 
El funcionamiento del programa GSM-102 está sujeto a la obligación legal de que los honorarios cubran los costos de explotación y las pérdidas del programa a largo plazo. Las comisiones varían en función de la duración del préstamo, el tipo de riesgo del país del deudor y la frecuencia de los 
reembolsos." 
 Question 16. Nos gustaría conocer que otros cambios se han realizado a este programa, y de 
acuerdo a estos cómo será notificado. 
 RESPONSE:  All GSM-102 program operational requirements and the current status of the 
program are available on the following website: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/expo rt-credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102 . 
 
4.1.1.4.3 Promoción de las exportaciones 
 
El párrafo 4.48 del informe de la Secretaría señala que… "El Servicio Exterior de Agricultura del USDA administra cuatro programas de promoción de las exportaciones, que fueron autorizados de 
nuevo hasta el ejercicio de 2018 sin cambios en su financiación. El Programa de Acceso a los 
Mercados (Ley Pública 113-79, artículo 3102) suministra asistencia financiera para compartir los gastos en actividades de promoción de las exportaciones que beneficien a productos 
estadounidenses genéricos y de marca (189.800 millones de dólares EE.UU. en el ejercicio de 
2013). El Programa de Promoción de los Mercados Extranjeros (artículo 3103) facilita fondos de contraparte principalmente para la exportación de productos básicos genéricos y a granel (32.700 millones de dólares EE.UU. en el ejercicio de 2013). El Programa para Mercados 
Emergentes (artículo 3203) suministra fondos de asistencia técnica para la promoción de las 
exportaciones agrícolas estadounidenses a estos mercados (9.200 millones de dólares EE.UU. en el ejercicio de 2013). El Programa de Asistencia Técnica para Cultivos Especiales (Artículo 3205) 
presta asistencia a organizaciones estadounidenses en proyectos destinados a hacer frente a 
obstáculos al comercio relacionados con medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias y con obstáculos técnicos al comercio (7.300 millones de dólares EE.UU. en el ejercicio de 2013)." 
 
Question 17. Nos gustaría conocer los ítems que se financian bajo la figura de "promoción de las exportaciones" del Programa de Acceso a Mercados.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 214 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Under the MAP, USDA/FAS provid es cost-share assistance to eligible 
U.S. organizations for activities such as consumer advertising, public relations, 
point-of-sale demonstrations, participation in  trade fairs and exhibits, market research 
and technical assistance. 
 
Question 18. ¿Cuáles son las diferencias para que un producto sea calificado como "genérico" y "de marca"? 
 
RESPONSE: USDA/FAS does not define bran d or trademark products. However, under 
the MAP, brand and generic promotion are:  
Brand promotion —an activity that involves the exclus ive or predominant use of a single 
U.S. company name, or the logo or brand name of a single U.S. company, or the brand of a U.S. agricultural cooperative, or any acti vity undertaken by a MAP Participant in the 
brand program. 
 Generic promotion —an activity that is not a brand promotion but, rather, promotes a 
U.S. agricultural commodity generally. A ge neric promotion activity may include the 
promotion of a foreign brand ( i.e., a brand owned primarily by foreign interests and 
being used to market a commodity or product in a foreign market), if the foreign brand 
uses the promoted U.S. agricultural commodity  or product from mult iple U.S. suppliers. 
A generic promotion activity may also involve the use of specific U.S. company names, 
logos or brand names. However, in that case , the MAP Participant must ensure that all 
U.S. companies seeking to promote such U.S. agricultural commodity in the market have 
an equal opportunity to participate in the ac tivity and that at least two U.S. companies 
participate. In addition, an activity that  promotes separate items from multiple 
U.S. companies will be considered a generi c promotion only if the promotion of the 
separate items maintains a unified theme ( i.e., a dominant idea or motif) and style and 
is subordinate to the promotion of the generic theme.  Question 19. ¿Cómo funciona el Programa de Promoción de Mercados Extranjeros? 
 
RESPONSE: Under the Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) Program, FAS enters into project agreements with eligible nonprofit U.S. trade organizations to 
share the costs of certain over seas marketing and promotion activities that are intended 
to create, expand, or maintain foreign mark ets for U.S. agricultural commodities and 
products. These programs are widely availabl e export promotion and advisory services.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 215 - 
 
  COSTA  RICA  
  PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
Page 39 (paragraph 2.51)  
In September 2012, the Department of Commerce announced a related "Make it in America" 
program to accelerate insourcing, i.e. by encouraging firms to bring back jobs and investments to the United States.50 It offered a one-time US$40 million competition to projects supporting regional economic development, advanced skills training, greater supply chain access, and other 
enhancements. As of October 2013, US$20.5 millio n had been awarded to 10 applicants.51 On 
3 December 2013, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) awarded a total of US$3.75 million in Make it in America grants to 10 MEP centers in nine states. The 3-year grant 
awards are in addition to the recently announced US$20.5 million in Make it in America funding 
from the Department of Commerce's Economic De velopment Administration, the Department of 
Labor's Employment and Training Administration, and the Delta Regional Authority. The overall 
objective of the Make it in America Challenge is to make it more attractive for businesses to build, 
continue, or expand their operations in the United States.  Question 1. Has United States considered the effects that the "Make it in America" program will 
have on trade with FTA partners? Does the program focus on specific economic sectors? 
 Question 2. Can the United States please explain how this program is consistent with its foreign 
trade policy? 
 RESPONSE: The Make it in America program was a one-time program, carried out in 
2012, to identify innovative projects focuse d on increasing investment and employment. 
Further information is available at http://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-
sheets/2012/09/%2025/fact-sheet -make-it-america-challenge . The winning projects 
are described at http://www.eda.gov/challenges/ MakeItInAmerica/winners.htm . 
 
Page 89 (paragraph 3.189)  
Intellectual property (IP) – how it is protected, administered and enforced, both domestically and 
in exports markets – is a central consideration of United States trade policy. In articulating its objectives in the context of current trade negotiations, the Administration has stressed the 
importance of IP for the U.S. economy, both in cr eating well-paid jobs and in supporting high value 
exports. It attributes nearly 40 million jobs an d 60% of merchandise exports to "IP-intensive" 
industries, on the basis of a 2012 report by the Economics and Statistics Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. While the U.S. IP system is among the world's most mature and 
well established, the dynamic character of IP in the contemporary United States economy led to 
various developments during the review period; policy initiatives on the part of the Administration and the legislature underscored the continuing significance of legal and policy settings in this field 
for the overall U.S. trade profile. 
 Question 3. Can the United States provide information on the IP policy initiatives underway, both 
by the Administration and the legislature? 
 RESPONSE: In addition to Administration's IP policy initiatives, the House Subcommittee 
on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Inte rnet has been conducting a comprehensive 
review of the current state of U.S. copyri ght laws. As of December 2013, there have 
been eighteen copyright review hearings be fore the Subcommittee, and future hearings 
are expected to take place in 2015. The U. S. Copyright Office has also undertaken 
several studies on U.S. copyright law at the request of Congress as well as under its own 
initiative. The Office pub lished two reports, Copyright Small Claims and Resale 
Royalties: An Updated Analysis, in 2013 and is currently engaged in three ongoing 
studies – Orphan Works and Mass Digitizati on, the Making Available Study, and the 
Music Licensing Study.  The Administration is also engaged in copyri ght policy initiatives focusing on copyright 
policy, creativity and innovation in the digi tal economy. Work is proceeding along three WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 216 - 
 
  paths on issues identified in the Administ ration's July 2013 Green Paper on Copyright 
Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy:  
 
Preparation of a paper that will address th ree policy issues: (1) the legal and licensing 
environment for "remixes" (the combination of  portions of existing works to produce 
something new and creative), (2) "digital fi rst sale" (the extent to which consumers 
who receive copies of works by digital tran smission may "resell" those copies), and 
(3) the calculation of the level of stat utory damages for certain types of online 
infringement.  
 
Convening of a multistakeholder forum to identify best practices and/or produce 
voluntary agreements for improving the oper ation of the Digital Millennium Copyright 
Act (DMCA) notice and takedown system fo r removing infringing content from the 
Internet. 
 
Exploring ways in which the government ca n facilitate the further development of a 
robust online licensing environment. A public  meeting will take place early next year. 
 
Question 4. Given the dynamic character of IP in  the economy and recent legal developments, to 
what extent has the United States revised its policies with regard to test data protection, copyrights and responsibility of  Internet service providers? 
 
RESPONSE: Beginning with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, the 
U.S. Copyright Act has been amended more than 25 times. For a list of the statutory 
enactments from 1976 through 2010 contained in  Title 17 of the United States Code, see 
http://copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html . See also 
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/  (noting very recently enac ted legislation, the STELA 
Reauthorization Act of 2014). Furthermore, as discussed above in response to Question 
22 from Canada, the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet has held a series of hearings to review the current state of U.S. copyright law. There have been 18 hearings as of December 2014, and they are expected to resume in 
2015.  
 Page 94 (paragraph 3.200) 
 
The overall strategic goal of the Department of Commerce Strategic Plan for 2014-18 is to expand 
the U.S. economy and fostering U.S. job growth through increased exports and inward foreign 
investment. It identified a role for the USPTO in  helping build the capacity of U.S. regional 
economies to accelerate the production of va lue-added goods and services, strengthening the 
digital economy, and accelerating the growth of innovation-intensive economic sectors by building public and private capacity to invent, improve, and commercialize new products and services, as 
well as promoting enhanced IP protection abroad. The USPTO's own strategic plan for 2014-18 
sets out three goals for this period: optimize patent quality and timeliness; optimize trademark quality and timeliness; and provide domestic and global leadership to improve IP policy, 
protection, and enforcement. 
 Question 5. Can United States please provide further details on how it plans to "optimize patent 
quality and timeliness"? 
 RESPONSE: To realize the goal of optimizing patent quality and timeliness, the USPTO has set forth a series of objectives. In part icular these objective include the following: 
(1) refining the optimal patent pendency, (2) increasing efficiencies and patent 
examination capacity to align with the optimal patent pendency, (3) increasing international cooperation and work sharing, (4) continuing to enhance patent quality, 
(5) ensuring optimal information technology  (IT) service delivery to all users, 
(6) continuing and enhancing stakeholder public outreach, and (7) maintaining the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) ab ility to provide timely and high quality 
decisions. Further details can be found in th e United States Patent and Trademark Office 
Strategic Plan (2014-2018) at http:// www.uspto.gov/about/st ratplan/USPTO_2014-
2018_Strategic_Plan.pdf.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 217 - 
 
  Page 99 (paragraph 3.219) 
 Coordination and effectiveness of mechanisms to en force IP rights both domestically and in foreign 
markets remain a major policy concern for the United States. The Intellectual Property 
Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) issued the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property 
Enforcement, which highlighted developments in enforcement since 2009. These included increases of 71% in new cases, 159% in arrests, 103% in convictions, and 264% in indictments by 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-Homel and Security Investigations (HSI). Pending 
Federal Bureau of Investigation health and safety -focused investigations rose by 308% and related 
arrests by 286%. Seizures of infringing imports increased by 53%. Voluntary private sector "best 
practice" initiatives were undertaken by financia l service providers, on-line markets, Internet 
service providers, and advertisers. 
 Question 6. Can United States please provide further information on the "best practice" initiatives 
undertaken by the private sector? Also, is there coordination between the public institutions 
overseeing IP matters and the private sector in the formulation of such practices?  
RESPONSE: On June 20, 2013 the United States issued a request for public comment on 
voluntary private sector initiatives regardin g IPR protection and enforcement, and is 
currently in the process of evaluating those response. In light of this on-going review, 
the United States is not in a position to prov ide an evaluation of such initiatives at this 
time. U.S. government IPR enforcement acti ons are distinct from voluntary private 
sector initiatives.   
Page 141 (paragraph 4.135) 
 The health insurance market of the United States is largely open and proportionally bigger than 
other developed countries' markets where public social security systems are dominant, thus 
making it an attractive destination for the es tablishment of foreign-based health insurers. 
 Question 7. Given an open market on insurance services, does de United States anticipate 
eliminating the restrictions on United States´ citizens to receive treatment outside the 
United States when using certain government- sponsored programmes? Has the U.S. considered that this would allow its citizens to receive a larger variety of services through mode 2 and 
eventually reduce the cost of the serv ices that such programmes recognize? 
 RESPONSE: As noted in the report, the private insurance market in the United States is 
more open and much larger than similar markets in other developed countries where 
government-operated health systems pred ominate. As a part of this, while 
U.S. government-sponsored programs do not generally cover services through mode 2, consumers have access to other insurance pl ans and providers that may cover services 
received outside of the United States. An insurance company that is not part of a 
government-sponsored program is able to cover services through mode 2 if it wants to, and many consumers also have the option to purchase travel insurance when traveling 
abroad that will cover mode 2 health care serv ices if their primary health insurance does 
not. U.S. consumers covered by private insu rance have made increasingly frequent use 
of Mode 2 health care services around the wo rld. While the United States is not currently 
considering changes to coverage of gove rnment-sponsored programs, much of the 
health care spending in the United States occurs outside the scope of such programs.  PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
 
Page 4 (paragraph 1.4)  
More broadly, the United States will appropriat ely utilize every available policy tool – and will 
continue to develop new tools – to pursue the mo st efficient and productive pathways to expand 
trade and foster economic growth, consistent with WTO rules. In 2013, the United States made 
substantial progress with its trading partners towards concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
(TPP) negotiations. The United States expects th e TPP will be an ambitious, comprehensive, 
high-standard trade agreement in the world's fastest growing region. The United States also participated in the launch of two ground-breaking trade negotiations – the Transatlantic Trade and 
Investment Partnership (T-TIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). Progress with the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 218 - 
 
  European Union toward a T-TIP agreement is expected to further strengthen the world's largest 
trade relationship, while TiSA promotes fair and open competition in the service sectors of participating countries.  
Question 8. With respect to TPP and TTIP negotiat ions, how is the United States reaching out to 
the public to ensure they are receiving the input they need about the process? 
 
RESPONSE: Outreach to members of the public, and consultation with our public 
stakeholders, is a critical element of our process of negotiating trade agreements like 
TPP and T—TIP. USTR and other agencies have been listening to and consulting with a broad range of stakeholders since well befo re these two negotiations were launched, 
and they will continue to do so as  they proceed toward conclusion. 
 Prior to the launch of both TPP and T-TIP (a s well as the expansion of TPP to include 
Mexico, Canada and Japan), USTR published Federal Register Notices seeking public 
comment on the objectives for these negotiations, and held public hearings on these negotiations. Hundreds of comments were received from a diverse array of 
stakeholders, and many stakeholders also pa rticipated in the related hearings. The 
comments provided informed our negotiatin g priorities and continue to guide our 
participation in these negotiations.  
In addition, U.S. and other TPP and T-TIP negotiators meet with stakeholders on a 
regular basis, including before, during, an d after negotiating rounds. For example, 
alongside the TPP and T-TIP negotiating ro unds, USTR and our negotiating partners 
(from TPP countries and the EU, respectively ) have hosted stakeholder consultation 
sessions. During these sessions, negoti ators met with and listened to up to 
70 presentations from representatives of a wi de array of interests, including industry, 
small business, academia, labor unions, envi ronmental groups, and consumer advocacy 
organizations. The stakeholde r presentations and briefings have consistently drawn as 
many as 300 global stakeholders.   
In Washington, USTR negotiators regularly consult with stakeholders on the TPP and 
T-TIP negotiations through an advisory system  involving outreach to business, labor, 
environmental, public intere st and other stakeholders. That is augmented by a full 
schedule of ad hoc briefings with organizati ons and individuals, as well as stakeholder 
outreach travel within the United States.   
Question 9. What is the expected timeline fo r completion of negotiations of TPP and TTIP? 
 RESPONSE : TPP leaders met in November 2014, noted the significant progress that 
ministers and negotiators had made in re cent months in narrowing gaps on the 
agreement, and stated that the end of the negotiation was coming into focus. All TPP 
parties are working to conclude the negotiation as soon as possible, so that each country can start to enjoy the agreement's benefits.  
 
With regards to the Transatlantic Trade and In vestment Partnership,  the United States 
and the European Union have had seven rounds of negotiations since TTIP was launched 
in July 2013. Both sides are committed to  achieving significant progress in 2015. 
  Page 26 (paragraph 5.18) 
 
5.18. In May 2013, USAID and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) entered into a public-private partnership that will coordinate private-sector subject matter experts from ANSI 
member organizations in the delivery of training and other technical exchange with interested 
Standards Alliance countries on international standards and best practices. In coordination with USTR, the USAID-ANSI partnership will include activities in up to ten markets representing a 
variety of geographical regions and levels of ec onomic development. In consultation with TPSC 
member agencies and private sector experts, ANSI reviewed the applications received based on consideration of bilateral trade opportunities, available private sector expertise that may be leveraged, demonstrated commitment and readiness for assistance, and potential development 
impact. Participating countries/regions for the first year include: Central America (CAFTA-DR, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 219 - 
 
  Panama), Colombia, the East African Community, Indonesia, Middle East/North Africa, Peru, 
Southern Africa Development Community, developing ASEAN members, and Yemen. 
 Question 10. What are the most important results of Standards Alliance programming in 2013 
and 2014, specifically in Central America (CAFTA-DR)? 
 RESPONSE: The highlights of the Standards A lliance work to date are described in the 
quarterly reports, which are available on the Standards Alliance website: 
http://standardsalliance.ansi.org . In Central America, work began with the initial 
assessment meetings conducted in May 2014. As  a result of those consultations, more 
activities are planned for 2015 that will incl ude work in sectors such as food additives 
and textiles. 
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 220 - 
 
  CUBA 
  Con respecto al Informe presentado por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos sobre el Examen de sus 
Políticas Comerciales circulado como documento WT/T PR/G/307 y, del Informe de la Secretaría de 
la OMC circulado como documento WT/TPR/S/307, ambos de fecha 11 de noviembre de 2012, la República de Cuba solicita que sean incluidas en el duodécimo examen de ese Miembro, las 
preguntas que a continuación se relacionan.  
 Preguntas relativas al Informe de  la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/307). 
Como se menciona en el informe de la Secretaría de la OMC, en el párrafo 3.59 de la página 65, 
correspondiente al acápite .1.6.3 "Sanciones, controles o procedimientos especiales", el Gobierno 
de los Estados Unidos mantiene diversas sanciones contra determinados países, entre ellos Cuba, por distintos motivos, muchas de las cuales imponen restricciones comerciales. 
Por más de 50 años, el gobierno estadounidense ha mantenido en vigor las leyes, disposiciones y 
prácticas que sirven de sustento a su política de bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero contra Cuba.  
Se mantienen para Cuba las condiciones onerosas y ajenas a la práctica comercial internacional, 
bajo las cuales se realizan las compras de alimentos a compañías de los Estados Unidos, persistiendo la amenaza de que las licencias otorgadas para estos fines pueden ser canceladas en cualquier momento por la Oficina de Control de Activos Extranjeros del Departamento del Tesoro 
de los Estados Unidos (OFAC). Igualmente se mantiene la prohibición de otorgar financiamientos y 
créditos a Cuba y están prohibidas las relaciones bancarias directas entre los dos países.  Adicionalmente, en el párrafo 3.61 de la página 66 del Informe de la Secretaría, se plantea que: 
"Aunque estaba previsto que determinadas disposiciones de la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo 
(Trading with the Enemy Act) relativas a Cuba expiraran en septiembre de 2012 y 2013, el Presidente las prorrogó por períodos de un año; por consiguiente, están actualmente en vigor 
hasta septiembre de 2014".  
A esta afirmación podemos añadir que el 5 de se ptiembre de 2014 el Presidente Obama prorrogó 
nuevamente por un año esta Ley que sustenta, no so lo la aplicación de las medidas del bloqueo, 
sino también la autoridad del Presidente para imponer otras leyes y disposiciones complementarias 
que conforman la política de bloqueo hacia Cuba.  
En cuanto a la transportación de estos productos, que bajo severas condiciones se adquieren en el mercado estadounidense, se mantiene la prohibición a los barcos que participan en este servicio a 
tomar cargas en Cuba hacia otros destinos y la prohibición a los barcos cubanos a participar en 
estos embarques.  En el párrafo 4.146 de la página 165 del Informe de la Secretaría se enuncia que los Estados 
Unidos alegan que "por razones de seguridad nacional, se prohíbe la entrada en los puertos 
estadounidenses a los buques procedentes de Camboya, Corea del Norte, Cuba, el Irán, Libia y Siria".  En febrero de 2012, el Presidente Obama prorrogó mediante una proclama al Congreso, la 
"Extensión de la emergencia respecto a Cuba" y la "Autoridad de emergencia sobre la regulación 
de anclaje y movimiento de embarcaciones", las qu e, entre otras regulaciones, prohíben el arribo 
de barcos y yates de recreo a Cuba, en correspondencia con las prohibiciones imperantes a los 
viajes de los ciudadanos estadounidenses a Cuba. 
A lo anterior se puede añadir que ha sido muy recurrente en los últimos años la imposición por parte del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de multas millonarias a bancos internacionales por 
realizar operaciones con Cuba, lo cual manifiesta el alcance extraterritorial del bloqueo en 
flagrante violación de las normas del comercio internacional.  Esta práctica alcanzó su máxima expresión cuando la OFAC anunció, el 30 de junio de 2014, la imposición de una mega multa ascendiente a 8 mil 970 millones al banco francés BNP Paribas, por 
violaciones de las regulaciones del bloqueo a Cuba y de sanciones a otros países. En consecuencia, 
el BNP Paribas ha cancelado todas sus relaciones con entidades cubanas, lo que constituye un obstáculo adicional a las relaciones económicas entre Cuba y varios socios comerciales europeos y 
del resto del mundo. 
Tomando en consideración los elementos antes señalados, el Gobierno de la República de Cuba solicita recibir respuestas concretas del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos sobre las siguientes 
interrogantes, relacionadas con el Informe de la Secretaría: 
 Question 1. ¿Se consideran los Estados Unidos un digno y disciplinado miembro de la Organización Mundial de Comercio cuando por más de 50 años ha mantenido subyugado desde el punto de vista 
económico, comercial y financiero a otro Miembro f undador de la OMC, organización "que responde WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 221 - 
 
  al deseo garantizado de actuar en un sistema multilateral de comercio más justo y más abierto en 
beneficio y por el bienestar de los pueblos", tal y cual se enuncia en el párrafo 2 de la Declaración de Marrakech?  
RESPONSE: The United States is a seri ous and committed member of the WTO and 
rejects the premise of this question.  
Question 2. A pesar de haber sido el principal promotor del Acuerdo de Facilitación del Comercio, 
en el marco del cual ratificó que respetaría la Libertad de Tránsito reconocida en el GATT, ¿cómo pueden conciliar los Estados Unidos tantas limitaciones comerciales a los buques de otros miembros que quieran comerciar con Cuba, con el supuesto compromiso de implementar a 
cabalidad este reciente Acuerdo? ¿Cómo puede una economía pequeña y vulnerable ser el pretexto 
para alegar lo que, a todas luces, consiste en una infundada seguridad nacional? Acaso no se da cuenta el Gobierno de los EE.UU. del descrédito que sufren constantemente en la OMC cuando 
continúan con su política de bloqueo contra Cuba? 
 RESPONSE: The United States appreciates the hard work of all Members, including Cuba, 
to conclude the negotiation of the Trade Fa cilitation Agreement (TFA). We agree with 
Cuba on the trade facilitative aspects of the tr ansit provisions of the TFA, in particular 
the ability of these provisions to assist sm all economies and land locked developing 
countries in promoting regional trade. As noted in the Bali Ministerial Decision, these 
provisions complement the non-discrimina tion principle of Article V of GATT 1994. 
 Question 3. ¿Puede explicar el Gobierno de los EE.UU. la compatibilidad del alcance extraterritorial 
de su política de bloqueo contra Cuba, con las disposiciones de la OMC? En pocas palabras, ¿creen 
los EE.UU. que la alegación de "seguridad nacional" contra Cuba, es una justificación para afectar los derechos adquiridos por otros Miembros de la OMC? Un ejemplo de ello son las sanciones 
millonarias a bancos europeos. 
 RESPONSE: The United States' embargo on trade with Cuba is fully compliant with our relevant obligations under our internationa l trade agreements. The embargo is not a 
blockade; the embargo regulations apply on ly to persons or property subject to 
U.S. jurisdiction. The United States consider s the embargo a bilateral issue that has no 
place being discussed in multilateral fora.  
 
Preguntas relativas al Informe de los Estados Unidos (WT/TPR/G/307). 
Cuba, por doce años consecutivos, ha denunciado en el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (OSD) a 
los Estados Unidos por mantener vigente una medida incompatible con las disposiciones de la 
OMC. Desde el año 2002 el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias dictaminó que la "Sección 211 de la Ley Ómnibus de Asignaciones de 1998" es incompatible con el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y con el Convenio de París para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial y emitió recomendaciones y 
resoluciones que no han sido cumplidas por los Estados Unidos, contraviniendo una decisión del 
máximo órgano jurisdiccional de la OMC en detrimento de titulares de marcas cubanas, como es el caso de la marca de ron Havana Club.  
 
Este incumplimiento de los Estados Unidos está en contradicción con los siguientes extractos de su informe, donde manifiesta que: 
 
 "La observancia estricta de las normas comerciales en todo el abanico de mercancías y servicios sigue siendo un pilar central de la política comercial de los Estados Unidos. Durante casi dos decenios, el mecanismo de solución de diferencias de la OMC ha resultado útil para los 
Miembros como foro excepcional para el examen y la adjudicación de diferencias con los 
interlocutores comerciales del país." (Véase párrafo 1.5 de la página 4 del Informe de los Estados Unidos WT/TPR/G/307).  
 
 "Desde la entrada en vigor de los Acuerdos de la Ronda Uruguay en 1995, un aspecto central de la política de los Estados Unidos ha sido asegurar la aplicación efectiva y a su debido 
tiempo de sus compromisos en la OMC. Los Estados Unidos creen que es importante, no solo para 
los intereses comerciales estadounidenses sino para todo el sistema de la OMC, lograr que todos los Miembros cumplan sus compromisos. Las diversas manifestaciones de esta política van desde una participación activa y constructiva en las deliberaciones de los comités de la OMC hasta la 
utilización del mecanismo de solución de diferencias. La política comercial de los Estados Unidos WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 222 - 
 
  trata de respaldar y promover el estado de derecho." (Véase párrafo 4.4 de la página 13 del 
Informe de los Estados Unidos WT/TPR/G/307).   "Para asegurar el cumplimiento de los Acuerdos de la OMC, los Estados Unidos han sido uno 
de los países del mundo que ha recurrido con más frecuencia a los procedimientos de solución de 
diferencias de la OMC. Desde la creación de la Organización en 1994, los Estados Unidos han presentado 103 reclamaciones en la OMC, y hasta ahora han obtenido decisiones favorables en 
70 de ellas, de las que 29 se resolvieron favorablemente de manera amistosa y otras 41 mediante 
procedimientos de los grupos especiales y el Órgano de Apelación de la OMC. Los Estados Unidos han obtenido soluciones favorables y decisiones favorables prácticamente en todos los sectores, con inclusión de las manufacturas, la propiedad intelectual, la agricultura y los servicios". (Véase 
párrafo 4.6 de la página 13 del Inform e de los Estados Unidos WT/TPR/G/307) 
 En este último párrafo extraído del Informe de los Estados Unidos, apreciamos que se omiten los 
fallos del OSD no favorables a este Miembro, entre estos figura el que dictaminó en el año 2002 el 
Órgano de Solución de Diferencias, el cual estipuló que la "Sección 211 de la Ley Ómnibus de Asignaciones de 1998" es incompatible con el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y con el Convenio de París 
para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial. 
 A partir de los elementos antes señalados, el Gobierno de la República de Cuba solicita recibir respuestas concretas del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos sobre las siguientes interrogantes, 
relacionadas con su Informe: 
 Question 4. ¿Es realmente el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos un miembro respetuoso de los 
compromisos y normas de la OMC y de los fallos de su Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (OSD), 
cuando, entre otros, todavía sobre sus espaldas pesa un incumplimiento de más de 12 años, por el cual deliberadamente no cumplen una decisión del OSD?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States does not acce pt the factual and legal characterization 
contained in these statements and question s, and notes that the WTO Appellate Body 
found that Section 211(a)(1) was not incons istent with the WTO obligations of the 
United States. Furthermore, the Appellate Body  did not question the right of the United 
States to refuse recognition "in its own terr itory [to] trademarks, trade names or other 
rights relating to any intellectual property or other property rights that … have been 
expropriated or otherwise confiscated in ot her territories." See A ppellate Body Report, 
para. 362.  
The United States refers to its statements on this matter in the Dispute Settlement Body. 
 Question 5. ¿Cuándo el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos permitirá al legítimo titular de la marca Havana Club, el simple requisito administrativo de  pagar la cuota de renovación de esta marca? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see the response to question 4 above. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 223 - 
 
  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
  Documento WT/TPR/S/307.- 
 
Question 1.- En torno al tema de inversión. Quisiéramos saber si los Estados Unidos tienen algún tipo de registro de inversión extranjera. En caso afirmativo, ¿Cómo funciona?.- 
 
RESPONSE: The United States does not have a general registration requirement for foreign investment. The United States has a longstanding policy of welcoming foreign 
investment and provides foreign investors non-discriminatory treatment both as a 
matter of law and policy.  
 Question 2.- En cuanto al Acuerdo de Asociacion  Transpacífico (TTP), tenemos interés en conocer 
las medidas que está tomando los Estados Unidos, para evitar que la cadena de suministro de 
textiles y vestuarios establecida en el DR-CAFTA se vea alterada.-   
RESPONSE: We understand and appreciate the sensitivities of existing supply 
arrangements, and are taking care that such  arrangements are not disrupted by TPP. 
 Question 3.- 3.32. Desde principios de 2012, fecha en que los Estados Unidos introdujeron en su 
Arancel los cambios del SA 2012, no se ha modificado la nomenclatura del texto jurídico del 
HTSUS.26 En dicha ocasión los Estados Unidos no introdujeron una serie de cambios del SA 2012 relativos a las películas fotográficas del capítu lo 37, que siguen pendiente.27 Sin embargo, a 
finales de 2012 la Comisión de Comercio Internacional de los Estados Unidos (USITC) inició una 
investigación para proponer determinadas modificaciones, algunas de las cuales afectan al capítulo 37.28 La USITC ha introducido cambios importantes, que se aplican retroactivamente desde 2012, 
para otorgar el trato de franquicia arancelaria a los mandos inalámbricos para consolas de 
videojuegos que utilizan sistemas de transmisión infrarrojos. Otros cambios propuestos han consistido en rectificar la designación o descripción incorrecta de determinados productos químicos. 
 
A República Dominicana, le interesa conocer cuáles son, los cambios propuestos por los Estados Unidos a La Organización Mundial de Aduanas, a los cambios en la nomenclatura del 2012, 
en relación a los productos de fotografía del capítulo 37. 
 RESPONSE: Pursuant to section 1205 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, the U.S. International Trade Commissio n conducted an investigation and sought 
public comment on the proposed changes. No requests for changes to the Commission's 
recommendation were received. The required Congressional layover period has been completed. The omitted HTS provisions are ex pected to be proclaimed by the President 
by the end of 2014, and it is expected that the effective date of these modifications will 
be February 3, 2012, the date on which the other 2012 changes to the Harmonized System were reflected in the HTS by Presiden tial Proclamation 8771. No change in duty 
treatment would result upon the implementation of the omitted provisions. 
 Question 4  
Párrafo 4.2. Los programas de nutrición explican el 80% del presupuesto del Farm Bill. Bajo el 
"Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program", el Estado suministra los medios que permitan a los beneficiarios comprar productos alimenticios. Cuáles son los productos que pueden comprar los beneficiarios y que están abarcados por el programa? Explicar en qué medida se incentiva el 
beneficiario a comprar productos locales? A qué precios se encuentran los productos alimenticios 
(subvencionados o precio de mercado)?   
RESPONSE: SNAP benefits, which are distribute d in the form of electronic debit cards, 
are limited to the purchase of food items for use at home as well as seeds and plants to 
produce foods for use at home. Participants  can use benefits at places such as 
supermarkets, grocery stores, and farmers mark ets to purchase eligible items at market 
prices. There are no benefits to encourage the purchasing of domestic products over 
imported products; purchases may include bo th domestic and/or imported products. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 224 - 
 
  Question 5 
Párrafo 4.4. Los pagos realizados bajo los progra mas "Price Loss Coverage" y "Agricultura Risk 
Coverage" se realizan en base a los precios de mercado. Estamos preocupados por el hecho de que estos pagos podrían enviar señales erradas al  mercado. Han analizado la envergadura de las 
posibles distorsiones que podrían generar estos programas? 
 RESPONSE: The PLC and ARC programs are pa id on historical production without 
reference to current production, removing the incentives that lead to surplus production. 
Because producers cannot increase their paym ents as a result of current planting 
decisions, plantings would be based on market incentives. 
 
Question 6 
P á r r a f o  4 . 7 .  E n  q u é  c o n s i s t e  e l  " F e d e r a l  C r o p  I n s u r a n c e " ?  C o m o  s e  d i f e r e n c i a  d e l  " P r i c e  L o s s  Coverage"? En qué medida no se generan sobrecompensación para los beneficiarios del "Price Loss 
Coverage" y del "Federal Crop Insurance"? 
 RESPONSE: The Federal crop insurance prog ram offers producers the opportunity to 
purchase insurance policies to protect agains t a percentage of yield or revenue losses 
for over one hundred crops, as well as fo r pasture, forage, and grazing land, and 
livestock. Coverage is based on a producer's  average historical yield (usually over 
10 years) and if revenue insurance is purc hased, on the expected harvest price at 
planting.  
 The PLC program provides producers with payments when commodity prices fall below a 
statutory reference price and on a percentage  of historical production. Recipients are 
not required to produce any product to receive payments.   
Since the two programs provide payments on entirely different bases—current plantings 
vs. historical production--the question of "over compensation" is not relevant. 
 Question 7 
Párrafo 4.10. Cuál es el mecanismo implementado para asegurar que el país no pasa de su Medida 
Global de Ayuda consolidada?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill, lik e previous Farm Bills, contains a "circuit breaker" that 
gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authorit y to make adjustments to expenditures to 
ensure the United States does not exceed its WTO commitments. 
 
Question 8 Párrafo 4.14. Está indicado que los precios de referencia se encuentran en la tabla A4.2, sin embargo no están. Por favor, suministrar dichos precios de referencia. 
 
RESPONSE: The final two columns in Table A4.2 provide the reference prices for the Price Loss Coverage program as included in the 2014 Farm Bill and converted into 
US$/ton. 
 Question 9 
Párrafo 4.14. Está señalado que los nuevos precios de referencia son mayores a los fijados bajo el 
programa "Counter-Cyclical Payments". Cuáles fueron los criterios que resultaron en la fijación de estos precios a la alza?  
RESPONSE: The Counter-Cyclical Payments pr ogram was repealed by the 2014 Farm Bill. 
The Price Loss Coverage program is a new pr ogram under the 2014 Farm Bill, for which 
Congress provided a statutory set of refe rence prices. Congress did not specify the 
reasons for its selection of reference prices. However, there has been a significant rise 
in commodity prices since the enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill.  
Question 10 
Párrafo 4.24. Explicar en qué consiste la compra de "import access rights". En qué sentido esta medida es compatible con las reglas de la  OMC? Como se notifican dichas compras? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 225 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Under the U.S. refined sugar re-exp ort program, refiners may acquire rights 
to import raw sugar at world market prices . In 2013, sugar refiners who held licenses 
under this program were permitted to exchan ge voluntarily their import access rights 
for domestic sugar held by USDA.  
 
The purchases are accounted for in the U.S. do mestic support notification as part of the 
sugar market price support program, whic h is located in Supporting Table DS:5. 
 
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 226 - 
 
  ECUADOR 
  1.De conformidad con la Sección 2 Régimen de Comercio e Inversión, 2.3.2.2 Regímenes 
preferencias unilaterales, página 33, párrafo 2.25, hace alusión a que los programas no son 
mutuamente excluyentes y algunos países en desarrollo y PMA tienen derecho a participar en más de uno (cuadro A2.3). 
Sobre el Cuadro A2.3 (página 188), en relación a los beneficiarios de las preferencias comerciales 
unilaterales otorgadas por los Estados Unidos: situación 30 de junio de 2014. La última autorización del Congreso estableció la vigencia del SGP hasta el 31 de julio de 2013 y hasta el momento no ha existido pronunciamiento alguno sobre su posible prórroga. 
 
Considerando la importancia de estos esquemas preferenciales unilaterales para el acceso y diversificación de los productos de especial interés de los países en desarrollo Miembros, como son 
los bienes agrícolas, ¿podría los Estados Unidos in dicarnos si tiene previsto retomar las discusiones 
sobre la posibilidad de renovar el SGP Sistema Ge neralizado de Preferencias? De ser así, ¿Existe 
alguna fecha tentativa? 
 
RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U.S.  Congress at the earliest opportunity.  
 
 2. De conformidad con la Sección 3 Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por medidas, 3.3 Medidas 
que afectan a la producción y el comercio, página 87, párrafos 3.135 y 3.136, respecto de la 
reforma fiscal para simplificar el código de impuestos a las sociedades y rebajar el tipo máximo.  
"Entre las medidas propuestas figura la eliminación de lagunas fiscales, el otorgamiento a las 
pequeñas empresas de incentivos para invertir, el establecimiento de un tipo máximo del 25% para los impuestos sobre las manufacturas y la eliminación de los incentivos para que las empresas se trasladen al extranjero mediante la aplicación de un impuesto mínimo sobre los 
ingresos percibidos en el extranjero". 
 Podría los Estados Unidos explicarnos cómo funcionaría este impuesto mínimo y su cuantía, 
¿cuáles son los incentivos que se aplican en la ac tualidad para que las empresas se trasladen al 
extranjero?, los ingresos percibido en el ex tranjero se encuentran exentos de impuestos 
actualmente? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see details in The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform, available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/tax-policy/Documents/The-
Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf . 
 
 3. De conformidad con la Sección 3 Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por medidas, 3.1.6.2 
Licencias de importación, página 62-63, Cuadro 3.7 Productos sujetos a licencias de importación, 
el cual hace alusión al objetivo de las licencias de importación y a ciertas disposiciones para acceder a la misma. 
 
En el caso de la asignación de las licencias para el azúcar se refiere a que "todos los importadores pueden solicitar certificados para azúcares especiales. Solo los refinadores de azúcar de los Estados Unidos pueden solicitar licencias para la importación de azúcar fuera de contingente". 
 
¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar con mayor detalle el funcionamiento de esta asignación de licencias que permite sólo a los refinadores estadounidenses solicitar licencias fuera del 
contingente? ¿Existe algún requisito de cumplimiento para que los refinadores estadounidenses 
puedan solicitar estas licencias fuera del contingente? Asimismo, podría indicarnos ¿Cómo funciona el programa de reexportación de azúcar y qué vinculación tiene con la 
asignación de licencias dentro o fuera del contingente? 
 RESPONSE: The refined sugar re-export program, administered pursuant to 7 CFR 1530.101, establishes the requirements that ca ne refiners must meet in order to be 
eligible for a license to ship under HTS lines 1701.13.20 and 1701.14.20. The program WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 227 - 
 
  establishes a license against which a refiner can: export domestically produced refined 
sugar and later import low-duty raw cane su gar; import low-duty raw cane sugar for 
refining and distribution to licensed U.S. manufacturers of sugar-containing products 
and/or licensed producers of polyhydric alco hol for non-food purposes; or import raw 
sugar, refine it and export it into the world market. There is no limit to the quantity that 
may be entered in any particular time pe riod, but the licensee must comply with 
provisions of the regulation to maintain eligibility for the license.  
 
En el caso de la asignación de las licencias para lácteos se cita que "los importadores o fabricantes de productos lácteos pueden solicitar licencias de importación si cumplen los criterios en materia de resultados establecidos en el Reglamento sobre las Importaciones respecto de las cantidades 
importadas en los 12 meses anteriores y, en el caso de los fabricantes, el nivel especificado de 
producción de lácteos en los 12 meses anteriores. Los fabricantes deben figurar en la lista de "Fábricas de Productos Lácteos Inspeccionadas" (Dairy Plants Surveyed) del Departamento de 
Agricultura de los Estados Unidos"  
 ¿Podría Estados Unidos explicarno con mayor detalle el funcionamiento de esta asignación de 
licencias, en especial de algunas condiciones (cum plimiento de criterios en materia de resultados) 
que se estarían estableciendo a importadores y fabricantes para acceder a dichos contingentes?  RESPONSE: These details can be found in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 
7 CFR 6.23.  
 4. De conformidad con la Sección 2 Régimen de Comercio e Inversión, 2.3.2.2.4 Ley de 
Preferencias Arancelarias Andinas, modificada por la Ley de Promoción Comercial Andina y 
Erradicación de la Droga (ATPA/ATPDEA), página 37, párrafo 2.39 y 2.41, indica que "la finalidad de las leyes ATPA y ATPDEA era promover un desarrollo económico de base amplia, diversificar las 
exportaciones y luchar contra el tráfico de drogas ofreciendo oportunidades económicas 
alternativas a los países beneficiarios". En el párrafo 2.41 manifiesta que "En abril de 2013, la Oficina del Representante de los Estados Unidos para las Cuestiones Comerciales (USTR) solicitó que se efectuara un examen (aún no concluido) para comprobar si el otro beneficiario, el Ecuador, 
cumplía los criterios de admisibilidad. En particular, se cuestionó su admisibilidad por lo que se 
refería a los criterios relativos a la protección de la propiedad intelectual y la ratificación de los laudos arbitrales". 
 
Podría Estados Unidos explicarnos, ¿Cuál es la relación existente entre la protección de la propiedad intelectual, la ratificación de los laudos arbitrales y la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas? 
 
RESPONSE: The preferential access to benefi ts under the Andean Trade Preferences Act 
(ATPA), as amended by the Andean Trad e Promotion and Drug Eradication Act 
(ATPDEA), is conditioned on a number of fact ors set forth in U.S. law which apply to all 
ATPA/ATPDEA beneficiary countries. Among these conditions are the protection of the 
intellectual property ri ghts and enforcement of arbitral awards. It should be noted that 
the ATPA/ATPDEA expired on July 31, 2013,  and has not been renewed by Congress. 
 
5. De conformidad con la Sección 3 Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por medidas, 3.1.9 Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias, página 74, párrafo 3.87, "el 4 de enero de 2011 entró en 
vigor la Ley de modernización de las normas de la FDA sobre la inocuidad de los alimentos (FSMA) 
(Ley Pública 111-353), que supuso una reforma importante de la legislación sobre la inocuidad de los alimentos y los piensos para animales, que son de la competencia de la FDA. Entre las reformas relacionadas con las importaciones cabe citar la verificación de los proveedores 
extranjeros (los importadores están obligados a asegurar que sus proveedores extranjeros aplican 
controles preventivos adecuados)".  
Podría los Estados Unidos indicarnos, ¿En qué consiste esta verificación? y ¿Se ha considerado el 
posible costo que podría conllevar esta verificación para los países Miembros en desarrollo y menos adelantados? 
 
RESPONSE: The proposed rule for the foreign supplier verification program provides that importers would be required to perform certai n risk-based activities to verify certain 
information with respect to the suppliers of the foods that they import. FDA is currently 
considering comments that were received wh ich may include additional information on WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 228 - 
 
  the impacts for developing and least develo ped member countries. More information can 
be found online at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Food/GuidanceRegulation/ 
FSMA/UCM412924.pdf .  
 
6. De conformidad con la Sección 3 Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por medidas, 3.1.9 
Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias, página 75, párrafo 3.90, "la Ley autoriza a la FDA a aplicar un gravamen a determinadas instalaciones na cionales y extranjeras y a la reinspección de 
los importadores. Anteriormente era la FDA quien asumía los costos de estas actividades. El 
gravamen también puede aplicarse a los efectos del retiro de alimentos del mercado cuando un 
establecimiento nacional de elaboración de alimentos o un importador incumple una orden de retiro, y para cubrir los costos administrativos del programa facultativo de autorización de 
importadores, a la certificación de las exportaciones de alimentos y al programa de auditores 
independientes (terceros)".  
Podría los Estados Unidos informarnos, ¿Si este costo se aplica únicamente a las importaciones o si 
se aplica también a los productos nacionales?  
RESPONSE: FSMA authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees for certain reinspections of 
domestic and foreign facilities and certain importer reinspections that result from a 
previous inspection where FDA has determ ined that noncompliance was materially 
related to food safety requirements of the FD&C Act. More information can be found on 
FDA's website at 
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Guidanc eRegulation/FSM A/ucm257982.htm . FDA has not 
assessed or collected any of these reinspection fees to date. 
 
7. En la sección sobre medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias no se menciona el proceso de elaboración y adopción de medidas MSF, tampoco existe  m e n c i ó n  a  e s t e  t e m a  e n  e l  d o c u m e n t o  
WT/TPR/G/307. 
 Al respecto, podría los Estados Unidos informarnos, ¿Si además del nivel Federal, los Estados o Gobiernos subcentrales pueden elaborar sus propias medidas sanitarias y/o fitosanitarias? y 
¿Existe algún mecanismo previsto por el Gobierno Federal para garantizar a la Membresía que las 
medidas adoptadas a nivel subcentral cumplen con las disposiciones del Acuerdo MSF?  
RESPONSE: Various regulatory agencies, as well as the Department of Justice and the 
USTR, review state laws when appropriate to do so. Part of that review may entail an 
analysis of whether the state requirement co nflicts with a federal one. In a situation 
where a conflict does exist, federal law will prevail. Federal agencies are the competent 
authorities on SPS measures affecting import ation. All U.S. federal agencies follow the 
requirements of the Administrative Proc edures Act, which is compliant with 
WTO transparency requirements. 
 
8. En la sección 2 Régimen de Comercio e Invesión, 2.1.3 Novedades, en la página 29, párrafo 2.11. del acápite 2.1.3.2 del informe de la Secretaría se menciona que "En 2013, el Presidente 
estableció el grupo de trabajo sobre el tráfico de especies de fauna y flora silvestres, con objeto de 
formular y aplicar una estrategia nacional de lucha contra el tráfico de fauna y flora silvestres, en particular la caza furtiva y el comercio ilegal". Asimismo, en la página 30, párrafo 2.12 del acápite 
2.1.3.3 se expresa que "En junio de 2014, el Pr esidente estableció un grupo de trabajo para 
mejorar la coordinación de las iniciativas del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos para combatir la pesca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada y el fraude en el sector de los frutos del mar y le encomendó la elaboración y aplicación de un marco general de lucha contra esas prácticas (…) y 
ayudarán a los países extranjeros a desarrollar su capacidad de lucha contra la pesca ilegal y el 
fraude en ese sector".  
¿Qué mecanismos o procedimientos se han previsto para garantizar que las medidas que se 
adopten no restrinjan innecesariamente el comercio?  
RESPONSE: The United States strives to ensure that its international trade and 
environmental policies and measures are mutu ally supportive, and that measures to 
protect the environment are implemented in  a manner consistent with international 
trade obligations. The Task Forces are comp rised of a broad range of U.S. agencies, 
including the Office of the U.S. Trade Re presentative (USTR), and are coordinating WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 229 - 
 
  across U.S. government agencies in develo ping and implementing recommendations. 
USTR, as a participant in the Task Forces , will seek to ensure that implementing 
measures comply with international trade co mmitments. Additionally, the Administrative 
Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) provides the basis for transparency and accountability in 
developing Federal regulations. The APA requ ires agencies to undertake a notice and 
comment process open to all members of th e public, both domestic and foreign, for 
rulemakings, and to take public comments into  account in developing final regulations. 
Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planni ng and Review sets out the regulatory 
philosophy, principles, and actions that guide federal agencies in planning, developing, 
and reviewing Federal regulations. These pr actices ensure openness, transparency, and 
accountability in the regulatory process, and,  as a result, help the United States to 
ensure that it meets its inte rnational trade obligations. 
 9. En la Sección 3: Políticas y prácticas comerciales , por medidas, 3.1 Medidas que afectan 
directamente a las importaciones y 3.1.1.2 Iniciativas para garantizar la seguridad de las 
importaciones, entre las páginas 48 y 50 del Informe de la Secretaría, se enuncian varias iniciativas que estarían destinadas a garantizar la seguridad en las importaciones, tales como la 
iniciativa sobre la "Seguridad de la Carga", según la cual se exigiría el escaneo del 100% de los 
contenedores de carga destinados a los Estados Unidos. La magnitud de las disposiciones ha obligado a los Estados Unidos a aplazar en varias ocasiones la puesta en marcha de esta iniciativa y en el presente año ha sido aplazada nuevamente hasta julio de 2016. El Ecuador estima que los 
procedimientos aplicados en varias de estas iniciativas podrían resultar excesivamente 
problemáticos y onerosos para los países en desarrollo. De esta manera, la iniciativa podría dar lugar a la reducción del comercio con los Estados Unidos para los países que no puedan cumplir 
con los requisitos de escaneo exigidos. 
 ¿Ha considerado Estado Unidos un tratamiento diferenciado para los países en desarrollo en la 
implementación de estas medidas, sobre todo dada la complejidad y el alto costo que significarán?  
 RESPONSE: The Secretary of Homeland Security under his authority has extended the deadline until at least May 5, 2016, and furthe r legislation is not needed to extend it 
again. The Secretary of Homeland Security  has the authority to extend the deadline 
again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute . 
 
10. En la Sección 3: políticas y prácticas comerciales, 3.3 Medidas que afectan a la producción y el 
comercio, 3.3.2 Subvenciones y otros tipos de ayuda pública, en la página 88, párrafo 3.138 se dice que "Según las autoridades, no existe en los Estados Unidos un marco jurídico general que 
regule las subvenciones. Al contrario, están en vigor varios programas de subvenciones al nivel 
federal en virtud de la legislación o de programas gubernamentales ejecutados por muchos organismos que dependen del Poder Ejecutivo". Asimismo, en el párrafo 3.140. se menciona que "En la mayoría de los casos, las subvenciones adop tan la forma de subsidios, ventajas tributarias, 
garantías de préstamos y pagos directos. Los sectores de la agricultura y la energía siguen siendo 
los principales beneficiarios".  
¿Cuenta los Estados Unidos con un calendario o cronograma para continuar reduciendo sus 
medidas de estímulo fiscal?   
RESPONSE: In general, stimulus from the Am erican Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and 
subsequent acts enacted in 2009 through 2012, has been tapering. Including the ARRA, from 2009 through 2012, approximately US$1, 479 billion of fiscal support was available 
(a four year period), while from 2009 thro ugh 2019 - a ten-year period - stimulus 
support falls to US$709 billion. (See Table 4, Council of Economic Advisers, The 
Economic Impact of the American Recovery  and Investment Act Five Years Later, 
February 2014, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def ault/files/docs/cea_arra_report.pdf . Moreover, 
stimulus provisions were often frontl oaded to have more immediate impact. 
 
Sobre este mismo tema, en la página 31, acápite 2.3 Acuerdos y arreglos comerciales, sección 
2.3.1 Participación en la OMC, párrafo 2.19 del Informe de la Secretaría se menciona que los Estados Unidos tienen tres notificaciones relativas a la agricultura pendientes o que requieren actualización (sobre subvenciones a la exportac ión, ayuda interna y utilización de contingentes 
arancelarios). WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 230 - 
 
  ¿Cuándo Estados Unidos planea realizar dichas notificaciones? 
 RESPONSE: The United States submits each  of these annual notifications to the 
Committee on Agriculture each year. The United  States recently submitted its domestic 
support notification, G/AG/N/USA/100, dated December 8, 2014. Please see 
G/AG/N/USA/99, dated November 5, 2014, for the latest U.S. notification on export 
subsidies. On tariff quotas, please see G/AG /N/USA/94, dated February 5, 2014 for the 
latest MA:2 notification on quota fill.  
 11. En la Sección 3: políticas y prácticas comerc iales, 3.3.6 Derechos de propiedad intelectual, 
3.3.6.3 Sistema de patentes, en la página 104, párrafos 3.204. y 3.205. del Informe de la 
Secretaría expresa que, en el período examinado, "el Gobierno anunció una serie de iniciativas 
basadas en las reformas de la Ley destinadas a mejorar el sistema de patentes, fomentar la 
innovación y proteger a los innovadores de los denominados litigios infundados". Entre esas 
medidas se incluye "la renovación anual del Programa piloto "Patentes para la Humanidad", que 
promovía iniciativas destinadas a aprovechar tecnologías patentadas para hacer frente a necesidades humanitarias en todo el mundo. Ya se habían otorgado subsidios a proyectos de 
reducción del precio de los medicamentos contra el VIH y el paludismo, la mejora de la nutrición 
alimentaria, el suministro de energía solar en zonas remotas, la lucha contra los fármacos falsificados tóxicos y el abastecimiento de agua potable. En el marco del programa, la USPTO otorga subsidios en cinco categorías de desarrollo: medicina, nutrición, saneamiento, energía para 
uso doméstico y nivel de vida". 
 Podría Estados Unidos facilitar más información en torno al Programa "Patentes para la 
Humanidad"? Cómo se ajusta este programa a las obligaciones estipuladas en el ADPIC con 
respecto a la protección de la salud pública, tomando en cuenta la gravedad de los problemas de salud pública que afligen a muchos países en desarrollo y menos adelantados? 
 
RESPONSE:  Patents for Humanity is consistent wi th the TRIPS Agreement and promotes 
public health. It is a voluntary program th at recognizes excellence in using patented 
technologies to help the less fortunate. Financ ial considerations are explicitly excluded 
from the evaluation criteria, which focus on  the real-world impact a technology makes 
on improving lives. Two of the 2013 Patents for Humanity award recipients, Gilead 
Sciences and the University of California Be rkeley, developed innovative ways to lower 
the costs of certain HIV and ma laria medicines. More information about their efforts can 
be found on the USPTO website at: http://www.uspto.gov/pate nt/initiatives/patents-
humanity/2013-award-recipients .  
The USPTO recognizes that different mo dels can be effective for addressing 
humanitarian issues and does not require any particular funding model for participation 
in the program  
 
12. Respecto a medidas antidumping y derechos compensatorios frecuentemente utilizadas por los 
Estados Unidos, el Departamento de Comercio (DOC) ha mantenido una política de larga data consistente en tratar las restricciones a la exportación como subvenciones sujetas a medidas 
compensatorias. El DOC ha aplicado esta política, de manera regular, en las investigaciones sobre 
derechos compensatorios de las importaciones provenientes de varios países. Por otra parte, esta práctica sólo podría justificarse si el DOC tratase a una restricción a la exportación como una 
situación en la que hay "encomienda u orden" de los productores de la mercancía objeto de la 
investigación sobre limitaciones a la exportación.  ¿Podría explicar la fundamentación –conforme lo aplicado en las investigaciones efectuadas por la 
DOC- para el tratamiento de esta supuesta limitación de las exportaciones como una subvención 
sujeta a medidas compensatorias? ¿Se ajusta esta política aplicada a las obligaciones de los Estados Unidos en virtud del Acuerdo de la OMC sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias, 
teniendo en cuenta las interpretaciones del Órgano de Apelación en torno al significado de las 
palabras "encomiende u ordene" incluido en el artículo 1.1 (a) (1) (iv) del Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias? 
 
RESPONSE: In each of the countervailing duty  cases in which the U.S. Department of 
Commerce (DOC) has determined export restraints to constitute countervailable 
subsidies, the evidence and rationale upon which DOC relied for that determination is 
fully described in the "Issues and Decision Memorandum" that accompanies the notice WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 231 - 
 
  of the final determination for each case. Co pies of the Issues and Decision Memoranda 
and the Notice of Final Determination for all of DOC's countervailing duty determinations 
are publically available at: http://enforcement.tra de.gov/frn/index.html .  
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 232 - 
 
  EL SALVADOR 
 
 Informe de la Secretaría 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS Medidas que afectan directamente a las impo rtaciones: Procedimientos y requisitos 
aduaneros. Consejo Ejecutivo Interinstitu cional para las Operaciones en Frontera 
(BIEC). 
Párrafo 3.7. En virtud de la misma orden ejecutiva, el Presidente estableció formalmente en 2014 el Consejo Ejecutivo Interinstitucional para las Operaciones en Frontera con el objetivo de desarrollar políticas y procedimientos para aumentar la coordinación entre los organismos 
competentes en materia de aduanas, seguridad en el transporte, salud y seguridad, medidas 
sanitarias y fitosanitarias, comercio y medio am biente, a fin de mejorar los procesos de las 
cadenas de suministro y la identificación de los envíos ilícitos. El Consejo está integrado por un 
presidente perteneciente al Departamento de Seguridad Interior, y por funcionarios del 
Departamento de Estado, el Departamento de l Tesoro, el Departamento de Defensa, el 
Departamento de Interior, el Departamento de Agricultura, el Departamento de Comercio, el 
Departamento de Salud y Servicios Sociales, el Departamento de Transporte, el Departamento de 
Seguridad Interior, la Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente y otros organismos con intereses o atribuciones en materia de gestión de las fronteras.  
1 Pregunta: ¿Podrían los Estados Unidos brindarnos mayor explicación sobre el funcionamiento de 
este Consejo Ejecutivo interinstitucional y su interrelación y compatibilidad con el Acuerdo sobre Facilitación al Comercio de la OMC? 
 
RESPONSE: The Border Interagency Exec utive Committee (BIEC)  was created by 
Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's 
Businesses.  This committee was created to help meet the deadline for the creation of a 
single window for imports and exports by December 31, 2016, and further facilitate the 
movement of goods while reducing time and c osts. This is a domestic committee that is 
part of the coordinated, "whole of govern ment" U.S. approach to trade facilitation, 
including work at the WTO. For further information on the E.O. see, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pre ss-office/2014/02/19/ executive-order-
streamlining-exportimport-process-america-s-businesses . 
 
Informe del Gobierno:  
Numeral 1: 1 LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN EL SISTEMA MUNDIAL DE COMERCIO: Párrafo 1.1. 
"…. Los Estados Unidos siguen firmemente resueltos a aplicar una estrategia ambiciosa de 
comercio e inversión para crear y sostener puestos de trabajo y promover el crecimiento económico y el desarrollo. Reconociendo que el comercio ha contribuido y sigue contribuyendo poderosamente a la expansión de la economía mundial, los Estados Unidos tratan de impulsar 
medidas de apertura de los mercados que aumenten las oportunidades económicas y apoyen la 
creación de empleos a través de las exportaciones en el marco de un sólido sistema internacional de comercio basado en normas y fomentar las relaciones comerciales mundiales…" 
 
2 Pregunta: Dado el papel tan importante que juega los Estados Unidos en el sistema multilateral de comercio como uno de sus pilares de política comercial, ¿Podría Estados Unidos brindar mayor 
información acerca del estado de su Autoridad de Promoción Comercial (TPA), el cual entendemos 
es un elemento requerido para llevar adelante sus negociaciones en materia de comercio?    RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to 
pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 Numeral 5 INICIATIVAS DE CREACIÓN DE CAPACIDAD RELACIONADA CON EL 
COMERCIO. Asistencia relacionada con el comercio prestada por los Estados Unidos en el marco 
de la Organización Mundial del Comercio:  Párrafo 5.4. …."Los Estados Unidos han apoyado de forma directa, y seguirán haciéndolo, las 
actividades de asistencia técnica relacionada con el comercio de la OMC. Al ser uno de los 
principales proveedores de ayuda bilateral para  la creación de capacidad comercial, los 
Estados Unidos siguen siendo un interlocutor acti vo en las conversaciones sobre ayuda para el 
comercio de la OMC…" WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 233 - 
 
  3 Pregunta: Podría la delegación de los Estados Unidos indicarnos ¿Cuáles son sus objetivos de 
política comercial en el marco del programa de ayuda para el comercio de la OMC y como asegura que la cooperación bilateral sea congruente con los fines mismos perseguidos en el ámbito multilateral? 
  
RESPONSE: The United States has been a lo ng-time supporter of the WTO Aid for Trade 
Initiative and remains committed to partneri ng with developing countries to foster 
opportunities through expanded trade an d stronger economic growth. Overall 
U.S. support for trade capacity building since 2001 has now surpassed US$15 billion.  
 The United States takes a whole-of-government approach to providing Aid for 
Trade. USAID, one of our principal provider s of trade-related assistance, works closely 
with the Millennium Challenge Corporation,  and other U.S. agencies to provide 
trade-related technical assistance.  
 
For assistance delivered by USAID (the prim ary provider of assist ance) there are three 
objectives of trade capacity building ac tivities support: participation in trade 
negotiations, implementation of trade ag reements, and economic responsiveness to 
opportunities for trade. These first two elements ensure that assistance will compliment efforts on the multilateral level. Bilateral cooperation is also a partnership between the 
host country government and the USG. Reci pient governments are encouraged to share 
their development objectives and strate gies and mainstream trade into those 
conversations.   
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 234 - 
 
  EUROPEAN UNION 
  
WT/TPR/S/307 
 
Page 39, section 2.4.3. Investment Regulati ons and Restrictions, paras 2.53 and 2.54 on 
the CFIUS Review process. " Foreign companies must provide detailed information of an 
investment operation at the very early stages of a project in order to avoid future notices, reviews 
and investigations by the Committee on Foreign In vestment in the United States (CFIUS). There 
are of course legal and economic costs associated with this. In the past years there has been an increase both in notices and investigations." 
 
Question 1: Are there any plans to mitigate the costs that are associated to this process for foreign companies? What measures are being taken to ensure the confidentiality of the information 
provided during the process?  
 RESPONSE: CFIUS does not charge any fees for its reviews. CFIUS takes great care to 
ensure the confidentiality of the information provided during the process. By law, any 
information or documentary material filed wi th CFIUS in the notice is exempt from 
disclosure under the U.S. Freedom of Informat ion Act (FOIA) and no such information or 
documentary material may be made public , except as may be relevant to any 
administrative or judicial  action or proceeding. 
 Question 2: Could the U.S. give the list of the cases for which specific conditions were imposed on 
investors after a CFIUS review? For those cases, could information be given about the type of 
conditions that were imposed on the investors to allow the investment to finally take place?  
RESPONSE: By law, information filed with CFIUS may not be disclosed to the public. 
Accordingly, we do not comment on inform ation relating to specific transactions. 
 Page 47, para 3.20 on the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). "The SFI, like the CSI, has its 
beginnings in the 2006 SAFE Port Act in order to improve container security. Section 232 provides 
for the SFI to implement at least three pilot ports to test the feasibility of 100% scanning of cargo containers destined to the United States. The SFI has been continually delayed. The deadline of 
May 2012 was not met, and it was further extended by two years, to 1 July 2014. In May 2014, 
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security extended the deadline until July 2016, as the conditions cited for delay in 2012 still prevailed." 
 
Question 3: Is the U.S. Administration considering to take actions to seek the repeal of the 100% maritime container scanning requirement by the U.S. Congress? If so, could the U.S. 
Administration specify such actions and their timeframe.  
 
RESPONSE: The Secretary of Homeland Security under his authority has extended the deadline until at least May 5, 2016, and furthe r legislation is not needed to extend it 
again. The Secretary of Homeland Security  has the authority to extend the deadline 
again at that time under the conditions out lined in the statute, without seeking further 
legislative changes.  
 
Pages 52-55 section 3.1.5.1 on the import fees. The report shows that the U.S. has several 
different fees, other than customs duties, applic able upon import. The di fferent fees make it 
difficult for an importer or exporter to know  what the total fees will amount to. E.g. the 
Merchandise Processing Fee for informal entries (import of goods for private use or small 
commercial sales with a maximum value of 2500 USD) is an uncertainty upon importation since the fee (US$2, US$6 or US$9) is dependent on how the consignment is handled and prepared by 
the U.S. Customs and border Protection. 
 Question 4: Will the U.S. small brewers discounted excise tax be extended to small brewers from 
overseas in a near future?  
 RESPONSE:  At this time there are no plans to amend the current excise tax.   
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 235 - 
 
  Page 56, para 3.5. " The U.S. CBP is responsible for enforc ing hundreds of laws, on behalf of 
around 40 federal agencies, that may restrict or prohibit importation. The laws may prohibit the importation of a product or allow a product to be imported under certain conditions (e.g. licensing). Other restrictions, such as limitations on the entry via certain ports or restrictions 
on routing are also possible (Table 3.6)." 
 Question 5: Could the United States explain the criteria used to determine whether a product is to 
be covered by the prohibition or restriction above mentioned? What product characteristics are 
considered when issuing the laws that result in prohibition or limitation of imports?   RESPONSE:  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces requirements that are 
set forth in U.S. laws and regulations. The enforcement actions that are to taken are 
generally set by Congress in the statute it self, and CBP or another federal agency 
charged with enforcing the statute will pr omulgate regulations implementing the 
requirements of the law. Some of the consider ations taken into account in determining if 
good should be prohibited or restricted is  whether those goods are of the type that 
would be allowed to enter such as they have  they have been treated or meet certain 
emission requirements, which would mean that  only certain goods are restricted. Other 
goods may be prohibited altogether because there is there a health or safety concern 
that would preclude the importatio n of a type of good altogether.   
 
Page 58 section 3.1.6.2 on import licensing. In February 2013, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture requested public comments on the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Program, with a deadline of 8 April 2013. EU stakeholders submitted comments to the program. To date, a 
final rule has not been issued.  
 
Question 6: In light of the comments received, how does the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
envisage amending the regulation on the dairy licensing program (especially as regards section 
6.25)? When is the final rule expected to be published?  RESPONSE: Any notice related to the dairy im port licensing rule-making process will be 
published in the Federal Register.  
 EU follow up question:  When does the U.S. expect the notice related to the dairy import 
licensing rule to be published in the Federal Register? The EU would be pleased to receive further 
elements on the modification and the publication procedure. 
 
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: The proposed rule wa s published in the Federal Register on 
December 23, 2014, with comments due by February 23, 2015. It can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2014-12-23/pdf /2014-29807.pdf . 
 
Page 66, para 3.75. Standards. The report states that in the period under review, no major 
changes were made to U.S. regulatory policy. Howe ver, regulatory practices are under review with 
respect to the participation of federal regulators in the development and use of standards, and in 
conformity assessment activities.  
 Page 67, para 3.76.  Voluntary standards.  
 
Question 7: When a regulatory Federal Agency determines that mandatory compliance with a standard is needed to address a particular policy objective, how does it decide that a particular standard is suitable for agency use, i.e. fit for the purpose of fulfilling such a policy objective? Can 
the U.S. indicate if in any of these cases, it  can happen that those regulations provide for 
alternatives ways to prove compliance with the requirements of the legislation (i.e. by using 
standards different from those referenced in the legislation but which are deemed to provide 
equivalent levels of protection or by referencin g two or more different standards?) . If so, could 
the U.S. elaborate and give examples.  
RESPONSE: When a U.S. regulator agency consider whether mandatory compliance with 
a particular standard is needed to achieve a particular policy objective, it would make 
that decision similarly to how it makes othe r regulatory decisions. It draws from any 
applicable statutory guidance together in pa rticular with the principles for regulatory 
development established in the Executive Order 12866.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 236 - 
 
  With respect to the second question, regarding alternative ways to prove compliance, 
depending on the sector and product, U.S. regulators do make equivalency 
determinations for standards and technical regulations. For example, the Agricultural Marketing Service and its organics standa rd has such provisions. Its equivalency 
procedures are available online: http:// www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1 .0/getfile?dDocName 
=STELPRDC5087107.  
Para 3.77  Elaboration of standards  
 Page 67, para 3.80 regarding U.S.  notifications to the TBT. " The United States submitted 
269 TBT notifications in 2013 (248 in 2012)69, including sub-federal measures notified under 
Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement (Table A2.2). The United States was the only WTO Member to 
notify at the local government level during the review period, with 11 sub-federal notifications submitted in 2013, mainly relating to environmen tal protection. The federal regulatory agencies 
with greatest number of TBT notifications related to international trade include: the Department of 
Energy (DOE), Food and Drug Administration (F DA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)." 
 Question 8: Could the U.S. elaborate in which cases and under which circumstances the legislation can refer to the use of standards not developed using a consensus-driven process? Will the U.S. 
opt for adopting guidelines that would establish the rationale and the circumstances under which 
such an exceptional procedure could be used?  
RESPONSE: U.S. law and policy directs federal agencies to rely on voluntary consensus 
standards and relevant international standa rds, where appropriate. Paragraph 6 of 
Circular A-119 states that "All federal agenci es must use voluntary consensus standards 
in lieu of government-unique standards in th eir procurement and regulatory activities, 
except where inconsistent with law or ot herwise impractical." (See also the National 
Technology Transfer Advancement Act). Pa ragraph 6.a.2 of Circular A-119 further 
specifies "impractical" as including "circumsta nces in which such use would fail to serve 
the agency's program needs; would be infe asible; would be inad equate, ineffectual, 
inefficient, or inconsistent with agency mi ssion; or would impose more burdens, or 
would be less useful, than the use of anothe r standard." The text of Circular A-119 can 
be found online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 . 
 
The proposed revisions to Circular A-119 state that the proposed revisions continue the 
preference for voluntary consensus standa rds over government-unique standards and 
establish a further preference for voluntar y consensus standards over other types of 
standards (including voluntary standa rds that are developed by voluntary 
non-consensus bodies). In doing so, the proposed revisions acknowledge that other 
types of standards, including those develope d by voluntary non-consensus bodies, are in 
use in the marketplace and may be relevant in meeting agency missions and priorities 
and that under such circumstances agencies would be able to use such standards.  
 
Question 9: The EU would like to know what ar e the working methods by which the U.S. Enquiry 
Point ensures that all U.S. State level technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures 
falling under the TBT Agreement are identified and then, where applicable, notified to the WTO. 
Does the U.S. Administration ensure that Congress bills are notified?  RESPONSE: The U.S. WTO Inquiry Point staff reviews on a regular basis a database of 
sub-federal proposed technical regulations. The Inquiry Point and the Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative work together in close collaboration to notify proposed state 
technical regulations to the WTO. 
 
With respect to bills under consideration in  the U.S. Congress, bills often change 
significantly before they become law and some times bills never become U.S. law at all. 
In order to ensure transparency, all legisl ative information from  the U.S. Congress 
including proposed legislation is provided on the searchable website from the Library of 
Congress, available at: https://www.congress.gov/ . 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 237 - 
 
  Page 68, para 3.82  states that: "There were no major new policy developments on 
standardization during the review period.72 The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a 
non-governmental body and the national standardization body, coordinates private-sector standardization and conformity assessment activities, and accredits organizations whose standards 
development process meets ANSI requirements of due process and consensus.73 U.S. agencies 
participate in national and international standards development activities and ANSI committees. In 2012, the U.S. Government announced a new funding facility in collaboration with ANSI that is 
intended to assist developing countries in implementing their commitments under the 
TBT Agreement." 
 
Question 10: Could the U.S. provide additional info rmation on the participation of its agencies and 
ANSI in national and international standardisation bodies, such as ISO and IEC? 
 RESPONSE: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a membership-based 
private sector umbrella organization that c oordinates the U.S. standards systems. ANSI 
is the U.S. member body to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission  (IEC). Many U.S. government experts 
participate in the U.S. mirror committees for ISO and IEC technical committees to 
develop standards in a range of sectors and collaborate with experts from other 
economies. U.S. government experts also actively engage in intergovernmental 
standardization bodies like Codex Alimentarius and UNECE Working Party 29. 
 
In addition, Section 7 of Ci rcular A-119 describes U.S. policy with respect to Federal 
participation in voluntary consensus standard s bodies. The text of the Circular can be 
found online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 . 
 
Page 68, para 3.84 states that "Executive Order 13609 of 1 May 2012 seeks to promote 
international cooperation. The United States uses a number of mechanisms for regulatory 
cooperation, including cooperation in standards development organizations; regulator-to-regulator dialogues, such as the International Medical Device Regulatory Forum (IMDRF); regulatory cooperation efforts through regional fora, such as APEC; bilateral initiatives, such as the 
Regulatory Cooperation Councils between the United States, and Canada and Mexico (see also 
SPS section 3); as well as mutual recognition agreements (MRAs)". Nevertheless at this stage, the EU operators still lack access to information on State level regulations and this becomes a barrier 
to entry. The EU operators lack access to information on State level regulations and this becomes 
a barrier to entry.  
Question 11: Are the U.S. consider ing the possibility of implementing a Single Point of Information 
for all new regulations, both federal and sub-federal?   RESPONSE: The United States is not aware of any effort to establish a single point of 
information for both federal and sub-federal regulations. 
 EU follow up question: When does the U.S. expect the notice related to the dairy import 
licensing rule to be published in the Federal Register? The EU would be pleased to receive further 
elements on the modification and the publication procedure. 
 
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: The proposed rule wa s published in the Federal Register on 
December 23, 2014, with comments due by February 23, 2015. It can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2014-12-23/pdf /2014-29807.pdf . 
 
 
Page 69, para 3.90 section 3.1.9.1.  Food and Drug Administration. "The FSMA authorizes 
the FDA to levy fees on certain domestic and foreign facilities and importer re-inspections". 
 
Question 12: Could the U.S. explain whether and how the FDA approach to inspecting individual foreign facilities is in line with CODEX guidelines , particularly CAC/GL 26-1997 (Guidelines for the 
design, operation, assessment and accreditatio n of food import and export inspection and 
certification systems)?  RESPONSE: The United States does not understand the question, as the CODEX 
guidelines referenced address the assessme nt and accreditation of inspection and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 238 - 
 
  certification systems rather than the fees charged for the direct inspection by the 
importing country's government. However, FDA's approach to inspecting individual facilities is consistent with all Codex Gu idelines, including those guidelines that 
recognize the importance of performing indi vidual inspections to determine conformity 
with applicable requirements whether the fac ilities are covered by a recognized official 
inspection system or not.  
EU follow up questions : Under which conditions will FDA consider to conduct systems-based 
audits as they are described in the CODEX standard mentioned, rather than conducting audits in every individual establishment? Does FDA charge similar fees for inspection of U.S. domestic 
establishments as for establishments in the EU? The EU does not charge any fees for verification 
audits in the USA. Can the U.S. comment on the discriminatory aspect of these inspection fees? 
 FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: As a matter of resources and prioritization, FDA does not 
inspect every individual establishment. FDA will continue to select establishments for 
inspection based on risk. FDA will conti nue to use a systems-based approach where 
appropriate in conjunction with an equivale nce or systems recognition determination.  
 
FDA does not charge fees for an initial inspecti on of any facility, domestic or foreign. The 
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees for certain 
reinspections of domestic and foreign facilit ies and certain importer reinspections that 
result from a previous inspection where FDA has determined that noncompliance was 
materially related to food sa fety requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act. More information can be found on FDA's website at: http://www.fda.gov/ 
Food/GuidanceRegulat ion/FSMA/ucm257982.htm . FDA has not assessed or collected 
any of these reinspection fees to date. 
Additional information may also be found here: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti cles/2014/08/01/2014-18 172/food-safety-
modernization-act-domestic-and-foreign-f acility-reinspection-recall-and-importer . 
 
As described above, the FDA's reinsp ection fees are non-discriminatory.  
 
Page 69, para 3.91 Food Safety Inspection Service.  "The United States has recognized 
35 countries with meat, poultry, and/or egg inspecti on systems equivalent to its own. According to 
the authorities these are not equivalence agreements but rather recognitions by the FSIS. In 
addition it is reported that the system does not grant either Party additional market access.  
Question 13: Could an explanation be provided on the distinction between an equivalence 
agreement and recognition by FSIS? Does this recognition imply that the recognized systems 
provide a level of protection equivalent to that provided in the U.S.?   
RESPONSE: FSIS' equivalence determinations enable another Member's competent 
regulatory authority to certify establishments that are eligible to export meat, poultry or 
processed egg products to the United St ates. FSIS does not enter into mutual 
equivalence arrangements; rather FSIS makes independent determinations based on the 
efficacy of the other Member's meat, poultr y or processed egg inspection system to 
prevent food-borne illness.  
 
EU follow up question : How many samples and inspections does FSIS need to make an 
equivalence determination related to listeria controls in ready to eat foods? Over 3.000 samples of EU hams were subjected to systematic, costly  and time-consuming analyses at U.S. entry 
inspections. Epidemiological data demonstrates identically low incidences of listeriosis in EU and 
U.S. populations. What are the conclusions drawn by FSIS from these data?  
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: The U.S. makes determ inations of equivalence by evaluating 
whether foreign food regulatory systems a ttain the appropriate level of protection 
provided by our domestic system. Thus, fore ign food regulatory systems must employ 
equivalent sanitary measures that provide the same level of protection against food 
hazards as is achieved domestically. FSIS ev aluates foreign food regulatory systems for 
equivalence through document reviews, on-sit e audits, and port-of-entry inspection of 
products at the time of importation. Port of entry inspections and samples are taken on 
a random basis to verify that foreign in spection systems are meeting U.S. import WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 239 - 
 
  requirements. U.S. health officials target in tensified sampling to the same product from 
the production establishment when a violat ion of U.S. public health standards is 
detected.   
In the case of EU hams from Italy, the listeria violations extended across multiple 
production establishments and production da tes, indicating a systemic problem. As a 
result of the serious threat to public health , U.S. officials were required to increase 
testing to 100%. Listeria continues to be an  ongoing health concern as violations were 
detected in Italian hams in late December  2014. FSIS continues to work cooperatively 
with the Italian Ministry of Hea lth to address this serious health concern and plans to lift 
the 100% testing requirements once the Italian Ministry of Health is able to effectively 
demonstrate appropriate corrective actions were taken to prev ent further listeria 
contamination.   
The report also states in the same paragraph that the Food Safety Systems Recognition 
Arrangement between the U.S. and New Zealand does not grant either party additional market access.  
 
Question 14: Could the U.S. describe the practi cal effects of such arrangement? Would this 
arrangement have any effects in relation to the implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, particularly in respect of the provisions on Foreign Supplier Verification 
Program?  
 RESPONSE: The Food Safety Systems Recognition Arrangement is between The 
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the United States Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) to safeguard public heal th and to ensure the safety and integrity 
of foods traded between the United States  and New Zealand. FDA has proposed a rule 
that lays out the proposed relationship of  systems recognition to the requirements 
under the Foreign Supplier Verification Program when certain conditions are met and documented. This proposed rule can be found at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ 
Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/UCM417133.pdf . 
 
Page 70 section 3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 
 
In accordance with the International Plant Protection Convention, Article VII, 2i, the U.S. 
established a list of regulated pests. The said Article provides that contracting parties shall keep their lists of regulated pests updated.  
 
Question 15: When conducting pest risk assessments for individual products from different countries, APHIS usually identifies further quarantine  pests, in addition to those that are listed on 
the IPPC web site. Is the pest list (published in accordance with Art VII 2i) updated accordingly? 
How does the U.S. establish and confirm the current  and lasting absence of all quarantine pests on 
their territory?   
RESPONSE: When APHIS conducts a risk assessment, it may identify further quarantine 
pests in addition to those that are listed on  IPPC web site. APHIS strives to update its 
pest list on the IPPC website, for example, most recently providin g information on the 
status of a quarantine pest, Globodera rostochiensis , on September 2014. APHIS 
establishes and confirms the current and la sting absence of quarantine pests on the 
United States through a Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program that draws on a network of public and private re sources to provide a comprehensive status 
of plant quarantine pests and diseases. 
 Page 70, para 3.93.  "On 4 March 2014, a new APHIS regulation (BSE Comprehensive Rule) 
entered into force bringing U.S. import requiremen ts generally into line with the OIE's criteria for 
classifying regions for BSE risk status (negligible, controlled, and undetermined risk). The regulation also allows APHIS to conduct its own risk assessment."  
 
Question 16: Is it the case that APHIS will always exercise the legislative possibility to carry out its own risk assessment? If not, what are the criteria used by APHIS to decide to exercise its own risk 
assessment? When a risk assessment is carried out, what are the criteria used? How is a final 
decision made as to whether to recognize the OIE status of a country? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 240 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The BSE Comprehensive Rule went in to effect in March 2014. This rule laid 
out the process by which either APHIS could concur with OIE designations of BSE risk 
status or conduct a separate risk assessmen t if requested by a country. To date, no 
country has requested a separate risk assessment, therefore none have been 
completed. APHIS has concurred with all of the OIE designations as adopted during the 
May 2013 General Session, and is evaluating the OIE designations adopted during the 
May 2014 General Session. 
 
Para 3.93  "As a result, products that were previously restricted but pose no risk to human health 
(e.g. boneless beef from countries that have had a case of BSE) may be imported into the United States, provided other import requirements are met."  
 
Question 17: Where products were previously restricted but pose no risk to human health) and where countries are listed as eligible for slaughter and processing in 9 CFR 327.2, 381.196, or 
590.910, but whose eligibility is suspended, why is  an equivalence re-verification deemed to be 
necessary? Given that this process merely represents  a return to the status quo that existed prior 
to the suspension of eligibility, it would seem to  be overly burdensome to require to impose a 
process of re-verification involving site visits. Can the U.S. provide information as to how it 
proposes to deal with other (non-BSE) TSEs?  RESPONSE: The BSE Comprehensive Rule that went into effect in March 2014 relieved 
certain restrictions related to BSE, raisin g the potential to resume importations of 
animal products previously banned due to  BSE concerns. In instances where an 
exporting country's animal slaughter and proc essing inspection system has previously 
been determined as eligible to export to the United States, but has been suspended for 
an extended period, the United States must ensure that any modifications to either the 
foreign or domestic food safety requirements  are equivalent and verified through on-site 
audits. 
 EU follow up Questions: Can the U.S. indicate a target date for the full re-instatement of trade 
in beef and small ruminants from the EU Member States in conformity with OIE standards and 
recommendations? Can U.S. confirm that adequate resources are being made available to ensure a 
swift conclusion of this re-instatement process?  
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: The date for an equivalence determination for reinstating 
beef/small ruminant is largely dependent up on the individual applicant's ability to 
provide the necessary information to FSIS in a timely manner. FSIS has a process for 
assessing the submissions for equivalence determinations. The timeline for the FSIS 
process is contingent on the completeness of the submission, as well as the presence of 
an inspection system during the in-country au dit. The United States is ensuring that the 
necessary resources are available to assess each request for reinstatement.   
 
Page 70, para 3.94  "The EPA is required to conduct a risk assessment to study the potential 
health and ecological effects of a pesticide before it can enter the U.S. market. Since 2012, the 
EPA has established 897 tolerances for pesticides on food, 827 of which are new trade facilitating 
tolerances, according to the authorities; the remainder are revised tolerances"  
Question 18: What is meant by 'trade-facilitating tolerances' in this context? How are Codex MRLs 
taken into account when establishing or  reviewing existing U.S. tolerances? 
  RESPONSE: Trade-facilitating tolerances (EPA  parlance for MRLs) refers to tolerances 
that are established where no current Codex or U.S. tolerance currently exists, or where 
the tolerance is less restrictive than an MRL established by Codex. Under U.S. law, EPA 
must take into consideration Codex tolerances when establishing U.S. tolerances and 
harmonize with Codex MRLs unless there is a sc ientific justification for deviating. During 
the rulemaking process, EPA will publish in the Federal Register a comparison with the 
Codex tolerance as well as provide a scientific justification for any deviations. The 
United States notifies these measures to  WTO Members through the SPS Committee at 
the time of publication in the Federal Register.  Page 72, para 3.104 and table 3.9, para 3.2.3. Export pr ohibitions, restrictions and 
licensing. In the table 3.9, the currently existing export restriction on natural gas and electric WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 241 - 
 
  power are listed. However, the existing export restrictions on crude oil stemming from the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 are not included.   Question 19: What is the reason for this situation and does the U.S. plan any changes to the 
existing export restrictions on crude oil and natural gas as a consequence of the increasing 
extraction of indigenous resources, especially unconventional hydrocarbons?   
RESPONSE: The United States is closely monito ring the implications of growing domestic 
energy supplies, including the economic, en vironmental and security opportunities and 
challenges that it presents. Exports of crud e oil are administered by the Department of 
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, while exports of natural gas are 
administered by the Department of Energy. With respect to natural gas, projects that 
have been approved to date w ill enable the export of up to 5.7 billion cubic feet per day 
(bcf/d) of LNG, and conditional approval has been provided for another 4.9 bcf/d, for a 
total of 10.6 bcf/d. 
 Page 85, para 3.168 on U.S. legal fr amework public procurement overview. 
The report suggests that the U.S. legal framework has not changed substantially since 2012 and 
that the main legislation remains the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act. However, it should be noted that since 2012 other legal in struments appear to have taken over the Buy 
American Act as primary vehicle of domestic preference legislation. Focus has shifted towards 
complementary domestic preference laws such as do mestic content restrictions attached to Federal 
funds (the Buy America Act). One recent ex ample is the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act (WRRDA) adopted in 2014, which imposed new and permanent Buy America 
restrictions on procurements funded by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water 
infrastructure fund – the Clean Water State-Revolving Fund.   
Question 20: Could the U.S. elaborate in detail wh at the implications of the above described law 
WRRDA are on suppliers and services providers of ot her GPA parties if they want to bid in a project 
funded by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)?   
RESPONSE: Sections 5004 and 5035 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2014 (WRRDA) require that any funds made available from a State water control 
revolving fund to be used on treatment plants or any other eligible pr ojects only use iron 
and steel products produced in the United States. However both Sections also require 
that this "be applied in a manner consiste nt with United States obligations under 
international agreements." Suppliers and service providers of other GPA parties 
maintain the same ability to participate in pr ocurements for such projects as prior to 
enactment of the WRRDA.  EU follow up questions: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a Federal entity covered by 
U.S. GPA commitments. It is understood that EPA mainly grants funding for procurement purposes 
to State entities instead of carrying out procurement itself. U.S. response contains that the recently adopted Act "WRRDA", which imposes ne w Buy America restrictions, is applied "in a 
manner consistent with United States obligatio ns under international agreements". Could the 
U.S. elaborate whether entities which are covered by U.S. GPA commitments are recipients of the funding and whether entities which are covered by  U.S. GPA commitments practically conduct the 
procurement in relation to "the clean water infrastructure fund" as well as the "the clean water 
state-revolving fund (which are funds concerned by WRRDA)? Could the U.S. explain also what 
steps the U.S. have taken to ensure compliance wi th their GPA commitments in this respect for the 
covered entities?  
 
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: Recipients of grants  made pursuant to the Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA) must adhere to all relevant 
congressionally mandated requirements. This  includes the requirements of sections 
5004 and 5035 WRRDA that the funds "be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements." 
 
It appears that there is a particular proliferation of initiatives both at U.S. Federal and State government level containing domestic content restri ctions which affect in particular infrastructure 
procurement. A number of legislative initiatives,  s u c h  a s  t h e  G r o w  A m e r i c a  A c t ,  h a v e  b e e n  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 242 - 
 
  launched in particular in 2014. Some of these initiatives demand a further rise of domestic content 
of U.S. manufactured products up to 100%.   Question 21: Does the U.S. assess the cost of su ch measures on its budget and on the-consumers 
and taxpayers? Does the U.S. consider addressing the growing trend of legislative initiatives which 
tend to impose increased local content requirements either at Federal and/or State level?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Government assesses the fi scal implications of pending legislation, 
and all branches of government in the United  States, at every level of government, take 
seriously their obligation to ensure they  are working in the best interests of 
U.S. citizens. The executive branch of the U. S. federal government does not oversee the 
legislative proposals introduc ed by members of the federa l or state legislatures. The 
United States is committed to ensuring its covered procurements are conducted 
consistent with U.S. international obligations.  
 
Page 86 Section 3.3.5.2. Procedures, para  3.178 on small business sub-contracting 
plans. 
According to the report all contracts over US$650 000 must include a small business 
subcontracting plan. It should be noted that according to "The Small Business Subcontracting Program" (http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/S ubpart%2019_7.html) a prime contractor which 
gives preference to U.S. small businesses appears to have an advantage. According to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation and the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses are defined as 
U.S. small business.  
Question 22: Could the U.S. explain how the required sub-contracting plan is prepared? Could the 
U.S. clarify whether this obligation implies a lo calisation requirement and whether any requirement 
in this context may affect negatively the opportunities of suppliers and service providers of 
GPA parties to participate successfully in U.S. government contracts? Could the U.S. explain 
whether this obligation is considered as a "sma ll business set-aside"? (According to the U.S. GPA 
commitments Annex 7 - General notes "the Agreement does not apply to set-asides on behalf of small or minority owned businesses. A set-aside may include any form of preference, such as the 
exclusive right to provide a good or service, or any price preference".) 
 RESPONSE: Subcontracting plans are required  for prime contract awardees that are 
other than small businesses for contracts or contract modifications that exceed 
US$650,000, or US$1,500,000 in the case of cons truction of a public facility. For more 
information about subcontracting plans, see SBA's regulations at 13 C.F.R. §125.3  
 
EU follow up questions:  The U.S. response contains that the requirement is addressed to prime 
contractors which are not small businesses themselves. Could the U.S. clarify whether as result of this requirement, prime contractors must choose U. S.-based small businesses as sub-contractors? 
In this context, could the U.S. also explain wh ether this sub-contracting plan requirement is 
considered to be a "small business set-aside"? As defined by U.S. GPA commitments Annex 7 - General notes, a subcontracting plan requirement would not appear to be a "set-aside". How does 
the U.S. therefore ensure that their commitments for covered entities are respected? 
 FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: A small business for pu rposes of the subcontracting plan must 
meet the definition of "business concern" defined in 13 C.F.R. § 121.105 (available at 
http://www.ecfr.gov ) and must meet the size standard for the NAICS code assigned to 
the particular subcontract by the prime co ntractor. The Agreement defines a set-aside 
on behalf of a small- or minority-owned busi ness to include any form of preference, such 
as the exclusive right to provide a good or service, or any price preference.  
  
Page 88 section 3.3.5.3. Foreign particip ation, para 3.186, Ta ble 3.21 concerning 
"Services excluded by the U.S. from trade agreements". US has excluded from the scope of its GPA commitments "operation and management contracts of 
certain Government or privately owned facilities used for Government purposes, including 
Federally funded Research and Development cent ers." For example under the GPA such services 
are excluded from scope for all government buildings. The exact scope of this exclusion is not clear. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 243 - 
 
  Question 23: Could the U.S. clarify the exact sco pe of the services covered by the following 
exemption: "operation and management contracts of certain Government or privately owned facilities used for Government purposes, includ ing Federally funded Research and Development 
centers."? For instance are IT services, buildin g-cleaning and property management services 
carved out from coverage on the basis of this exemption? 
 RESPONSE: The United States believes the langua ge in the U.S. Appendix I to the revised 
GPA is sufficiently clear.  
 EU follow-up question:  There is no clarification of the exact scope of the wording "services 
associated with the management and operation of government facilities" in U.S. GPA commitments 
(US Appendix I). Could the U.S. clarify the scope of this wording for example by references to 
U.S. law (such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation )? Could the U.S. provide practical examples of 
service contracts which are covered by the exemption concerned? For instance, are contracts for 
IT services, building-cleaning and property manage ment services carved out from coverage on the 
basis of this exemption if they are procured by  government entities for their own facilities?  
 
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: The United States beli eves the language in the U.S. Appendix I 
to the revised GPA is sufficiently clear.   Page 89 section 3.3.5.3. Foreign participatio n, para 3.188 on "access conditions to state 
procurement". According to the report, access conditions to state procurement are defined in 
state legislation and some 37 states participate in the GPA. The EU would like to ask U.S. the following questions in order to clarify in more detail what is covered by the U.S. commitments for 
those 37 states: 
 Question 24: Could the U.S. elaborate in detail what does the definition of "executive branch 
agencies of the state" cover under GPA commitments and whether it (automatically) covers all 
executive entities of the State Government with purchasing authority such as departments, divisions and offices of executive branch agencies?  
RESPONSE: The United States believes the langua ge in the U.S. Appendix I to the revised 
GPA is sufficiently clear.   
EU follow-up question: The terms "executive branch agency of the State" is commonly used in 
U.S. Appendix I. Could the U.S. clarify whether the wording "executive branch agencies of the 
State" typically covers all executive entities of th e State in question? If all executive entities are 
not covered by this wording, could the U.S. provid e examples of State legislation which define the 
relevant wordings. Could the U.S. also provide examples of State government entities which would typically fall outside this wording?  
FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: The United States beli eves the language in the U.S. Appendix I 
to the revised GPA is sufficiently clear.   
Question 25: Could the U.S. specify if for any State, entities which are not specifically listed but 
are subordinate to committed executive branch agen cies of State government are covered by the 
GPA (when they conduct procurement for themselves)?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States believes the langua ge in the U.S. Appendix I to the revised 
GPA is sufficiently clear.   
EU follow-up question: Some sub-ordinated entities are specifically named in U.S. Appendix I. 
Could the U.S. clarify for instance, to what extent State central procurement offices or central procurement agents which are not State Departments, are covered by U.S. commitments if the 
U.S. Appendix I refers to "executi ve branch agencies of State".  
 FOLLOW UP RESPONSE:  The United States believes the language in the U.S. Appendix I to the 
revised GPA is sufficiently clear.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 244 - 
 
  Page 93, table 3.23 GIs 
 Question 26: Are the U.S. considering to protect GIs (those that are not considered common names in the US) at the same level as they are protecting names of viticultural significance? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administers the U.S. trademark system and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau administers alcohol beverage 
labeling regulations. The agencies administer  distinct programs under separate legal 
authorities. Any amendments to these resp ective statutory authorities would require 
actions by the United States Congress. Th e United States protects GIs in a manner 
consistent with the TRIPS Agreement.   
 
Pages 94-95, paras 3.203 and 3.204 on the im plementation of the Leahy-Smith America 
Invents Act (AIA), and para 3. 206 on recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decisions on 
patent-eligibility subject matter. The report outlines the main features of the patent reform 
introduced by the AIA, stating that the USPTO identified AIA implementation as helping "the U.S. align with international norms". The report adds that the U.S. Administration announced a 
series of initiatives to protect innovators from "frivolous litigation". 
 Question 27: Does the U.S. plan to publish its pa tent applications within 18 months (i.e., putting 
an end to the U.S. opt-out publication system , which is not an international standard)?  
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Offi ce publishes most patent applications at 
18 months after the filing date. However, under the law (35 U.S.C. Section 122(b) (2) 
(B)(i)), if an applicant makes a request up on filing, certifying that the invention 
disclosed in the application has not and will no t be the subject of an application filed in 
another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires 
publication of applications 18 months after fi ling, the application shall not be published 
as provided in paragraph (1).   
 Question 28: To what extent are the U.S. initiatives against "frivolous litigation" (e.g., payment of 
attorneys' fees; losers pay approach) achieving re sults? What further initiatives might the U.S. 
seek to pursue?  
RESPONSE: 35 U.S.C. Section 285 provides  that the court may award reasonable 
attorney fees to the prevailing party "in exce ptional cases." In Octane Fitness v. Icon 
Health & Fitness (2014), the U.S. Suprem e Court held that whether a case is 
"exceptional" for purposes of the statute was to be determined on a case-by-case basis, 
considering the totality of the circumstances.  Question 29: Does the U.S. intend to adopt rule s as a follow up to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 
in the recent case Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON He alth & Fitness, Inc. (patent lawsuit fee-shifting)? 
Does the U.S. envisage measures to reduce patent litigation costs (e.g., avoid unnecessary discovery during certain stages of a patent trial)?  
 
RESPONSE: USPTO examination rules and guide lines are drafted to be consistent with 
U.S. law including U.S. case law preced ents such as Supreme Court decisions. 
 
Page 99 section 3.3.6.7. IP enforcement, para  3.219 on seizures of infringing imports 
and "voluntary private sector "best practices" According to the report seizures of infringing  imports increased by 53% and voluntary private 
sector "best practices" initiatives were undertaken bya number private stakeholders (financial 
services providers, internet servic e providers, advertisers, etc).  
 
Question 30: Could the U.S. describe the state of play of existing "voluntary private sector best 
practices initiatives" and the perspectives?   
RESPONSE: On June 20, 2013, the United States issued a request for public comment on 
voluntary private sector initiatives regardin g IPR protection and enforcement, and is 
currently in the process of evaluating those response. In light of this on-going review, 
the United States is not in a position to prov ide an evaluation of such initiatives at this WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 245 - 
 
  time. U.S. government IPR enforcement acti ons are distinct from voluntary private 
sector initiatives.   
 Para 3.3.6.4 Trade secret protection 
 
Question 31: Is there an established procedure fo r customs authorities to suspend the release of, 
or to detain, goods for reasons of an alleged trade secret misappropriation without a court order or 
the hearing of the holder of the goods? How are the decisions of the United States International 
Trade Commission prohibiting the import of goods on the basis of trade secret misappropriation enforced at the USA borders?  
RESPONSE: Section 499 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, provides generally that 
imported merchandise shall not be delivered  from customs custody until it has been 
examined and found to comply with the requirements of the laws of the United States, 
to include laws relating to trade secrets.  See 19 U.S.C. § 1499. Imported merchandise 
may be detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under this statute and no 
court order or hearing is required in this regard. 
 
Trade secrets may be and typically are enforced at the border under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Section 337), pursuant to which the U.S. International 
Trade Commission (ITC) may order exclusion of articles from entry when it finds 
"[u]nfair methods of competition [or] unfair ac ts in the importation of [those] articles." 
See 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1)(A). The ITC has lo ng interpreted 19 U.S.C. §1337 to apply to 
trade secret misappropriation. See e.g., Ti anRui Group Co. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322, 1326 
(Fed. Cir. 2011). CBP enforces  ITC exclusion orders related to trade secrets. See, e.g., 
Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheel s, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and 
Certain Products Containing Same , ITC Inv. 337-TA-655 (Feb. 16, 2010); Rubber Resins 
and Processes for Manufacturing Same , ITC Inv. 337-TA-849 (Jan. 15, 2014). Trade 
secret exclusion orders are enforced in th e same manner as other exclusion orders.  
 
Lastly, it should also be noted that the thef t of trade secrets related to a product or 
service used in or intended for use in inte rstate or foreign commerce is a criminal 
offense under 18 U.S.C. §1832. The theft of tr ade secrets under this section of Title 18, 
or the theft of trade secrets involving im ports or exports associated with economic 
espionage under 18 U.S.C. § 1831, is investigat ed by ICE HSI. Similarly, measures taken 
to circumvent Section 337 exclusion orders ma y constitute the basis for establishing a 
knowing importation contrary to law under 18 U.S.C. § 545 and also will be investigated 
by ICE HSI.  
 Page 101 section 4.1.1. The new 2014 farm bill  
Section 4.1.1.1. Overview 
 The WTO Secretariat reports on the General impact of the reform based on the January  2014 CBO 
baseline. 
 Question 32: What is the most recent estimate of the impact of the measures in the current year? 
Will the most recent baseline be reviewed after the farmers' sign up to the programmes? 
 RESPONSE:  The United States does not have an o fficial estimate of the impact of the 
complete Farm Bill. However, USDA's most re cently available projections were contained 
in the cost-benefit assessment (CBA) associa ted with the ARC/PLC regulation (published 
on September 26, 2014), and can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/<#!do cumentDetail;D=FSA-2014-0010-0002 . These 
projections were based on May 2014 supply and demand conditions. The President's 
Budget is released in February  each year; the President's Budget released in February 
2016 will incorporate enrollment data in estimating ARC/PLC outlays.   
 
The 2014 new farm bill contains provisions (as was the case for the 2008 bill) regarding marketing orders. These elements are not covered by the Se cretariat report but the EU considers those as 
important. The U.S. applies  marketing orders with regard to specific products, which are managed 
by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Ho wever, Marketing Orders appear to be applied on WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 246 - 
 
  the basis of criteria not based on risk assessment and not in line with international practices and 
CODEX recommendations, notably inspection of 100% of imported products. This procedure creates unnecessary delays and extra costs which are significantly higher compared to those imposed to domestic producers (notably storage costs at customs).  
 
Question 33: Could the U.S explain why, for the products covered by the Marketing Order, the 
inspections of imported products do not follow standard practices and risk assessment? Could the 
U.S. inform whether there is any intention to revise the nature of the Marketing Orders policy?  
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) inspection service determines 
quality and condition factors for produce it ems at destination markets in the United 
States. USDA partners with State agencies to provide uniform and coordinated services 
to industry members nationwide, includin g shipping point locations and ports of 
entry. Through cooperative agreements with  State agencies, USDA trains Federal and 
State inspectors, licenses State inspectors to grade and certify products on USDA's 
behalf, monitors inspection results and ma intains U.S. grade standards, inspection 
manuals and other materials, all for the purp ose of performing inspections consistently 
and uniformly. 
  
USDA and/or State personnel perform inspec tions at ports to ascertain the product's 
compliance with quality and condition factors, such as size, color, shape, and the 
presence of internal defects or external br uising and scaring. These factors impact the 
marketability of the food items, and USDA does not intend to change policies that 
reinforce performance of our services. Other U.S. Government agencies conduct safety 
inspections on imported products of all ki nds, and, because of the vast amount of 
merchandise reaching our shores, they use ri sk assessments to focus their efforts and 
maximize their resources to keep the United  States' supply of food  and other materials 
safe. 
 Question 34: Could the U.S. indicate if, for products covered by Marketing Orders, it is possible to apply other practices less economically burdensome than the 100% inspection at the port of entry? 
What is the rationale for the 100% inspection at the port of entry for those products?  
 RESPONSE: Section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 
601-674) provides that imports of certain prod ucts need to meet the same standards as 
those applied to products being handled acco rding to a federal marketing order in the 
United States.  
 
Page 103, para 4.8  reports that the new Farm Bill introduces a Margin Protection Programme for 
Dairy and a Dairy Donation Programme.   
Question 35: What specific dairy products can be subject to these programmes?  
What are the conditions, including time limits for government purchases, for the operation of the new Dairy Product Donation Programme? Assuming that there are time limits for these 
governmental purchases, what measures can be taken if the margin below US$4 per cwt of milk 
last longer than the period during which the purchases can be made? Are there any quantitative limits on the governmental purchase? 
 
RESPONSE: To be eligible for the MPP-Dair y program, a dairy operation must produce 
and market milk commercially from cows loca ted in the United States. All dairy products 
are eligible to be purchased under  the Dairy Donation Program.  
 
Purchases will cease at the end of the mo nth in which it is determined that:  
• The actual dairy production margin for the previous month is above US$4 per 
cwt; 
• Purchases have taken place fo r three consecutive months; 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds worl d prices by 5% if the actual dairy 
production margin is at or below US$4 but above US$3; or 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds worl d prices by 7%, if the margin is 
US$3 or less. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 247 - 
 
  If purchases end after three consecutive months and margins are still below US$4 per 
cwt of milk, the conditions for program acti vation must be met again. Margins will be 
tracked to determine if they remain below US$4 per cwt of milk for two additional 
months then purchases could begin again. Th is would require three months to determine 
the final margin for the two prior months sinc e publication of full month prices occurs a 
month later. The program would make purc hases for three consecutive months, cease 
operation for three months and then restart making purchases for another three months 
if margins remain below US$4 per cwt for an extended period of time and other program 
restrictions are not met.  There are no quantitative limit s on government purchases. 
 
Question 36: Are there any rules on how dairy products will be distributed to the low-income recipients?  
 
RESPONSE: Regulations for the existing USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs will govern how the products will be  distributed. Public or private nonprofit 
organizations that receive Dairy Product Dona tion Program products may transfer those 
products to other nonprofits only if the tr ansferee will likewise distribute to domestic 
low-income recipients without cost or waste,  consistent with existing FNS regulations. 
FNS regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(d)(1) provide that donated foods "be distributed only 
to recipient agencies and individual recipients  eligible to receive them" under applicable 
program regulations. FNS regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(a)(1)(ii) provide that donated foods "not be sold, exchanged or otherwis e disposed of without the approval of the 
Department."  
 Page 107 paras 4.18 and 4.19 . The WTO Secretariat reports that the new Farm Bill eliminates 
the old programme of Counter-cyclical payments (CCP) but introduces new programmes: Price 
Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Covera ge (ARC), which in nature are also counter-
cyclical. It also eliminates direct payments and export subsidies. The impact of these programmes will depend on the choices producers make (e.g. PLC vs. ARC). The Secretariat Report states: Page 
104 paragraph 4.9 reports that "The move from decoupled direct payments to deficiency-payment 
type instruments linked to current prices could potentially cause an increase in trade and production distortions".  
 
Question 37: Past counter-cyclical payments were notified as non-product specific AMS (ACRE as 
product-specific). Taking into account that the programs are linked to production (either historical 
in the PLC or to current yields in the ARC) in the Farm Bill legislation, does the U.S. consider that 
PLC and ARC are product-specific?  RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of 
WTO classification of any programs establis hed in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United will 
notify the classification of these programs as part of its official domestic support 
notification. 
 
Question 38: Can a farmer freely reallocate base acres throughout the PLC/ARC programmes 
among different commodities? Is reallocation a one-time only option as this seems to be the case 
of updating yields, or can the reallocation be done on an annual basis? 
 RESPONSE: All landowners and each farm oper ator have been provided with a summary 
of all covered commodities planted or considered planted (P&CP) during the 2008-12 
crop years as reported on form FSA-578, and have a one-time opportunity to update 
those records provided there are crop insurance records (or other verifiable 
documentation) available to support those updates. The landowner has the opportunity 
to redistribute the farm's base acres base d on a proration of ea ch covered commodity 
planted or considered planted in crop years 2009 through 2012 to the total acres of all covered commodities planted or considered plan ted during that time. This is a one-time 
decision. Upland cotton base acres are not eligible for re-allocation. For more 
information, see: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/n ewsReleases?area=newsroom 
&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=pr factsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20140925_i
nsup_en_arcplc.html .  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 248 - 
 
  Question 39: What are the restrictions, if any on planting other, non-programme products on the 
base acres?   RESPONSE: Producers who participate in the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price 
Loss Coverage (PLC) Programs are subject to  an acre-for-acre payment reduction when 
fruits (including nuts) and vegetables (e xcept mung beans, dry peas, lentils, and 
chickpeas) and/or wild rice (FAV/WR) are planted on: a) more than 15% of the base 
acres of a farm enrolled in ARC using the county coverage or PLC, or b) more than 35% 
of the base acres of a farm enrolled in ARC using the individual coverage.  More detailed information regarding FAV/WR planting restrictions on farms enrolled in 
ARC or PLC is available in the "Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage 
(PLC) Program Fruit, Vegetable and Wild Rice Provisions" fact sheet, which can be found 
on FSA's website at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom 
&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=pr factsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20140520_i
nsup_en_arcplc.html .  
 
Page 107 section 4.1.1.2.4 Marketing loan s and page 111 conservation programmes 
 Question 40: Which are the programs where benefits are tied to meeting the conservation compliance requirements? What is the proportion of subsidies that the farmers may receive under 
the particular programmes (e.g. PLC, ARC, indemnity programmes, marketing loans) that they risk 
losing in case of non-compliance?  
RESPONSE: To be eligible for marketing assi stance loans, loan deficiency payments, 
Agricultural Risk Coverage payments, Price Loss Coverage, and other program benefits, 
the producer must comply with highly erod ible land (HEL) and wetland conservation 
provisions. The conservation compliance regula tion providing a comprehensive listing of 
programs linked to conservation compliance and penalties can be found at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx? SID=4e8a90c3af45f21b887a7479eca58871& 
node=pt7.1.12&rgn=div5 .  
 
In addition, Section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill links eligibility for the premium subsidy 
paid by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporat ion (FCIC) to compliance with the highly 
erodible land (HEL) and wetland conservation  provisions of the Food Security Act of 
1985. Detailed information on conservation compliance and crop insurance may be found on RMA's website at: http://www.rma.usda.gov/news/currentissues/farmbill/ .  
 
Page 112 section 4.1.1.4.1 Food aid  
 
It is reported that in the 2013 Financial Year, the U.S. shipped 1.37 million tons of in-kind food aid 
with a total value of US$694 million to meet emergency and development food-aid needs. 
According to the 2013 report on food assistance prepared for the Food Assistance Committee by the Secretariat of the International Grains Council, the U.S. provided approx imately US$1 billion of 
the emergency assistance through in-kind food aid.  
 Question 41: Could the U.S. clarify what the precise figure is for 2013 and possibly for preceding 
years on:  
 
a) total value of in-kind food aid for emergency purposes. b) total quantity of in-kind food aid for emergency purposes. 
c) total value of in-kind food aid for non-emergency purposes. 
d) total quantity of in-kind food aid for non-emergency purposes. 
 
 
RESPONSE: See the following table on USAID Title II Programs (emergency and non-emergency) 
 
Fiscal Year (FY) Value of in-kind food aid 
(US$) Quantity of in-kind food aid (MT) 
FY2013 Emergency US$1,045,788,300 856,870 
FY2013 Non-Emergency US$299,829,500 251,130 
FY2012 Emergency US$1,174,282,800 988,337 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 249 - 
 
  Fiscal Year (FY) Value of in-kind food aid 
(US$) Quantity of in-kind food aid (MT) 
FY2012 Non-Emergency US$427,381,700 438,360 
FY2011 Emergency US$1,225,456,200 1,033,350 
FY2011 Non-Emergency US$426,277,900 428,310 
FY2010 Emergency US$1,522,550,800 1,652,790 
FY2010 Non-Emergency US$401,015,000 500,150 
USDA Programs (non-emergen cy only; USDA does not provide emergency food aid) 
 
Value of 
Assistance 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 
USDA Programs US$320,558,100 US$367,500,0
00 US$439,
200,000 US$333,
100,000 US$1,460,358,100 
 
MT of Commodities 
Shipped 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 
USDA Programs 324,760 369,085 330,814 250,960 1,275,619 
 
Para 4.44 . According to the report the 2014 Farm Bill eliminates the need to use monetization to 
generate cash in many situations and allow USAI D to reduce monetization to the 15% floor.  
 Question 42: Keeping the above in mind, could th e U.S. specify to what extent, in terms of a 
percentage of the total value on year-on-year basis, were the U.S. international food aid 
programmes monetised during the past 5 years? Are there any plans to eliminate the provision of non-emergency in-kind food aid and its monetisation, which imply a high risk of commercial displacement in local markets? 
 
RESPONSE: A limited portion of commodities  provided as in-kind assistance are 
monetized. The U.S. Government works with  the implementing organizations and the 
recipient governments to analyze the mark ets and choose commodities that will not 
disrupt local production, prices, local mark ets, or commercial trade. The selected 
commodities are intended to address shortfa lls in consumption due to limitations in 
production, trade, or income. Monetization is conducted in countries that have low 
income, high stunting rates, limited fore ign exchange, and limit ed access to trade-
financing credit. The implementing organizati ons conduct public solicitations to ensure 
that a wide range of buyers are informed and to encourage competition to ensure that 
the sales occur at price levels that do  not undercut commercial transactions.  
 Monetization offers benefits to the recipien t countries by introducing commodities that 
are not produced, or imported commercially, wi thin the country in sufficient quantity to 
meet local needs. This increases the overa ll availability of food and the nutritional 
offerings within the recipient country.  
 
Page 113, para 4.47 Export credit guarantees 
 
Question 43: Could the U.S. confirm that, following the signature of the Memorandum of 
Understanding between Brazil and the United States  related to the WTO Cotton Dispute, the Export 
Credit Guarantee Programme (GSM-102) will be amended so that the maximum tenor length would not exceed 18 months? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States is operating the GSM-102 program under the terms agreed between the United States and Brazil in the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding, 
including 18 month tenor. 
 Page 114, para 4.54. Biomass crop assistance programme The USDA FSA provides three types of incentives for bio energy crops, including woody biomass, 
which although down from US$432 M in 2010 will persist till 2018: a) up to 50% or even 75% 
(max: US$500 - US$750 per acre) for establishing crops; b) annual payments for 5 – 15 years (herbaceous:/woody perennial crops); c) US$20 - US$45/t per dry ton towards cost of collecting, 
harvesting, storing, and transporting the crop to designated biomass conversion plants.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 250 - 
 
  Question 44: Could the U.S. explain the rationale for such subsidies as the EU understands that 
they cover all stages of the biomass crop and that each component of these subsidies already 
provides U.S. producers with a comparativ e advantage vis-à-vis their competitors?  
 
RESPONSE: The Biomass Crop Assistance Program is intended to benefit the 
environment. At current funding levels, th e Biomass Crop Assistance Program is not 
expected to a ffect trade. 
 
Page 116, Agricultural tariffs an d tariff quotas (section 4.1.2) 
 The Secretariat report notes that most tariff rate quotas were under-filled (based on the 
2012 notification). It points to a particularly low fill rate for tariff rate quotas for cotton and 
tobacco (based on the notified data, the quota had a 58% fill rate).  
Question 45: Could the U.S. indicate the reasons why these quotas are largely underfilled? 
 RESPONSE: Fill rates for tariff quotas are driven  by market conditions. This can lead to 
fill rates varying significantly from one ta riff quota to another and from year to 
year. With regards to the 2012 notification, most of the tariff rate quotas with very low fill rates are administered on a first come , first-served basis. For a more detailed 
indication of the allocation methods for U.S.  tariff rate quotas, the United States would 
direct the EU's attention to G/AG/N /USA/2/add.3, dated October 5, 2001. 
 Page 121, para 4.76  
The FBO rules places an obligation on the foreign banking organisations with U.S. assets greater 
than US$50 bn to establish an Intermediate Ho lding Company (IHC) on the U.S. territory. In 
addition, foreign broker-dealers will have to be cont rolled by the IHC in the U.S. territory and, as a 
consequence of that, will be subject to additional prudential requirements (i.e. those applicable to 
BHCs) in comparison to U.S. broker-dealers an d to the supervision of FED (instead of SEC). 
 
Question 46: Could the U.S. explain the reasons for this differentiated treatment and the 
implications on the level playing field in this sector? 
 RESPONSE: Details are available in the fina l rule, available at: "Enhanced Prudential 
Standards for Bank Holding Companies and Fo reign Banking Organizations" Final Rule, 
Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR Part 252 [Regulation YY; Docket No. 1438], Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, Ma rch 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations. 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2014-03-27/html /2014-05699.htm . The Federal 
Reserve reasserted the non-discriminatory appr oach and "due regard to the principle of 
national treatment and equality of competitiv e opportunity, and to take into account the 
extent to which the foreign banking organization  is subject, on a consolidated basis, to 
home country standards that are comparable to those applied to financial companies in 
the United States". (Federal Register Vo l. 79, no 59. p. 17241) This was also a 
requirement of Dodd-Frank Act Section 165 . 
 
Page 121, para 4.77. The G20 guidance from St. Petersburg summit (September 2013), as 
reinforced in the Brisbane Communique (November 2014) and Path Forward reached between the 
European Commission and CFTC regarding the joint understanding on package of measures on 
how to approach cross-border derivatives (July 2013) stipulate that jurisdictions and regulators should be able to defer to each other when it is justified by the quality of their respective regulation and enforcement regimes.  
 
Question 47: How has the United States taken in account the G20 guidance and the Path forward on deference in practice, in the implementation of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act on derivatives?  
 
RESPONSE: Consistent with the G-20 guidance, the United States supports the use of deference regarding OTC derivatives when it is  justified by the quality of the respective 
regulatory and enforcement regime, is based on similar outcomes, is non-discriminatory, 
and pays due respect to home country regu lation regimes. Of note, CFTC staff has 
provided extensive regulatory relief—princi pally through the issuance of no-action 
letters—to global market participants operatin g in foreign jurisdictions that do not yet 
have comparable rules in place.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 251 - 
 
  GUATEMALA 
  1) ¿Qué estrategia de exportación de productos energéticos ha implementado EEUU, frente a la 
creciente producción interna de gas y petróleo?  
 RESPONSE: The United States is closely monito ring the implications of growing domestic 
energy supplies, including the economic, en vironmental and security opportunities and 
challenges that it presents. Exports of crud e oil are administered by the Department of 
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, while exports of natural gas are administered by the Department of Energy. With respect to natural gas, projects that 
have been approved to date w ill enable the export of up to 5.7 billion cubic feet per day 
(bcf/d) of LNG, and conditional approval has been provided for another 4.9 bcf/d, for a 
total of 10.6 bcf/d. 
 
2) ¿Qué expectativas se tiene a corto plazo respecto de la renovación del Mandato para promover el Comercio (TPA)?  
 
RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation. 
 
3)  De acuerdo con el reporte de la Secretaría, la puesta en marcha de la Iniciativa sobre la 
Seguridad de la Carga (SFI) ha sido aplazada hasta 2016. En caso de aprobarse su entrada en vigencia al finalizar este período, ¿qué acciones se tendría pensado llevar a cabo para no generar 
retrasos y gastos adicionales en el despacho de mercancías?  
 RESPONSE: The Secretary of Homeland Security under his authority has extended the 
deadline until at least May 5, 2016, and furthe r legislation is not needed to extend it 
again. The Secretary of Homeland Security  has the authority to extend the deadline 
again at that time under the conditions outlined in the statute, without further 
legislation . 
 
4) En relación con la Ley de Modernización de la de las normas de la FDA sobre la inocuidad de los alimentos (FSMA), ¿cómo planea trabajar la FDA con las autoridades y entes acreditadores de 
terceros países, en la implementación de un programa de acreditación por auditores 
independientes (terceros) ?  
RESPONSE: U.S. Food and Drug Administrati on has issued a proposed rule that sets 
eligibility requirements for recognition as an  accreditation body. An accreditation body 
can be a foreign government agency or a pr ivate-sector (third-party) body. In either 
case, it must also meet standards for le gal authority, competency and capacity, 
impartiality and objectivity, quality assuranc e, and records procedures program. More 
information is provided at the link: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ 
FSMA/ucm361903.htm . 
 
5) En nuevas negociaciones comerciales, ¿cómo asegura EEUU que no se erosionen los beneficios acordados bajo TLC anteriores en materia de reglas de origen?  
 
RESPONSE: Rules of origin ensure that partner countries receive the benefits negotiated under FTA preferential market access arra ngements. Rules of origin in new trade 
negotiations do not erode any of the benefits negotiated in previous FTAs but facilitate 
market access arrangements negotiated with new trading partners. 
 6) Con relación al tema de asistencia técnica para la implementación del Acuerdo sobre 
Facilitación de Comercio, ¿piensa Estados Unidos formar parte de los donantes para la nueva 
"Unidad del Acuerdo sobre la Facilitación de Comercio" creada por el Director General para apoyar a países en desarrollo y PMAs en la implementación del Acuerdo?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States has is committed to helping support developing countries' implementation of the TFA. Bilaterally, we h a v e  w o r k e d  w i t h  o v e r  2 7  c o u n t r i e s  i n  
conducting WTO Trade Facilitation needs a ssessments, and nineteen countries have 
received U.S. assistance under the continuing  Partnership for Trade Facilitation. We are WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 252 - 
 
  also providing support in other ways, such as our contribution to the World Bank 
Group's Trade Facilitation Support Program. We welcome the effort by the Director 
General to establish a new WTO "Facility" to help developing countries and LDCs 
implement the TFA. We have already begun discussions with the WTO Secretariat to 
determine how those programs can inform an d work with the new WTO mechanism. We 
will also be sharing our knowledge and best  practices in delivery of assistance 
programs. 
 
7) En cuanto a la participación de Estados Unidos en la iniciativa de las negociaciones plurilaterales sobre bienes ambientales, ¿cómo afecta rá esta iniciativa en cuanto a su participación 
y compromiso en las negociaciones dentro del Co mité de Comercio y Medio Ambiente en Sesión 
Especial? 
 RESPONSE: The United States sees no conflict between the EGA negotiations and the 
CTE-SS' work to liberalize trade in envi ronmental goods. The recently launched 
EGA negotiations present a unique opportun ity to add impetus and energy to the 
multilateral trading system. The EGA is bein g negotiated by a group of WTO Members 
committed to liberalization in this sector , but the benefits will accrue to all 
WTO Members, as the participants plan to e liminate tariffs on agreed products on an 
MFN basis.   
8) En el tema de Agricultura, ¿cuándo presentará las notificaciones o realizará las 
actualizaciones pendientes sobre las subvenciones a la exportación, ayuda interna y utilización de 
contingentes arancelarios?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States submits each  of these annual notifications to the 
Committee on Agriculture each year. The United  States recently submitted its domestic 
support notification, G/AG/N/USA/100, dated December 8, 2014. Please see 
G/AG/N/USA/99, dated November 5, 2014, for the latest U.S. notification on export 
subsidies. On tariff quotas, please see G/AG /N/USA/94, dated February 5, 2014 for the 
latest MA:2 notification on quota fill.  
 
9) Observamos que un aspecto importante dentro de su política comercial es el tema de las consideraciones relativas a los trabajadores y a la protección al medio ambiente.  
En cuanto al tema de las consideraciones relativas a los trabajadores, quisiéramos saber lo 
siguiente:  a. ¿Cuáles son los derechos básicos que protege Estados Unidos? En especial, nos gustaría 
saber si Estados Unidos ofrece protección a los trabajadores en temas como vacaciones, 
bonificaciones obligatorias, salarios mínimos y seguridad en el trabajo.   RESPONSE: U.S. laws protect internationally recognized labor rights, such as the right of 
association, the right to organize and bargai n collectively, a prohibition on the use of 
any form of forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for employment of children and 
the prohibition and elimination of the worst fo rms of child labor, acceptable conditions 
of work with respect to minimum wages, ho urs of work, and occupational safety and 
health, elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.  
 
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ( http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa ) is the Federal law 
that sets minimum wage ( http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm ) 
standards. The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt workers is US$7.25 per 
hour. For more information on the FLSA, see http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/ 
wages/index.htm . The FLSA does not address nonp roduction cash bonuses-payments 
that are not production-based. Vacations,  bonuses, and breaks are a matter of 
agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee's 
representative). If bonus payments are made , the FLSA, with some exceptions, requires 
b o n u s  p a y m e n t s  t o  b e  i n c l u d e d  a s  p a r t  o f  a n  e m p l o y e e ' s  r e g u l a r  r a t e  o f  p a y  i n  computing overtime.  
 
The laws relating to occupational safety an d health are found primarily in two statutes, 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, (OSH) Act (https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasr ch.search_form?p_doc_type=OSHACT ), 
and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (Mine Act) WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 253 - 
 
  (http://www.msha.gov /REGS/ACT/ACTTC.HTM ). The OSH Act was enacted to "assure 
safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women." The OSH Act 
created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
(http://www.osha.gov/ ) at the federal level and provided that states could run their 
own safety and health programs as long as th ose programs were at least as effective as 
the federal program. Safety and health co nditions in most private industries are 
regulated by the OSHA within the U.S. Depa rtment of Labor (USDOL) or OSHA-approved 
state plans ( https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html ). The Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) ( http://www.msha.gov/ ) within the USDOL has responsibility 
for administration and enforcement of the Mine Act, which protects the safety and 
health of workers employed in the nation's  mines. The Act applies to all mining and 
mineral processing operations in the United  States, regardless of size, number of 
employees, or method of extraction.   
b. En cuanto al tema de la protección al derecho a la libre asociación de trabajadores y 
creación de sindicatos, nos gustaría saber cuáles son los requisitos y procedimientos legales para la inscripción y formación de sindicatos? ¿Existe algún tiempo específico para la inscripción de un 
sindicato? ¿Gozan los trabajadores que participan y solicitan la inscripción de un sindicato de algún 
tipo de protección contra represalias?  RESPONSE: There is no requirement under U.S. law that a union be registered in order to 
be recognized, nor are there any general cond itions that must be fulfilled by workers' 
and employers' organizations when they ar e being established. The National Labor 
Relations Act (NLRA), which is administered by the National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB), guarantees employees "the right to se lf organization, to form, join, or assist 
labor organizations; to bargain collectiv ely through representatives of their own 
choosing; and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective 
bargaining or other mutual aid…". The NLRA pr ovides that it is an unfair labor practice 
for an employer to "interfere with, restrain , or coerce" employees in the exercise of 
these rights. For more information on the NLRB and the NLRA, see http://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act .  
 
c. En cuanto a las inspecciones de trabajo, quisiéramos saber ¿Con cuántos inspectores de 
trabajo cuenta Estados Unidos para verificar el cumplimiento de la legislación laboral en su país? 
 
RESPONSE: The OSHA has approximately 2,200  federal and state-plan inspectors, the 
Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has over 1, 000 investigators, and the MSHA has about 
1,100 inspectors.  
 d. ¿Cuáles son los procedimientos especiales administrativos y judiciales con los que cuenta Estados Unidos para la resolución de asuntos laborales?  
 
RESPONSE:  Procedures in the Private Sector 
The NLRB is an independent Federal agency  that enforces the NLRA, including the 
provisions related to collective bargaining and the right to strike to secure better 
working conditions. The NLRB consists of  a five-member board and an independent 
General Counsel. An individual, a union, or  employer initiates a case concerning 
NLRA-covered unfair labor practices by filing a charge with an NLRB Regional Office. The 
charge is investigated by the regional offi ce on behalf of the General Counsel, and if 
determined that the charge has merit, the Regi onal Director will first seek to remedy the 
violation by proposing terms of a settlem ent agreement which fully remedies the 
meritorious allegations.   
If a case is not settled, a formal complaint is  issued by the Regional Office and a hearing 
is held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ then issues a decision which 
includes an order. If a party fails to comply  with the order, the General Counsel's office 
files an enforcement petition in the United States District Court of Appeals. For more 
information on the process, see: http: //www.nlrb.gov/resources/nlrb-process.  
 The Railway Labor Act (RLA) protects the free dom of association and organizing rights 
of employees in the railroad and airline industries. The RLA sets forth specific WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 254 - 
 
  procedures, including mandatory mediation, th at must be followed before a strike or 
lockout can take place in those industries. The RLA is administered by the National 
Mediation Board (NMB), an independent U.S. Federal-government agency that facilitates 
labor-management relations within the nati on's railroad and airline industries. The 
NMB is headed by a three-member board. Pursuant to the RLA, NMB programs provide 
dispute-resolution processes to effectivel y meet its statutory objectives: avoiding 
interruption to commerce or to the operatio n of any carrier; forbidding any limitation 
upon freedom of association among employee s; providing for the prompt and orderly 
settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; and 
providing for the prompt and orderly settl ement of all disputes growing out of 
grievances related to the implementation and management of collective bargaining 
agreements. For more information on the NMB and the RLA, see: http://www.nmb.gov/ .  
 
Procedures in the Public Sector 
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is an independent administrative federal 
agency created by Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (the Statute: 
http://www.flra.gov/statute_about ). The Statute allows ce rtain non-postal federal 
employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate throug h labor organizations 
of their choice in decisions affecting their working lives. The Postal Reorganization Act 
governs labor-management relati ons in the Postal Service. 
 
The Statute defines and lists the rights of employees, labor organizations, and agencies 
so as to reflect the public interest dema nd for the highest standards of employee 
performance and the efficient accomplishment of Government operations. Specifically, 
the Statute requires that its provisions "s hould be interpreted in a manner consistent 
with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government."   
The Statute establishes distinct components within the FLRA, including the Authority, 
the Office of the General Counsel of the Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses 
Panel. The FLRA structure also includes an Office of Administrative Law Judges. These 
components are depicted below in the orde r in which cases gene rally process through 
the FLRA. The business of the FLRA, and t hus the FLRA mission, is to carry out 
five (5) primary statutory responsibilities as efficiently as possible and in a manner that 
gives full effect to the rights afforded em ployees and agencies under the Statute. Those 
five primary responsibilities are: resolving complaints of unfair labor practices; 
determining the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation; 
adjudicating exceptions to arbitrators' awards ; adjudicating legal issues relating to the 
duty to bargaining; and, resolving  impasses during negotiations.  
 Federal Mediation Services 
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Servic es (FMCS), has responsibility for assisting 
parties to labor disputes, at their request, to settle such disputes through conciliation 
and mediation. FMCS has no enforcement author ity. It may offer its services in a labor 
dispute, either on its own or at the reques t of one or more of the parties. When the 
FMCS does assist parties to resolve their labor-management disputes, it does so by 
providing an experienced mediator. The medi ators provided by FMCS are neutral third 
parties, employed by FMCS and they have no authority or responsibility to impose a 
government solution or recommendation. For more information, see 
http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/ .  
 
e. ¿Cómo se asegura la tutelaridad del trabajador  dentro del ámbito laboral? ¿Los trabajadores 
necesitan de un abogado para iniciar un proceso laboral para reclamar sus derechos?  
 RESPONSE: Workers do not need a lawyer to request enforcement of their rights nor to 
have their labor rights enforced.  
 The WHD of the USDOL administers and enfo rces the FLSA with respect to private 
employment. Workers may file a complaint fr ee of charge with the WHD by contacting 
the local Wage and Hour Division office ( http://www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm ), or 
by calling the program's toll-free help line at 1-866-4USWAGE (1 -866-487-9243). The 
WHD conducts investigations in response to complaints but also conducts investigations 
on its own of certain types of businesses or industries. Workers do not need a lawyer to WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 255 - 
 
  file complaints with the WHD. All complaints  are confidential; the name of the worker 
and the nature of the complaint are not disclosable. See 
http://www.dol.gov/WHD/workers.htm#complaint . WHD attempts to get the worker 
fully compensated; however, if a meritori ous case cannot be settled the USDOL may 
bring suit on behalf of the worker agains t the employer. For more information, see 
http://www.dol.gov/whd/re gs/compliance/hrg.htm . Alternatively, an employee may 
file a lawsuit pro se , or in the employee's own name, without an attorney.  
 
Employees or their representatives have a righ t to request an inspection of a workplace 
if they believe there is a violat ion of a safety or health standard, or if there is any danger 
that threatens physical harm, or if an  "imminent danger." The OSH Act gives 
complainants the right to request that their names not be revealed to their 
employers. OSHA compliance safety and heal th officers conduct inspections without 
advance notice, either in response to a comp laint or as part of planned or programmed 
inspections. Complaints can be filed Online Complaint Form 
(https://www.osha.gov/pls/osha7/eComplaintForm.html)  or by contacting a local 
O S H A  R e g i o n a l  o r  A r e a  O f f i c e  ( https://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html ). For more 
information on OSHA enforcement, see https://www.osha.gov/dep/index.html .  
 
An individual, a union, or employer can initia te an unfair labor practice case under the 
NLRA by filing a charge with an  NLRB regional office. The ch arge is investigated by the 
regional office on behalf of the Genera l Counsel to determine whether there is 
reasonable cause to believe that the NLRA has been violated. For more information see 
above, or see http://www.nlrb.gov/what-we -do/investigate-charges .  
 
f.  Como parte de esta política comercial, ¿piensa Estados Unidos ratificar los convenios fundamentales y los convenios de gobernanza de la OIT?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States has ratifi ed two of the ILO's eight fundamental 
conventions (Convention 105 on the abolition of forced labor and Convention 182 on the 
worst forms of child labor) and one of the four so-called governance conventions 
(Convention 144 on tripartite consultation). Alth ough it does not anticipate that it will 
ratify any additional ILO conventions in the coming year, the United States has 
demonstrated consistently that U.S. law and practice is largely compatible with almost 
all ILO standards. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 256 - 
 
  HONDURAS 
  GOVERNMENT REPORT WT/TPR/G/307 
 
3. APERTURA Y RENDICION DE CUENTAS: MAS APOYO A FAVOR DEL COMERCIO  
Página 9, párrafo 3.3 
 Question 1:  A que se refiere el termino relativo a: "incluidas las cuestiones relativas a los 
productos básicos (por ejemplo el café y el caucho) y siempre que guarden relación con los temas 
comerciales". 
 RESPONSE: USTR has the lead responsibilit y for the conduct of, and is the chief 
representative of the United States for, a ll international trade negotiations, including 
those related to commodities, such as coff ee, sugar, and cocoa. USTR also advises the 
President and Congress with respect to  international commodity agreements.  
 
Question 2: Que debemos entender por "siempre que guarden relación con temas comerciales", y lo referente a la inversión directa?  
RESPONSE: In relation to investment, USTR  leads the negotiation of the investment 
chapters of U.S. free trade agreements and co-leads the negotiation of bilateral 
investment treaties with the U.S. Depa rtment of State. USTR also leads the 
U.S. delegation in investment policy dialog ues in the context of APEC and the NAFTA, 
and participates in investment discussion s in other international fora. USTR also 
routinely engages with U.S. trading partners  on country-specific investment barriers, 
through Trade and Investment Framework Agreements and other bilateral dialogues. 
 Question 3: En lo referente a: "Este organismo ha evolucionado de manera que, en la actualidad, consta de comités de tres niveles que constituyen el mecanismo principal para fijar y coordinar la 
posición oficial de los Estados Unidos en asuntos de comercio internacional e inversiones 
relacionados con el comercio" ¿Quién co nforma el comité de tres niveles? 
 
RESPONSE: The Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee 
(TPSC), administered and chaired by USTR, are the subcabinet interagency trade policy 
coordination groups that are central to this process. The TPSC is the first-line operating 
group, with representation at the senior civil service level. Supporting the TPSC are 
more than 80 subcommittees responsible for specialized issues and these subcommittees represent the third tier.  
4 EVOLUCCION DE LA POLITICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2012 
 Página 14, párrafo 4.10 
 
Question 4: -¿Podrían ampliar la información relacionada con las cuestiones nuevas y emergentes que se ocupa el Acuerdo de Asociación transpacífico?  
 
RESPONSE: In order for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement to achieve the greatest possible impact in opening markets,  promoting growth, and deepening regional 
economic integration, it must address ne w and emerging issues that traders and 
investors face in the region today. T PP members, recognizing that, have made 
negotiation of a "21
st -century" agreement one of our shar ed objectives for TPP. Some of 
these new and emerging issues will be reflec ted in new commitments in such areas as 
State-owned enterprises, digital commerce, regu latory coherence, and work to facilitate 
development. We also have expanded or up dated work from previous agreements to 
reflect new issues or shared concerns, includ ing on intellectual property, environment, 
and labor. Through these efforts, TPP part ners hope to achieve an agreement that 
promotes regional economic integration, ec onomic growth and development, prosperity, 
and jobs.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 257 - 
 
  Question 5:  ¿Se incluyen los temas de telecomunicaciones, inversión, servicio, financieros en dicho 
acuerdo?  RESPONSE: Yes. 
 
Question 6: ¿Qué significa el termino "la coherencia en asuntos de Reglamentación"?  
RESPONSE: In the Trans-Pacific Partnershi p (TPP) agreement, regulatory coherence 
refers to commitments in the agreement to help ensure that trade across the agreement 
is more seamless and that differing regulato ry approaches across the TPP region do not 
impede trade. It also refers to the use of good regulatory practices in the process of 
developing, implementing and reviewing regu latory measures in order to facilitate 
achievement of domestic policy measures, as  well as to efforts across government to 
enhance regulatory cooperation to further th ese objectives and promote trade, growth 
and employment.  
 8 COMERCIO DE LAS PEQUEÑAS Y MEDIANAS EMPRESAS 
Página 32, párrafo 8.2 
 Question 7: -¿Podría ampliar acerca de los princi pales bienes y servicios exportados por las Pymes 
Estadounidenses (1% de las Pymes que exportan) y los principales países de destino de dichos 
bienes y servicios?  
 RESPONSE: Leading goods export markets for U.S. small and medium sized enterprises 
are: Mexico (US$60.9 billion, 2012 export va lue for SMEs), Canada (US$56.4 billion), 
China (US$39.2 billion), Japan (US$20.7 billio n), United Kingdom (US$17.6 billion). For 
further information on leading goods exports commodities by U.S. SMEs, go to 
http://tse.export.gov/edb/Sele ctReports.aspx?DATA=ExporterDB ;  
and http://www.census.gov/foreign -trade/Press-Release/edb/2012/ . 
 
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT: WT/TPR/S/307 
 2. RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
 2.1.1. Mandato de Pr omover el Comercio 
 Página 26, Párrafo 2.6  
Question 8:  ¿Influye la política en la aprobación de un nuevo mandato de Promover el Comercio. 
 RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 
2.3.2 Acuerdos Regionales y Preferenciales Página 32, Párrafo 2.20 
 
Question 9:  El Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con la Unión Europea reducirá el porcentaje arancelario 
en régimen NMF, ¿Cuál beneficia más a los EUA, el que se realiza en libre comercio o el que se 
lleva a cabo en régimen NMF?. 
 RESPONSE: A concluded T-TIP agreement will liberalize trade between tehe Parties. 
However, there can be no substitute for an ambitious, trade liberalizing result at the 
multilateral level. 
 Página 11, párrafo 5 
 
Question 10: Podría EUA ampliar ¿Cual era el objetivo abarcado por los dos pilares tradicionales de apoyo al mercado de los productos lácteos que fueron eliminados a la luz de la 
nueva Ley de agricultura. 
 RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill eliminated th e Dairy Product Price Support Program and 
the Dairy Export Incentive Program. The Da iry Product Price Support Program provided 
a standing offer by the government to buy da iry products whenever market prices fell WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 258 - 
 
  below the supported price. Its purpose was to  keep dairy product prices from falling to 
extremely low levels. The Dairy Export Ince ntive Program provided bonuses to dairy 
product exporters to enable dairy product ex ports when U.S. dairy product prices were 
above world market prices.  
 
Página 12, párrafo 11  
Question 11:  ¿Cuáles son los principios sobre los cuales se están desarrollando los nuevos 
reglamentos en materia de inocuidad en f unción de la nueva Ley de Agricultura?  
 
RESPONSE: The new Farm Bill does not contain the food safety provisions discussed in 
paragraph 11. Rather, paragraph 11 discusse s the Food Safety & Modernization Act 
(FSMA). The key elements of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) are preventive controls, inspection and compliance, imported  food safety, response to food safety 
issues, and enhanced partnerships. The U.S.  Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is 
developing policies in each of these areas to implement the law. FDA has issued several proposed rules, including: Preventive Contro ls for Human Food, Preventive Controls for 
Animal Food, Produce Safety Standards, Foreign Supplier Verification Program, 
Accreditation of Third Party Auditors, Sanitary Transport of Food and Feed, and Intentional Contamination. FDA is currently  working on finalizing these proposals as 
well as drafting other proposed rules, as directed by FSMA. FSMA is discussed in 
paragraphs 3.86 to 3.90 in WT/TPR/G/307. More information can be found on FDA's 
website at http://www.fda.gov/Food/Guidanc eRegulation/FSMA/default.htm .  
 
Question 12: Cual es la definición de "la utilización de normas consensuales voluntarias como 
base para los reglamentos técnicos.?   
RESPONSE: OMB Circular A-119 (1998) provides  that "use" means incorporation of a 
standard in whole, in part, or by reference for procurement purposes, and the inclusion of a standard in whole, in pa rt, or by reference in regulation(s). The National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) an d Circular A-119 (1998) direct Federal 
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards, in lieu of government-developed 
standards, except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. Thus, where a 
Federal agency determines that mandatory compliance with a standard is needed to 
address a particular public policy objective, it shall rely on voluntary consensus 
standards rather than developing its ow n unique standard. Federal agency use of 
voluntary consensus standards is summarized in annual reports prepared by NIST, in 
collaboration with the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP). The link to 
NTTAA Annual reports is: http://standards.gov/NTT AA/agency/index.cfm? 
fuseaction=NTTAAReports.main .  
 
2 REGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSION 
2.1 Marco General  Página 26, párrafo 2.2 y 2.3  
 
Question 13: -¿Favor indicar los nombres de los 14 organismos y oficinas del poder ejecutivo que forma parte del grupo de Examen de Política Comercial (TPRG) y del Comité Técnico de 
Política Comercial (TPSC). 
 RESPONSE: Member agencies of the TPSC and the TPRG consist of the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, State, Treasury, Labor, Ju stice, Defense, Interior, 
Transportation, Energy, Health and Huma n Services, Homeland Security, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Office  of Management and Budget, the Council of 
Economic Advisers, the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, the Small Busine ss Administration, the National Economic 
Council, and the National Security Council. Th e U.S. International Trade Commission is a 
non-voting member of the TPSC and an obse rver at TPRG meetings. Representatives of 
other agencies also may be invited to attend meetings depending on the specific issues 
discussed.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 259 - 
 
  2.4.3 Reglamentaciones y Restriccion es en Materia de Inversiones. 
 2.4.3.1 Comité de Inversiones Extran jeras en los Estados Unidos (CFIUS) 
Página 41, Párrafo 2.52  
 
Question 14: ¿En la actualidad se han denegado la solicitud de información por amenazas de seguridad? 
 
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determinin g whether a transaction raises national 
security concerns, and a general description of  the types of transactions that CFIUS has 
reviewed and that have presented national se curity considerations is available in the 
official guidance that Treasury pub lished on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  
(and available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-investm ent/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in the CFIUS statut e, executive order, regulation, and in the 
guidance document noted above, all of which are available at www.treasury.gov/cfius .  
 
3 POLITICA Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS  
3.1.4.1 Nomenclatura Página 52, Párrafo 3.32  
Question 15: -¿Podría ampliar lo relativo a las pe lículas fotográficas que afectan el capítulo 37 
(SA 3702.96, 3702.97 y 3702.98)?, en lo relativo a la introducción de los cambios del SA2012?  
RESPONSE: Pursuant to section 1205 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, the U.S. International Trade Commissio n conducted an investigation and sought 
public comment on the proposed changes. No requests for changes to the Commission's 
recommendation were received. The required Congressional layover period has been completed. The omitted HTS provisions are ex pected to be proclaimed by the President 
by the end of 2014, and it is expected that the effective date of these modifications will 
be February 3, 2012, the date on which the other 2012 changes to the Harmonized 
System were reflected in the HTS by Presiden tial Proclamation 8771. No change in duty 
treatment would result upon the implementation of the omitted provisions.  
Página 53, párrafo 3.34 
 Question 16: ¿Por qué motivos no se ha aprobado ni certificado los cambios del SA 2017 y SA 
2012 en la lista de Estados Unidos de América en la OMC? 
 Página  53, párrafo 3.35 
 
Question 17: -¿A qué cambios de nomenclatura se refiere los que fueron introducidos por los 
EUA en el sector de calzado)  
RESPONSE TO 16 AND 17: The United Stat es will be notifying the Committee on 
Market Access of modifications to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect changes to 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United  States as soon as possible. For further 
reference, the footwear nomenclature change s from late 2011 will be included in the 
certification of 2012 nomenclature changes.  The footwear changes are shown in the 
U.S. International Trade Commission we bsite section on HTS modifications: 
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/modifications_hts.htm . 
 
Specifically, the full text of the Presiden tial Proclamation regarding the footwear 
changes is published in the Federal Regist er, available at the following website: 
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/hts_documents/PP8742.pdf .  
 
3.1.6.2 Licencias de Importación 
Página 61, párrafo 3.38  
 Question 18: -¿Cuáles aspectos del programa de licencias de importación para los productos lácteos, han sido modificados por la norma propuesta por el Departamento de Agricultura de los 
Estados Unidos de América? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 260 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The most recent change to the dairy import-licensing program was 
in 2010. On February 6, 2013, USDA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, asking for public comment on ch anges to the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota 
Licensing Program. USDA is reviewing those comments. 
 
3.1 Medidas que afectan Directamente a las Importaciones  3.1.7 Medidas Antidumping, Comp ensatorias y de Salvaguardia 
3.1.7.1 Medidas Antidumping, Compensatorias 
Página 66, párrafo 3.64  Question 19: -¿Podría explicar la delegación de Estados Unidos, en qué consiste los cambios 
que introdujo el departamento de Comercio en sus prácticas, citada en el pie de página 58? 
 RESPONSE: The document referenced in foot note 58 identifies two changes in how the 
U.S. Department of Commerce conducts anti dumping administrative reviews. The first 
change refines Commerce's pr actice with respect to the methodology for respondent 
selection in certain antidumping duty proc eedings. The second change in practice 
involves the discontinuation of the conditio nal review of the nonmarket economy entity. 
Now, if an interested party wants Commerce to conduct such a review, it must request a review of the entity in accordance with  Commerce's regulations. More detailed 
information regarding these changes in practice can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-11-04/html /2013-26266.htm   
 
Question 20: -¿Cuáles son los cambios anunciados en la investigación sobre derechos 
antidumping en relación con la selección de los declarantes en los procedimientos de examen 
administrativo, para determinar la tasa antidumping aplicable y su conformidad con el Acuerdo Antidumping OMC? 
 
RESPONSE: The question is unclear to the United St ates. If Honduras's question refers to 
whether these changes are consistent with the WTO Antidumping Agreement, the United 
States administers all aspects of  its trade remedy laws in accordance with the applicable 
WTO agreements.  
 Página 66, párrafo 3.65 
 
Question 21: -¿A qué disposiciones reglamentarias previamente retiradas que regulan al Dumping selectivo, se refiere la decisión judicial citada en el pie de página 60? 
 
RESPONSE: This information was notified to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.16 - G/SCM/N/1/US A/1/Suppl.16 (dated May 19, 2014). In 
those documents, the United States referenc ed the U.S. Court of International Trade's 
decision in Gold East (Jiangsu) Paper Co. v.  United States, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (2013).  
 
3.1.7.2 Examen por Extinción  
Página 70 párrafo 3.71  
Question 22: -¿Podría enumerar los elementos o criterios más relevantes a considerar, 
establecidos en los procedimientos internos de examen, para determinar si los derechos deben o no seguir aplicándose?  
RESPONSE: In determining whether revocation of an order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material inju ry within a reasonably foreseeable time, the 
U.S. International Trade Commission consider s the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 
U.S.C. § 1675a(a). In determin ing whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or 
an antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy or sales of the subjec t merchandise at less than fair value, the 
U.S. Department of Commerce considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. 
§§ 1675a(b) and (c).  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 261 - 
 
  3.1 Medidas que afectan Directamente a las Importaciones  
3.1.8 Reglamentos y Normas Técnicas a las Importaciones  Página 71, párrafo 3.76  
Question 23: -¿Podrían ampliarse la función y/o participación de los órganos de 
reglamentación federal en la practicas de reglamentación?   
RESPONSE: The U.S. Administrative Proced ure Act of 1946 established the regulatory 
process for all regulations of general app lication. Subsequent executive orders and 
government circulars have established ce rtain procedures and timelines for the 
rulemaking process. A full description of the U.S. rulemaking process can be found 
online: 
https://www.federalregister.gov/upload s/2011/01/the_rulemaki ng_process.pdf?utm_
source=APHA&utm_medium=APHA&utm_term=APHA&utm_content=APHA&utm_campa
ign=APHA . 
 
Question 24:  ¿Son los órganos de reglamentación federal, nuevos organismos nacionales 
para emitir regulaciones? 
 RESPONSE: The Unified Agenda provides unifo rm reporting of data on regulatory and 
deregulatory activities under development th roughout the Federal government, covering 
approximately 60 departments, agencies, and commissions. Each edition of the Unified 
Agenda includes regulatory agendas from all Federal entities that currently have regulations under development or  review. Fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the 
Regulatory Plan, which presents agency st atements of regulatory priorities and 
additional information about the most signif icant regulatory activities planned for the 
coming year. The Unified Agenda can be found at http://www.reginfo.gov .  
 
Question 25:  ¿Cuál es la definición de "normas consensuales voluntarias?  RESPONSE: The definition of the term "vol untary consensus standard" is included in 
section 4 of Circular A-119 (1998), which can be found online: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/ . 
 
Question 26: ¿Las normas consensuales voluntarias, son notificadas a la OMC para la 
respectiva consulta internacional, en caso de tener carácter de obligación o a los organismos de normalización en caso de ser voluntarios? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States notifies all te chnical regulations to the WTO, including 
technical regulations based on voluntary consensus standards. 
 
Página 72 Párrafo 3.77 
 Question 27: -En relación al párrafo 3.77 de Reglamentos y Normas Técnicas (3.1.8), se 
agradece ampliar el concepto de "marcada preferencia". 
 RESPONSE: Paragraph 3.77 refers to proposed revisions to Circular A-119 (1998). The 
proposed revisions to Circular A-119 would establish a general preference for using 
voluntary consensus standards in Federal regulation and for other Federal agency uses. The current Circular prefers voluntary co nsensus standards over  government-unique 
standards (as required under Section 12(d) of the NTTAA). The proposed revisions to 
the Circular continue this preference and establish a further preference for voluntary 
consensus standards over other types of stan dards (including voluntary standards that 
are developed by voluntary non-consensus bodi es). In proposing these revisions, it is 
acknowledged that other types of standard s, including those developed by voluntary 
non-consensus bodies, are in use in the ma rketplace and may be relevant in meeting 
agency missions and priorities and that und er such circumstances agencies would be 
able to use such standards. In terms of the concept of "preference", paragraph 6 of 
Circular A-119 (1998) states that "All fede ral agencies must use voluntary consensus 
standards in lieu of government-unique stan dards in their procurement and regulatory 
activities, except  where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical." 
Paragraph 6.a.2 specifies "impractical" as in cluding "circumstances in which such use WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 262 - 
 
  would fail to serve the agency's progra m needs; would be infeasible; would be 
inadequate, ineffectual, ine fficient, or inconsistent with agency mission; or would 
impose more burdens, or would be less us eful, than the use of another standard." 
 
Question 28: En caso de ser una exigencia, cuáles son los requisitos y parámetros que 
deberían cumplir con la "marcada preferencia "?   
RESPONSE: Federal policy regarding the use of voluntary consensus standards is 
contained in paragraph 6 of OMB Circular  A-119. The text can be found online: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/ . 
 
3.1.9 Prescripciones Sanita rias y Fitosanitarios  
3.1.9.1 Administración de Productos Alimentarios y Farmacéuticos (FDA) 
Página 74 y 75, Párrafo 3.87 y 3.88 
 
Question 29: ¿En relación al número 3.1.9 de la Prescripciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias, ¿ podría ampliar EUA sobre los cambios surgidos  conforme la Ley Pública 111-353, sobre los 
productos "pienso para animales"? 
 Question 30: ¿Qué requisitos deben considerarse para los "piensos para animales que ingresan de otro países? 
 
Question 31: ¿Qué medidas se incluyen cuando se refieren a "las medidas preventivas de control del suministro de piensos para animales? 
  
RESPONSE: Public Law 111-353 is the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not fi nalized its regulations to implement the 
requirements of FSMA. The United States ha s notified to the WTO several FDA proposed 
regulations to implement FSMA. In response  to the comments received, FDA has made 
changes to the original drafts and has re-o pened these for comment. The revised drafts 
of the rules are available at www.fda.gov/fsma . We suggest reviewing the rule dealing 
w i t h  p r e v e n t i v e  c o n t r o l s  f o r  a n i m a l  f o o d  and foreign supplier verification to obtain 
insight into the requirements that are bein g proposed. We encourage stakeholders to 
file comments on the re-proposals on or before December 15, 2014. 
 
3.2.5.2 Comparación de Inversiones Pr ivadas en el extranjero (OPIC) 
Página 85  
 
Question 32: ¿Favor proporcionar información ad icional, por ejemplo en que países la OPIC 
financia o ha financiado proyectos y en qué sectores?  
RESPONSE: OPIC is able to consider projects in more than 150 developing and post-
conflict countries. A full list of countries where OPIC operates is available at http://www.opic.gov/doing-business- us/OPIC-policies/where-we-operate . As a 
general matter, OPIC activities are not limited  to particular sectors. However, OPIC is 
categorically prohibited from supporting certain types of projects. These prohibitions are 
listed at: http://www.opic.gov/doing-business- us/applicant-screener/insurance-
eligibility-checklist#1 . 
 
Página 86, párrafo 3.128  
Question 33: ¿Pueden proporcionar información, ejemplos o identificar sectores que se ha 
considerado tienen prohibición de actuación por la OPIC?  
RESPONSE: As noted above, generally OPIC activities are not limited to particular 
sectors. However, there are ty pes of projects that OPIC will not support. These projects 
are listed at: http://www.opic.gov/doing-business- us/applicant-screener/insurance-
eligibility-checklist#1  and include: 
 
• Projects that involve conversion or degrad ation of Critical Forest Areas or related 
Critical Natural Habitats. "Critical Natural Habitats" means (1) existing 
internationally recognized protected areas,  areas initially recognized as protected WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 263 - 
 
  by traditional local communities (e.g., sa cred groves), and sites that maintain 
conditions vital to the viability of pr otected areas (as determined by the 
environmental assessment procedure); and (2) sites identified on supplementary 
lists by authoritative sources identified  by OPIC (such sites may include areas 
recognized by traditional local communiti es (e.g., sacred groves), areas with 
known high suitability for biodiversity cons ervation and sites that are critical for 
vulnerable, migratory or endangered spec ies; listings are based on systematic 
evaluations of such factors as species richness, the degree of endemism, rarity, 
and vulnerability of component species, representativeness and the integrity of 
ecosystem processes). "Critical Forest Area s" means a type of natural forest that 
qualifies as Critical Natural Habitat. 
 
• Projects involving the construction of "large dams" that significantly and 
irreversibly: (A) disrupt natural ecosystem s upstream or downstream of the dam, 
or (B) alter natural hydrology, or (C) i nundate large land areas, or (D) impact 
biodiversity, or (E) displace large numbe rs of inhabitants (5,000 persons or 
more) or (F) impact local inhabitants' ability to earn a livelihood. 
 
• Projects involving the commercial manufac turing of ozone-depleting substances 
(ODS) or the production or use of persis tent organic pollutants (POPS) that are 
banned or scheduled to be phased out of  production and use by international 
agreement during the life of the project. A list of these substances and chemicals 
can be obtained from OPIC on request. The ODS list is defined by the Montreal 
Protocol as amended and U.S. implementi ng regulations. The POPs prohibition 
refers to twelve products whose ban and phase out are provided for under the 
Rotterdam Convention of 2004. OPIC's prohib ition is consistent with the position 
of the U.S. government in the negotiatio ns that preceded such convention with 
respect to the various categories of PO Ps, which include pesticides, industrial 
chemicals and unintentional by-products. 
 
• Projects that require resettlement of 5,000 or more persons. 
 
• Projects in or impacting natural Worl d Heritage Sites (areas of significant 
ecological value that have been internatio nally recognized as necessary for strict 
protection by members of th e World Heritage Convention). 
 
• Projects in or impacting areas on the Un ited Nations List of National Parks and 
Protected Areas. 
 
• Extraction or infrastructure projects in or  impacting: protected area Categories I, 
II, III, and IV (Strict Nature Reserv e/Wilderness Areas and National Parks; 
Natural Monuments and Habitat/Species Ma nagement Areas), as defined by the 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Projects in IUCN Categories V 
(Protected Landscape/Seascape) and VI  (Managed Resource Protected Area) 
must be consistent with IU CN management objectives. 
 
• Areas protected by the Ramsar Convention  are considered within the appropriate 
IUCN Category to which they are assigned. 
 
• Projects established as a result or in contemplation of reducing or terminating 
U.S. based operations. Such operations  include "runaway plants" as well as 
outsourcing the provision of goods and serv ices from the United States. Business 
process outsourcing (BPO), such as software design, customer service and 
accounting functions, is also included within this prohibition. 
 
• Projects involving gambling; tobacco or related products; alcoholic beverages (if 
contrary to local religious or cultural norms); media communications of an adult 
or political nature; or milit ary production or sales. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 264 - 
 
  • Pharmaceuticals or medical equipment not approved for use by the U.S. Food and 
Drug Administration or by a public heal th authority from one of the countries 
listed under the Drug Export Act of 1986. 
3.3.5 Contratación Pública  3.3.5.2 Procedimientos 
Página 95, Párrafo 3.174 
 Question 34: ¿El contrato es adjudicado al mejor postor que cumpla las condiciones del 
contrato. Cuando el Gobierno necesita obtener más información de los proveedores antes de iniciar 
el proceso de licitación en pliego cerrado, se utiliza un procedimiento de dos etapas. Cuales son esas dos etapas? 
 
RESPONSE: The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at Subpart 14.5—Two-Step Sealed Bidding, states that the two-step sealed bidding is a combination of competitive 
procedures designed to obtain the benefits of sealed bidding when adequate 
specifications are not available. The approa ch allows the government to develop an 
adequately descriptive and not overly re strictive statement of the Government's 
requirements, including an adequate tec hnical data package, so that resulting 
acquisitions may be made by conventional sealed bidding. This method is especially 
useful in acquisitions requiring technica l proposals, particularly those for complex 
acquisitions. The Government contracting offi cer implements this process by completing 
the following two steps:  
 
(1) The request for technical proposals (e.g., the engineering approach, special 
manufacturing processes, and special testin g techniques). During this stage, the 
proposals are evaluated and discussed, if necessary. Pricing is not discussed 
during this stage.   
(2) The submission of sealed priced bids by those suppliers who submitted 
acceptable technical proposals in step one. Bids submitted in step two are 
evaluated and the awards made in accordan ce with the sealed bid procedures in 
FAR Subparts 14.3 and 14.4.  
 https://acquisition.gov/far/current /html/Subpart%2014_5.html#wp1074586   
 
Párrafo 94, párrafo 3.176 
 Question 35: ¿Podría definirnos el término "Fuentes Prescritas" y cuáles son estas? 
 
RESPONSE: Information on "required sources" including an enumeration of the various types of "required sources" can be found in Pa rt 8 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(www.acquisition.gov/far/ ). Sections 8.002 through 8.004 provide a general overview. 
The required sources generally reflect a pr eference for use of existing government 
inventory and centralized purchasing programs , as well as use of government programs 
such as the Federal Prison Industries and programs to purchase from businesses 
providing employment for the blind or severely disabled.  
 Párrafo 95, párrafo 3.179 
 
Question 36: ¿En el Sistema de Gestión de Adjudicaciones (SAM) pueden registrarse proveedores extranjeros? 
 
RESPONSE: The System for Award Management (SAM.gov) is open to the public and any supplier, domestic or foreign, seeking to do business with the Federal Government can 
register. However, the ability of the Federal Government to  purchase foreign goods or 
services is determined by a pplicable U.S. laws and regulations, consistent with U.S. 
government procurement obligations under the WTO GPA and FTAs.  
3.3.5.3 Participación extranjera 
Página 96, párrafo 3.184  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 265 - 
 
  Question 37: ¿Cuáles son los productos admisibl es objeto de adquisiciones comprendidas en 
el alcance del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública de la OMC y algunos ALC pertinentes, así como en el caso de los PMAs, que el USTR ha eximido de  las disposiciones de la Ley de Promoción de la 
Compra de Productos Estadounidenses? 
 
RESPONSE: Eligible products are those covere d by the United States under the WTO GPA 
and Free Trade Agreements (FAR 25.403(a)). Least Developed Countries end products 
are eligible products for procurements covered by the United States under the GPA 
(FAR 25.404).  3.3.5.3 Participación extranjera 
Página 96, párrafo 3.186 
 Question 38: ¿De qué forma, los países que nos parte del Acuerdo Plurilateral de Contratación 
Pública, pueden tener acceso a la base de datos sobre Contrataciones públicas abarcadas por 
Acuerdos Internacionales?  
RESPONSE: The public will have access to the database to obtain information. 
 4. Políticas Comerciales por Sectores 4.1 Agricultura 
4.11 Ley de Agricultura de 2014 
4.1.1.1 Panorama General Página 112, párrafo 4.1 
 
Question 39: La nueva ley de Agricultura de 2014, establece que la mayor parte de los programas pueden ejecutarse por un periodo de cinco años, aunque algunos de carácter 
permanente. Podrían explicar en qué consiste dicha selección de programas y por qué algunos 
pueden ser permanentes?  RESPONSE: Program type does not determine whether authorization is permanent vs. 
short-term. Congress may choose to authorize programs permanently or for a temporary 
period. The primary difference between the two is whether a program will continue 
operating at the end of the Farm Bill period  without reauthorizatio n or will require new 
authorization under a new Farm Bill or other legislation. This difference determines 
whether a program can be ended simply by not including it in new legislation or whether 
it must be expressly terminated, suspended, or superseded by new legislation. It may 
also affect budget availability for new Farm Bills under Congressional budget rules.  
 4.1.2 Aranceles Agrícolas y Contingentes Arancelarios Página 131, párrafo 4.65  
 
Question 40: Podrían explicar sobre los factores que han influido en la baja utilización de los contingentes? 
 
RESPONSE: The fill rates for U.S. tariff-rate qu otas are driven by market conditions. This 
can lead to fill rates varying significantly from  one tariff quota to another and from year 
to year. With regards to the 2012 notification , most of the tariff rate quotas with very 
low fill rates are administered on a first co me, first-served basis. For a more detailed 
indication of the allocation methods for U.S. tariff-rate quotas, the United States would direct Honduras' attention to G/AG/N /USA/2/add.3, dated October 5, 2001. 
 
4.2 Servicios 422 Telecomunicaciones 
4.2.2.2 Marco Jurídico e Institucional 
Página 141, párrafo 4.91  
Question 41: A que organismos solicita asesoramiento la FCC? 
 RESPONSE: The Department of State, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 
Department of Defense, Depa rtment of Homeland Securi ty, and the Department of 
Justice.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 266 - 
 
  4.2.2.3 Medidas de Política  
Página 144, párrafo 4.97  Question 42: Pueden proporcionar los nombres de los países con los que USA tiene intención 
de negociar Acuerdos de Reconocimiento Mutuo sobre Telecomunicaciones. 
 RESPONSE: The United States supports telecommunication mutual recognition 
agreements and is open to engagement with  any WTO Member that expresses interest.  
   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 267 - 
 
  HONG KONG, CHINA 
  Questions on the Secretariat Report 
 
A. Trade Policy and Pr actice by Measure 
Tariff (Page 50, para. 3.35) 
The Secretariat Report of the last Trade Policy Review on the U.S. in 2012 already pointed out that 
although the U.S. had implemented other nomenclature changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) with respect to certain footwear by Presidential Proclamation 8742, such changes have not been notified to the WTO for modification of the 
U.S.' WTO schedule. The same observation is reported again in this year's Secretariat Report. 
 Question 1: 
We would like to know the latest situation and whether the U.S. has any plan to notify the WTO of 
the modification so as to reflect the changes to its tariff schedule?  
RESPONSE: The United States will be noti fying the Committee on Market Access of 
modifications to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon  as possible. For further reference, the 
footwear nomenclature changes from late 2011 will be included in the certification of 
2012 nomenclature changes. The footwear chan ges are shown in the U.S. International 
Trade Commission website section on HTS modifications: http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/modifications_hts.htm . 
 
Specifically, the full text of the Presiden tial Proclamation regarding the footwear 
changes is published in the Federal Regist er, available at the following website: 
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/hts_documents/PP8742.pdf . 
 
Import prohibitions, restrictions and licen sing (Page 56, para 3.55 and Table 3.6) 
 
Effective 5 August 2013, consumer products and industrial equipment found not to comply with 
the energy conservation and labelling standards pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and its implementing regulations would be refused admission into the US. 
 
Question 2: While we support measures to enhance energy efficiency and improve information for consumers, 
how would the concerned U.S. authorities ensure that the new regulation will not become trade 
barriers that impede legitimate trade?  
RESPONSE: Appliance and equipment efficiency standards have served as one of the 
most effective U.S. policies for improving energy efficiency and saving consumers 
energy and money. The goal of the regulati on is to implement the mandate of the E nergy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 to refuse admission into th e United States  of certain 
consumer products and industrial equipment that do not meet applicable labeling or 
energy conservation requirements. U.S. Cust oms and Border Protection (CBP) solicited 
public comment before the rule was finalized and made changes to facilitate trade. The 
United States is confident that the regulation  is not an unnecessary barrier to trade.  
 Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures (Page 61, para 3.65)  
Note that the U.S. has issued a final rule on the use of market economy input prices in non-market 
economy (NME) proceedings. Under the new rules, additional parameters must be met, such as threshold, before the Department of Commerce can use market economy input prices in non-
market economy investigations. 
 Question 3: 
Could the U.S. share with us what is the policy intention behind the change, and whether the new 
rules would result in higher AD duty rates on goods from NMEs?  RESPONSE: The United States revised the threshold applied to the use of market 
economy input prices in non-market econ omy proceedings because prior proceedings WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 268 - 
 
  indicated that market economy input prices were not the best available information for 
valuing all purchases of an input when mark et economy purchases of the input did not 
account for substantially all (i.e., 85 percent)  purchases of that input. Antidumping duty 
determinations are based on the specific facts and circumstances that exist in a 
proceeding; therefore, any impact from the ru le change would depend on the specifics of 
a particular proceeding.  
The Secretariat Report states that the Department of Commerce in 2014 confirmed that it would 
not apply the previously withdrawn regulatory pr ovisions governing targeted dumping. In this 
regard, we note that the relevant Federal Register (i.e. 79 FR 22371 of 22 April 2014) indicates that the Department of Commerce would instead continue to determine whether to apply an 
alternative comparison method as appropriate ba sed upon the particular facts in each case. 
 Question 4: 
Could the U.S. share with us what are the current criteria and considerations in its determination 
of comparison methodology in anti-dumping investigations and reviews?  
RESPONSE: In investigations and administra tive reviews, the U.S. Department of 
Commerce will calculate margins of dumping by  comparing the weighted average of the 
normal values (NV) with the weighted averag e of the export prices (EP) (or constructed 
export prices (CEP)) for comparable mercha ndise (i.e., the average-to-average method) 
unless Commerce determines another method is appropriate in a particular case. 
Commerce may compare NV to EP/CEP on a tr ansaction-to-transaction basis only in 
unusual situations, such as when there are very few sales of the subject merchandise 
and the merchandise sold in each market is id entical or very similar or is custom-made. 
In addition, when Commerce finds a pattern of export prices (or constructed export 
prices) that differ significantly among purchase rs, regions, or time periods, and it can 
explain why these differences cannot be take n into account appropriately by using the 
average-to-average method, it may calcul ate margins of dumping by comparing the 
weighted average of the NV to indivi dual EP/CEP transactions (i.e., the 
average-to-transaction method).  
 
B. Trade Policies by Sector Financial Services (P age 122, para. 4.80) 
According to the Secretariat report, the Housing Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act was 
introduced in the Senate in March 2014. The proposed Act would wind down the two giant mortgage-finance agencies, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home 
Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac), and establish a new system to be regulated by the Federal 
Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC).  Question 5: 
Please share with us the scope and the details of the Housing Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act, 
including its latest legislative progress and the expected effective date, if any. What are the 
responsibilities and authorities of FMIC, and how would it differ from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
in supporting the mortgage-financing market? 
 RESPONSE: We do not expect the Housing Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act to be 
enacted in the 113th Congress. To be consider ed further, legislation would need to be 
reintroduced in the 114th Congress, wh ich will begin in early January 2015. 
 Telecommunication Services (Pages 124 & 125, para. 4.90) 
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has determined not to apply the 20% limit to the 
class of common carrier wireless licensees in which foreign investments is held in the licensee through US-organised entities that do not control the licensee. This non-application would be 
subject to the determination of the FCC that the pa rticular foreign investment is consistent with 
the public interest, upon the filing of a petition for declaratory ruling by the licensee. The FCC may 
also attach conditions to a licence or deny a licence if it finds it is in the public interest to do so. 
 
Question 6: In determining whether to apply the 20% limit or conditions to the licensees, are there any objective criteria or measurements, like reference to international standards or practices, for the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 269 - 
 
  assessment? Are all foreign investors subject to the same assessment criteria? Is there any 
mechanism for the licensees to lodge an appeal against the decision of the FCC? RESPONSE: The public interest standard for granting common carrier wireless licenses to companies with foreign ownership that would exceed the limits in the 
Communications Act has not changed for WTO investors. Following the WTO conclusion 
of negotiations on basic telecommunications and adoption of the Fourth Protocol, the 
FCC adopted a "rebuttable presumption" th at foreign investment from WTO Member 
countries in common carrier licensees does  not pose competitive concerns in the 
U.S. market. The FCC continues to apply th at presumption. The FCC also continues to 
consider, as part of its public interest anal ysis, any national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy or trade policy concerns th at may be raised by proposed foreign 
investment that would exceed the limits of  the Communications Act. FCC actions are 
subject to the provisions of the Administra tive Procedure Act, which provides for the 
possibility of judicial review. 
 
Audiovisual Services (Page 135, para. 4.112) The FCC streamlined the review of foreign investment in April 2013 by (i) requiring identification of 
only those foreign investors that would hold equity and/or voting interests greater than 5% (or 
10% in certain situations); (ii) considering requests for specific approval for any named foreign investor (even those holding interests below these amounts) to increase its equity and/or voting interest at some future time; and (iii) considering requests for specific approval of any named 
foreign investor to acquire a controlling in terest up to 100% at some future time. 
 Question 7: 
How many licencees with foreign investments have been approved under the streamlined 
procedures since April 2013, and specifically, how many of them have been granted the specific 
approval to acquire a controlling interest up to 100% at some future time? Are there any licensees 
being 100% controlled by foreign investors at present? Has the U.S. any plan to further liberalise 
audiovisual services, in particular in term of foreign investment?  RESPONSE: Hong Kong, China appears to have misunderstood this part of the 
Secretariat's report. The April 2013 streamli ning of Section 310 licensing only applies 
with respect to commercial mob ile suppliers, not broadcasters. 
 
Maritime Transport (Page 144, para. 4.147) 
In order to address port congestion in the medium term, the Port Development Program run by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) would double the cargo-handling capacity in every major 
U.S. port by 2020. 
 Question 8: More details on the Port Development Program would be appreciated, specifically planned 
measures to double the cargo-handling capacity. Is the Program supported by public funding or 
providing incentives for private investments? Can foreign investors participate in the Program?  
 
RESPONSE: Through the Maritime Administrati on's Deepwater Ports Licensing Program, 
MARAD has been promoting the transportation of LNG to the United States for several 
years. To date, twenty Deepwater Port Licens e Applications have been filed for approval. 
(Eighteen applications were filed for license s to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 
two applications were filed fo r licenses to import oil).  
 Of the twenty applications, nine have been approved. Currently, there are three existing 
Deepwater Ports – (two LNG terminals and one oil facility).  
 The Maritime Administration is also currentl y developing a National Maritime Strategy 
that will provide recommendations aimed at supporting the growth of the U.S. maritime 
industry and ensuring the availability of U.S. -flag vessels for the nation's economic and 
national security. The strategy will address issu es such as port infrastructure, U.S. flag 
vessels, cargo, mariners and other maritime matters. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 270 - 
 
  For further details on MARAD's Deep Water Port Program, see: 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_ page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_curre
nt_ports/dwp_current_ports.htm ; 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_ page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_vesse
ls_mariners/dwp_ve ssels_mariners.htm . WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 271 - 
 
  INDIA 
  Questions on the Government Report  
 Country Report Para 1.5, Page 4: "Robust trade enforcement across the spectrum of goods and services remains a central pillar of 
U.S. trade policy. For nearly two decades, the WT O dispute settlement system has proven valuable 
to Members as a unique venue for the discussion an d adjudication of disputes with our trading 
partners. The United States' enforcement priorities seek to target the most commercially-significant challenges facing U.S. workers and businesses, as well as emerging issues 
that have important implications for the future of the rules-based global trading system. Vigorous 
work by relevant agencies, including the Depart ments of Agriculture, Commerce and State, help 
ensure that the trade agreements yield the maximum benefits in terms of ensuring market access 
for Americans, advancing the rule of law internationally, and creating a fair, open and predictable 
trading environment. Ensuring full implementation  of U.S. trade agreements remains one of the 
Administration's strategic priorities." 
 
Question 1: In the past in the meeting of TRIMS Committee and Subsidies Committee, questions have been raised on the local content requirement in renewable energy schemes being implemented through policies, programs and laws including but not limited to the following: 
(i) Washington (RCW 82.16.110 through 82.16.130) and the Washington Administrative Code 
(WAC 458-20-273); (ii) State of California Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) under the California Public Utilities Code (Sections 360-380), as modified by the Senate Bill 412, and the 
SGIP Handbook 2013; (iii) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's (LADWP) Solar Incentive 
Program implemented by the LADWP under the Sola r Photovoltaic Incentive Program Guidelines; 
(iv)  Montana Tax Incentive for Ethanol Production (TIEP) under the Ethanol Tax Incentive and 
Administration Act of 1983 (Montana Code Annotated 2011, Section 15-70-522); (v) Montana 
Tax Credit for Biodiesel Blending and Storage under Montana Code Annotated 2011, Section 15-32-703, (vi) Refund for Taxes paid on Biodie sel by Distributor or Retailer under the Montana 
Code Annotated 2011, Section 15-70-369; (vii) Massachusetts Clean Energy Centre's 
Commonwealth Solar Hot Water Program; (viii) Michigan: Renewable Energy Credits under the 
Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act (Public Act 295); (ix) Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Performance-Based Incentive Program; (x) Austin Energy Residential Solar PV Rebate Program.  
 
Is the United States undertaking any review of the renewable energy schemes at the Federal and 
the Sub-federal level to ensure compliance with the local content requirements under TRIMS and 
the Subsidies Agreement? 
 RESPONSE: India submitted requests for information from the United States in the TRIMS and Subsidies Committees with respect to the aforementioned programs 
(see, G/TRIMS/W/117; G/SCM/Q2/USA/59). The United States replied to these 
questions (see, G/TRIMS/W/129/Rev.1; G/SCM/ Q2/USA/61). In the course of drafting 
answers to India's questions, consultations were held with state officials. Similar 
consultations regularly occu r with state officials.  
  
Country Report Para 1.5 and 1.6, Page 4: 
"Robust trade enforcement across the spectrum of goods and services remains a central pillar of 
U.S. trade policy. ….The United States will cont inue vigilant trade enforcement efforts at the 
WTO…" 
 
Question 2: Would the U.S. agree that enforcement of trade rules applies equally to the U.S. fully 
implementing the DSB recommendations in disputes in which it has been requested to bring its 
measures in conformity with its obligations under the WTO? In many disputes, despite the lapse of 
the reasonable period of time, in certain cases exceeding 10 years, the U.S. has not complied with 
the findings of the Panel/ Appellate Body as adopted by the DSB. These include: U.S. – Shrimp 
(WT/DS404), U.S. - Section 211 ("Havana Club") (WT/DS176), U.S. - Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan 
(WT/DS184), U.S. – Continued dumping and subsidy offset act of 2000 - Byrd Amendment (DS217), and U.S. – Measures affecting the cross border supply of gambling and betting services (DS285). Could the U.S. provide more information on  when it will be able to comply with those 
recommendations? Would the U.S. agree that no n-compliance with DSB recommendation creates WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 272 - 
 
  an undesirable precedent and poses a severe risk to the stability of the multilateral trading 
system?   RESPONSE : The United States has resolved the vast  majority of disputes in which the 
Dispute Settlement Body has issued recommend ations with respect to a U.S. measure. 
For example, in the fourth quarter of 2014, the United States successfully resolved both 
the Upland Cotton (DS267) and Clove Cigarett es (DS406) disputes. As for the remaining 
few instances where U.S. efforts have not yet been successful, the United States has 
been working actively towards resolving such matters. Accordingly, the record shows that the United States has a strong record  of support for the WTO dispute settlement 
system, including through implementation ac tions and working with other Members to 
resolve disputes. 
  
Questions on the Secretariat Report 
 
Secretariat Report para 2.20, page 30: 
"While the United States continues to conduct the majority of its trade through the MFN regime it 
has a long tradition of offering unilateral preferences to developing countries and more recently through bilateral or regional reciprocal free-trade agreements. Since the last Review of the United States, imports under reciprocal preferences have grown while unilateral preferential 
imports have declined as a percentage of tota l imports. In 2013, reciprocal trade preferences 
amounted to 18.3% and unilateral trade preferences to 3.3% of total imports"  
Question 3: Why there has been a decline in the imports under unilateral preferences to 
Developing Countries during the period under review?  
RESPONSE: The decrease in total U.S. import s under unilateral preference programs in 
recent years is attributable to  a number of factors, but above all to the decrease in the 
U.S. demand for, and the international pric e of, petroleum products. This factor alone 
accounted for about 85% of the decrease. Th e second most significant factor was the 
removal of a number of beneficiary countri es from eligibility for U.S. unilateral 
preference programs following the entry into force of their respective free trade agreements with the United States. For exam ple, Colombia and Pe ru, which previously 
received benefits under both GSP and ATPA, and Panama and Costa Rica, which received 
benefits under both GSP and CBERA/CBTPA, in stead received preferential market access 
in line with the negotiated FTAs. Taken toge ther, these two factors more than accounted 
for the overall decline in U.S. imports under AGOA, GSP, ATPA, and CBERA/CBTPA 
between 2008 and 2012 (the last full ye ar in which GSP and ATPA/ATPDEA were 
authorized).  
Secretariat Report Para 3.1.4.2, Page 50: 
"The United States has three different types of ta riff pertaining to: MFN rates of duty; special rates 
of duty for FTAs, non-reciprocal preferences, and special programmes like pharmaceuticals or civil 
aircraft; and a column for non-MFN duties. While th e majority of tariffs are ad valorem (89%), the 
United States also uses specific and compound duty rates (11%). These are concentrated in agriculture, fish, fuels, textiles, and footwear se ctors. The United States assesses duties on an 
f.o.b. basis." 
 Question 4: What are the types of Non Ad valorem Duties charged by U.S. on its imports. What % 
of tariff lines do these cover? 
 
Question 5: What is the plan to convert the Non Ad valorem duties to Ad Valorem duties?  
RESPONSE: As indicated in Table 3.2 and Chart 3.3 of the Secretariat's report, there are 
1,146 tariff lines with non- ad valorem  tariff rates in the HTSUS, which account for 
10.9% of U.S. tariff lines. As noted in the Secretariat Report, these non- ad valorem  tariff 
rates comprise specific and compound duty rates. 
 Secretariat Report Para 3. 48, Table 3.4, Page 53: 
"Pursuant to a number of laws or regulations, U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects a 
number of agricultural fees on behalf of the Department of Agriculture….." WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 273 - 
 
  Question 6: Could the U.S. clarify whether the agricu ltural fees collected by CBP is in the nature of 
border adjustments or in lieu of services rendered in connection with importation?  RESPONSE: The agricultural fees collected  by CBP are for services rendered in 
connection with importation. APHIS used in formation from the CBP ABC model, which 
has been in existence for more than 10 years, to determine the safeguarding activities' costs. The CBP activity set in cludes inspection of shipment s and monitoring compliance.  
 
Question 7: Could the U.S. clarify the reason for using different units for calculation of assessments payable vis-a-vis domestic [7 CFR §1260.172 (a)(2)] and imported [7 CFR §1260.172 (b)(2)] beef and beef products? Taking the units for calculation of assessment payable 
to be same for both domestic and imported beef and beef products (that is either on per head or 
per kg basis), could the U.S. then clarify the comparable assessment payable by domestic and imported beef and beef products under 7 CFR §1260.172? 
 
RESPONSE : The rate of the assessment on imported beef and beef products is based on 
the mandatory US$1 per head assessment co llected on each sales transaction of 
domestic cattle in the United States as prov ided under the Beef Promotion and Research 
Act (Act). The Act requires that assessmen ts be collected on both domestic and 
imported live cattle and on imported beef  and beef products. The U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection collects the assessments on  imported cattle, and imported beef and 
beef products. The assessment on imported beef and beef products is determined by 
converting such imports into live animal equivalents to ascertain the corresponding 
number of head of cattle. Carcass weight is th e principal factor in calculating live animal 
equivalents. USDA looks at total imported be ef and veal production on a carcass weight 
equivalent to identify the top 10 countri es exporting to the United States. These 
countries account for more than 99% of U.S. beef and veal imports. USDA then 
calculates the average carcass weight of cattl e slaughtered in each country by dividing 
total beef production by the total number of cattle slaughtered. Based on USDA calculations, the average carcass we ight of these 10 exporting countries is 
approximately 592 pounds. In 2013, approximately, US$5.7 million in assessments were 
collected on imported live cattle an d imported beef and beef products. 
 Question 8: Could the U.S. clarify the assessment rate for imported pork and pork products as 
established by the Board and approved by th e Secretary under 7CFR §1230.71 (e)? Could the 
U.S. clarify the units utilized for calculation of assessments payable to domestic pork and pork products [7 CFR §1230.71]? Taking the units for calculation of assessment payable to be same for 
both domestic and imported pork and pork produc ts (for instance on per pound basis), could the 
U.S. then clarify the comparable assessment paya ble by domestic and imported pork and pork 
products under 7 CFR §1230.71?  
RESPONSE: The rate of the assessment on impo rted pork and pork products is based on 
mandatory assessment of US$0. 40 of US$100 market value of all pigs sold in the 
United States, as well as an equivalent am ount on imported pigs, pork, and pork as 
provided under the Pork Promotion, Re search and Information Act (Act). The 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects the assessments on imported live hogs, and 
imported pork and pork. The Act requires that assessments be collected on both 
domestic and imported live hogs and on import ed pork and pork products. The weight of 
imported pork and pork products is converte d to a carcass weight equivalent by utilizing 
conversion factors. These conversion factor s take into account the removal of bone, 
weight lost in cooking or other processing, and the non-pork components of pork 
products. The carcass weight equivalent is co nverted to a live animal equivalent weight 
for the assessment by dividing the carcass weig ht equivalent by 70 percent, which is the 
average dressing percentage of porcine anim als in the United States. The equivalent 
value is multiplied by the applicable assessm ent rate of 0.40% due on imported pork 
and pork products. The end result is expresse d in an amount per pound for each type of 
pork or pork product. To determine the amou nt per kilogram for pork and pork products 
subject to assessment under the Act and Or der, the cent-per-pound assessments are 
multiplied by a metric conver sion factor 2.2046 and carried  to the sixth decimal.  
 Question 9: Could the U.S. clarify the method for calculation of assessment payable in respect of 
imported and domestically produced dairy products? Further, using the methodology applicable for WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 274 - 
 
  imported dairy products, could the U.S. indicate the corresponding assessment payable for 
domestic dairy products?  RESPONSE: Domestic dairy producers pay a mandatory assessment of 15 cents per 
hundredweight of milk produced and marketed commercially. A 2011 Final Rule 
amended the Dairy Promotion and Research  Order to establish a dairy import 
assessment program as required by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(2002 Farm Bill) and the Food, Conserva tion, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm 
Bill). Importers of dairy prod ucts pay a mandatory assessm ent rate of 7.5 cents per 
hundredweight of milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products imported into the United 
States. Since the mandatory 7. 5-cents assessment is per one hundred pounds of milk, 
the final rule applied a standard rate of asse ssment per unit of milk  solids. On average, 
during the period of January 2006 through December 2007, a hundredweight of U.S. producer milk contained 12.45 pounds of  milk solids (3.68% butterfat and 8.77% 
nonfat milk solids). Since the assessment rate  stated in the 2008 Farm Bill is 7.5 cents 
per hundredweight of milk or its equivalent , the final rule established the assessment 
rate per volume of imported milk solids as volume of imported milk solids as 
US$0.00602 per pound (US$0.075/12.45 pounds) or US$0.01327 per kg (1 kg = 
2.204623 pounds). This rate is applied to the cow's milk solids content for imported dairy products.   
Question 10: Could the U.S. clarify whether in re spect of domestic dairy products the assessment 
is undertaken on the basis of milk solid content? If yes, could the assessment rate for domestic dairy products on the basis of milk solid content be indicated? If no, then would the U.S. agree 
that this discriminating parameter of calc ulating assessment payable under 7 CFR §1150.152 
violates its national treatment obligation under Article III of GATT?  
RESPONSE: The domestic assessment is not ba sed on milk solids content. However, if 
converted to the equivalent assessment on  the basis of milk solids content, the 
assessment rate for domestic dairy products would be twice as high as the assessment 
rate for imported milk solids. U.S. producer s pay the equivalent of US$.012 per pound of 
milk solids whereas the assessment rate per volume of imported milk solids is 
US$0.00602 per pound of milk solids. In ot her words, the assessment on importers is 
equivalent to approximately one-half the pa yment domestic dairy farmers are required 
to remit.  
 Question 11: Could the U.S. clarify the reas on for using additional assessment rate of 
US$0.01327 per kg of milk solids for calculation of assessments payable in case of imported dairy 
products under 7 CFR §1150.152 (b)(1)?  RESPONSE: See answer to question 9.  
 
Question 12: According to 7 CFR §1207.510 (2), no assessment shall be levied on potatoes grown in the 50 States of the United States by producers of less than 5 acres of potatoes. Could the U.S. 
clarify how this is not in violation of its national treatment obligation under Article III of GATT?  
 RESPONSE: The potato Research and Promotio n (R&P) program is national in scope and 
funded by domestic and imported assessmen ts. The potato R&P program, implemented 
in 1972, is administered under the Potato Re search and Promotion Plan (Plan) (7 CFR 
part 1207). The Plan is authorized under the Potato Research and Promotion Act (Act)(7 U.S.C. 2611 -2627).  
  
The Act defines the term "producer" as "any person engaged in the growing of five or 
more acres of potatoes," while it define s "importer" as "any person who imports 
tablestock, frozen, or processed potatoes fo r ultimate consumption by humans or seed 
potatoes into the United States" The Act also defines "handler" as "any person (except a 
common or contract carrier of potatoes owne d by another person) who handles potatoes 
in a manner specified in a plan issued purs uant to this chapter or in the rules and 
regulations issued thereunder."(7 U.S.C. 2612). These terms are also defined in the Plan.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 275 - 
 
  Section 1207.342 of the Plan, states "[t]he fu nds to cover the Board's expenses shall be 
acquired by the levying of assessments upon handlers and importers." Section 
1207.512, designated handler, states "[t]he  assessment of each lot of potatoes 
produced in the 50 States of the United States and handled shall be paid by the 
designated handler as hereafter set fo rth." Section 1207.513 (b), Payment of 
assessments, states "[t]he designated ha ndler is responsible for payment of the 
assessment on domestically produced potatoes. He may pay with no reimbursement 
from the producer. In the alternative, he may collect the assessment from the producer, 
or deduct such assessment from the proceeds paid to the producer on whose potatoes 
the assessment is made, provided he furnis hes the producer with evidence of such 
payment."  
 
Secretariat Report 3.58, Table 3.7, Page 58:  
Question 13: Could the U.S. clarify how much time (average, maximum and minimum) is taken to 
grant the import licenses for steel under 78 FR 11090? Could the U.S. also state the number of such licenses issued since 2005? 
 
RESPONSE: Applications for U.S. steel licen ses require an estimated ten minutes to 
complete. It takes seconds for the system to  automatically process. Because they are 
automatically generated, a completed license  form with a license number is shown on 
the screen immediately (for printing) and a confirmation email is generated and sent 
automatically. Since 2005, there have been  more than 3 million licenses generated.  
 
Secretariat Report 3.66, Page 61: 
"The United States had 294 anti-dumping and countervailing measures in place at the end of 2013, an increase of 18% since 2010. There was a general increase in the use of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties on emerging markets during 2010-14, while remedies with respect to 
developed countries decreased. China was the country  mainly affected, accounting for over 40% of 
all orders in 2013. The Republic of Korea and Chin ese Taipei were also slightly more impacted 
during the period, whereas EU countries, Japan, and Brazil all had slightly lower levels of remedies 
applied" 
 Question 14: In respect of the 294 AD and CVD measures in force at the end of 2013, could the 
U.S. indicate the number of measures which have  been in force for more than (i) 5 years; 
(ii) 10 years; and (iii)20 years?   
RESPONSE: The United States does not organize its statistics regarding antidumping 
duty or countervailing duty in vestigations in the form Turk ey is requesting. However, 
the dates on which antidumping and counterva iling duty orders entered into force can 
be found at: http://www.usitc.gov/d ocuments/orders.xls .  
 
Question 15: Could the U.S. provide the reasons behind increasing antidumping and countervailing 
measures from 2010. 
 
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to a peti tion filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual determination of whether dumping exists 
and whether such dumped imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to 
a domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a 
factual determination of whether counterva ilable subsidies exists and whether such 
subsidized imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic 
industry. Where dumped/subsidized imports, and material injury caused by those 
imports have been found, the United St ates will impose an antidumping or 
countervailing duty measure, as applicable.   
Secretariat Report para 3.1.7.2, page 65: 
"While the number of reviews has varied over the last eight years, there has been a significant 
trend with fewer orders being revoked. In 2007-8, approximately half of all orders were revoked, 
whereas in 2013-14, about 90% of reviews resulted in the continuation of the remedy (Chart 3.8)" 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 276 - 
 
  Question 16: From the chart 3.8 giving overview of sunset reviews of Anti-dumping and 
Countervailing Measures conducted by the U.S. duri ng 2007 to 2014, there is an increasing trend 
of continuation of Anti-dumping and CVD Measures from the year 2009 onwards. In 2013-14 about 90% reviews resulted in the continuation of the remedy. In the case of India, there are 
4 Anti-dumping measures which continue for a period ranging from 19 years to 28 years. Could 
the U.S. inform the reasons for prolonged continuation of Anti-dumping measures? Whether U.S. domestic industry has not been protected for unreasonably long period? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States disagrees wi th India's characterization as to why 
antidumping and countervailing measures are imposed. The United States administers 
its trade remedy laws in accordance with  applicable WTO agreements. In a sunset 
review, when determining whether revocati on of an order, or termination of a 
suspended investigation, would be likely to  lead to continuation or recurrence of 
material injury within a reasonably fore seeable time, the U.S. International Trade 
Commission considers the factors set out in  U.S. law at 19 U.S. C. § 1675a(a). In 
determining whether revocation of a count ervailing duty order or antidumping duty 
order, or termination of a suspended inve stigation, would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of a counter vailable subsidy or sales of the subject 
merchandise at less than fair value, the U.S. Department of Commerce considers the 
factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §§1 675a(b) and (c). The determinations in each 
sunset review are case-specific. The results for all sunset reviews can be found on the 
USITC's website ( http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). From this website India can 
obtain, on a case-by-case basis, information about the rationale for either the 
continuation or termination of a counterva iling duty or an antidumping duty order. 
 
Secretariat Report 3.2.3,  Table 3.9, Page 72: 
 
Question 17: Can the United States provide information on the number of cases in which the 
Secretary has refused to provide inspection to a new slaughtering house under §603 (b)?  RESPONSE: As of December 11, 2014, FSIS has refused to provide inspection to a 
slaughter establishment under §603 (b) a total of 68 times.  
 Question 18: What is the number of cases wherein the condition of obtaining a certificate for 
export to a particular country was waived by the Secretary in exercise of his discretion under 
§614?  
RESPONSE: The Secretary has not used his discretion and waived the requirements 
under §614 to export product without a certificate.  Question 19: What are the considerations taken into account by the Secretary while deciding to 
waive the requirement of a certificate for export under the above provision? 
 RESPONSE: As noted in the previous question and response, the Secretary has not 
waived requirements for the issuance of an  export certificate so there has been no 
occasion to take into account such considerations.   
Secretariat Report 3.2.3,  Table 3.9, Page 72: 
 Question 20: What are the considerations taken into account for taking a measure in furtherance of the aim of 'public health', 'health of the consumers' and 'public interest' under §1031? 
 
RESPONSE: The key considerations for the adoption of measures prescribed in 21 USC 1031 are that the policies implemented are ba sed on science/evidence to ensure safe, 
wholesome, otherwise not adulterated, and pr operly labeled and packaged eggs and egg 
products are distributed in commerce for human consumption.  
Question 21: When can a Secretary undertake re inspection under §1034 on the grounds of being 
necessary of eggs and egg products capable of use as human food in each official plant? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 277 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Imported eggs and egg products capable of use as human food are subject 
to FSIS reinspection to ensure they are sa fe, wholesome, accurately labeled, and not 
adulterated.   
Question 22: If egg products inspected at any offici al plant were not found to be adulterated, then 
under what circumstances can the Secretary mandate that such products may not be pasteurized under §1036? 
 
RESPONSE: Egg products must first be pasteu rized and then found to be not adulterated 
before they may leave an official plant an d enter into commerce. Nonpasteurized egg 
products may leave an official plant only if they bear labeling indicating that the 
products are for further processing in an offi cial plant. They may not be released into 
consuming channels until they have been subjec ted to pasteurization, heat treatment, or 
other approved methods of treatment (9 CFR 590.415). 
 
Secretariat Report 3.2.3, Page 72: "The United States imposes restrictions, licensing requirements, additional controls and 
prohibitions on a variety of exports for national security and foreign policy reasons. The exporter 
may have to identify additional factors such as the country of destination, end-use, and\foreign person or firm, depending upon the relevant requirements. The categories of items subject to controls were not changed during the review period (Table 3.9)." 
 
Question 23: From Table no. 3.9 under product category it is shown that 1) Agriculture Risk Products and 2) High value and value added agricultural products are subject to export restriction, 
control and licensing. Could the U.S. please pr ovide detailed information about the reasons for 
export restrictions, controls, or licensing of these products and the method of control? What are the alternate ways to achieve the appropriate level of protection and whether the measure applied 
for export prohibition is the least trade restrictive amongst them? 
 RESPONSE: The table erroneously includes  programs under the Department of 
Agriculture as export restrictions. All of these programs pertain to programs applicable 
to domestic producers as well as import ers in the areas of food safety, organic 
certification, and marketing orders.   
Secretariat Report 3.2.4.2, Page 76-78: 
"In May 2014, the Administration launched NEI/NEXT as the successor of the NEI. It builds on the principles of the NEI and lessons learned from NEI customer surveys, and provides a strategic 
framework to continue export growth. There are five main points: connect more U.S. businesses to 
global customers, streamline U.S. export servic es and processes, expand access to finance, 
promote exports and FDI, and help developing economies improve their business environment to 
open new markets. NEI/NEXT is a long-term project to help U.S. companies reach their export 
potential and create and support American jobs." 
 Question 24: Could the U.S. please clarify which U.S. government agencies are involved in 
expanding access to finance, promoting export s and FDI under NEI and its successor NEI/NEXT 
projects?  
RESPONSE: NEI and NEI/NEXT are whole-of-government efforts. Agencies include: 
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Depart ment of Transportation, the Export-Import Bank, the Small 
Business Administration, Department of St ate, the U.S. Agency for International 
Development, Department of Agriculture, th e Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 
and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.   
Question 25: Could the U.S. please clarify if the export finance under NEI and its successor 
NEI/NEXT is contingent upon use of local content? What are local content and foreign content requirements under these projects? 
 
RESPONSE: There are no domestic content requirements for export financing. Ex-Im Bank's Congressional and legal requirem ents do stipulate that the purpose of the 
financing Ex-Im provides is to support  U . S .  j o b s .  T o  m e e t  t h i s  m a n d a t e ,  
Ex-Im's financing covers the U.S. value and other amounts (such as local costs) WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 278 - 
 
  necessary to maintain U.S. exporter comp etitiveness. Hence, Ex-Im Bank does not 
impose any requirement over the use of domest ic over imported goods; it simply limits 
its support to the U.S. portion and other eligible amounts.   
Secretariat Report 3.2.5.1, Page 76-78: 
 Question 26: (a) Could the U.S. please clarify whether all lending programs of Ex-Im Bank are 
self-financed in the sense that its fees and servic es charged cover its operating costs? (b) If not, 
whether there is cross-subsidization to cover its operating costs between lending programs? (c) Which sector benefits the most from its lending programs and lending to which sector is most profitable for the Ex-Im Bank?(d) Whether the Ex-I m Bank lending is heavily concentrated in one 
sector?(e) Whether U.S. provides federal budg et support to Exim Bank for its operations? 
 RESPONSE: Yes, all programs are self-finance d. The small business sector benefits the 
most from the Bank's programs as most SME financing does not come from private 
banks, but rather internally generated fund s, supplemented by borrowings from family 
and friends, as well as informal sources, or moneylenders. The long term project finance 
transactions are the most prof itable. Below is a list of majo r industrial sectors in terms 
of exposure. The U.S. does not provide fede ral budget support to the Ex-Im Bank for its 
operations.  
SECTOR FY 2014 (in millions) 
Air transportation US$50,668.7 
Manufacturing (other) US$19,960.7 
Oil and Gas US$16,381.2 
Power Projects US$7,325.3 
All Other US$17,671.9 
Total US$112,007.8 
 Question 27: (a) Can the U.S. please confirm wh ether the Exim Bank Annual Report 2013 states 
that as of September 30, 2012 the re-estimate of the credit loss of the outstanding balances of 
FY1992 through FY2012 commitments indicated that  a net of US$577.3 million of additional funds 
were needed in the financing accounts, mostly to cover funding costs on direct loans, which had exceeded original budget estimates? (b) In view of these facts in the Annual Report of Exim Bank, 
can the U.S. please clarify whether the long term export credit and credit guarantee programmes 
of Exim Bank covered its long term operating costs?  RESPONSE: In any given year, necessary reserv es go up or down. Since 1992, Ex-Im has 
sent a net of US$11 billion to Treasury in excess reserves. 
 Question 28: (a) Whether Exim Bank's short term - loans, guarantee and Insurance programs are 
profitable and these operations are sufficient to cover Ex-Im Bank's long term operating costs? 
(b) If these do not cover the long term operating costs, whether these programs can not be construed as prohibited export subsidies covered under item (j) of Annex I of ASCM?  
 
RESPONSE: Yes, fees are suffici ent to cover operating costs. 
 Question 29: Can the U.S. please clarify whether in case of loan guarantees given by Exim Bank, is 
it the designated lender or the borrower who bears the costs of fees and services charged? 
 RESPONSE: The borrower bears the cost of fees. U.S. Ex-Im charges fees in compliance 
with the OECD's "Arrangement on Offi cially Supported Export Credits."  
 Question 30: (a) Can the U.S. please elaborate on the provisions made by the Exim Bank for 
pre-emptive losses and current allowances for outs tanding losses? (b) Whether they are enough to 
cover its long term operating costs? (c) What is the accounting methodology to calculate loss reserves and whether it takes into account systematic market risks? (d) Can the U.S. please confirm whether the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its 2013 report measured internal 
performance of Exim Bank and made observations  regarding improvements to the loss estimation 
model as the current practices may not assess appropriately the loss rates, credit subsidy cost estimates? (e) Can the U.S. please clarify whethe r in the above GAO Report it was noted that the 
Ex-im Bank report on the 2012 changes to the loss model showed that there was increase in the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 279 - 
 
  percentage of defaulted transaction for loan guarantee from 14% to 19% and for insurance 
transaction from 11% to 14%?   RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank sets aside reserves  for expected losses for the life of all the 
transactions, which are reviewed annually for any changes. These reserves are sufficient 
to cover all costs associated with these prog rams. The Ex-Im Bank uses GAAP for federal 
agencies. The Ex-Im Bank has implemented all GAO recommendations from its 
2013 report and those recommendations are cl osed. As stated in the GAO report, the 
Ex-Im Bank excluded certain transactions to improve the model's predictive ability. As 
the denominator in the model decreased,  and the numerator stayed essentially 
unchanged, the percent increased as noted in  the report. From a dollar perspective, the 
improvements had a small impact. 
 Question 31: (a) Whether Small Business Administration (SBA) is also an agency tasked with 
export promotion? (b)Can the U.S. please clarify whether the Government guaranteed export loan 
from a lender participating with SBA or Exim Bank can increase the borrowing base against total collateral value? (c) Does the Government guarantee confer a benefit to the borrower as the loan 
provided coupled with the Government guarantee is  on terms more advantageous than those that 
would have been available to the borrower on the market? (d) Further, can the U.S. please clarify whether such provision of Government guarantee which is linked to export performance cannot be 
construed as prohibited export subsidy as per ASCM? (e) Please clarify if the Ex-Im Bank required 
additional funds over original budget estimates to cover credit loss of outstanding balances?  
 RESPONSE:  
(a) Yes, SBA is tasked with export promotion. (b) Yes, the guaranty typically allows for the lender to provide a higher advance on 
collateral;  however, as discussed further below, a fee must be paid for the guaranty, 
which generally results in a total cost to  the borrower that is higher than non-
guaranteed conventional loans. (c) No, the government guarantee does not pr ovide a benefit because a guaranty fee is 
charged on the loan, which passes through to  the borrower. Consequently, the borrower 
often faces higher costs than if the loan had been done conventionally. 
(d) Since the total cost to the exporter for such financing is generally higher than for 
non-guaranteed conventional loans, there is no benefit. 
e) Over 20 years, the fees the Ex-Im Bank have charged have been in excess of net 
claims and administrative expens e. The Ex-Im Bank has required no additional funds 
over original budget estimates because ther e was no net credit loss in the program. 
 
Secretariat Report 3.2.5.1, Page 76-78:  Question 32: Can the U.S. please clarify in terms of risks, whether the Ex-Im bank takes into 
account the prevailing market risks while determin ing the rate of interest for direct loans, 
guarantees and insurance?  
RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank looks to the rates prescribed in the terms of the OECD's 
"Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits" when setting interest rates and charging fees.  
 
Question 33: (a) Can the U.S. please clarify whether the Ex-Im Bank guarantee program benefits the borrower from increased borrowing rate and ge nerous advance? (b) Whether such government 
backed guarantee confer a financial contribution to the borrower within the meaning of Article I 
ASCM? 
 RESPONSE: The fees applied in Ex-Im Bank guarantee transactions comply with the 
terms of the OECD's "Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits" and cover all 
operating costs, consistent with item (j) of the Illustrative List of the ASCM.  
 
Question 34: As per the Tables in Annual Report for FY2013 for long-term loans and guarantees 
authorization, the following reasons were identifi ed as the primary purpose for seeking Ex-Im Bank 
support: 
• To assume commercial or political risks that exporter or private financially institution are 
unwilling or unable to undertake; WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 280 - 
 
  • To overcome maturity or other limitation in private sector export financing;  
• To meet competition from a foreign, officially sponsored export-credit agency.  
Can the U.S. please provide details of the overall budget allocated for the last five years to Exim 
Bank for counteracting competitive disadvantages from foreign export credit agencies? 
 
RESPONSE: There is no program budget alloca tion for the Ex-Im Bank for counteracting 
competitive disadvantages from foreign ECAs.  
Secretariat Report 3.2.4.3, Page 77: 
 Question 35: For the Dairy Export Initiative Program "which allows exporters to sell certain U.S. dairy products in foreign markets at prices lower than the exporter's cost of acquiring 
them",(CRS Report, 2013) could the U.S. clarify whether through this program the 
U.S. government is not encouraging dumping of U.S. dairy products in the foreign markets? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see 2.1.1.2.6, subparagrap h 4.27, page 109 of the Secretariat Report. 
 Secretariat Report 3.3.2, Page 80: 
"3.139. The latest subsidies notification to the WTO on federal and sub-federal programmes, 
submitted in May 2014, contained statistical information up to 2012. The magnitude of government assistance has decreased since the previous review (Table 3.15). "3.140. In most cases, subsidies take the form of grants, tax concession, loan guarantees, and 
direct payments. The agriculture and energy sectors remain the largest recipients." 
 Question 36: In the U.S. Subsidies Notifica tion to the WTO under the sub-federal level 
programmes for the state of Massachusetts (Page 178 of U.S. Subsidies Notification) there is a 
programme The Commonwealth Solar II Rebate Program II of the state of Massachusetts. Can the U.S. please clarify what is the eligibility criteria for various commercial, industrial and other 
applicants to be eligible to avail the rebates under this programme? Whether there is any criteria 
to use domestically produced goods as a condition to avail the rebates under this programme?  RESPONSE: Eligibility criteria are provided in  the United States' notification. As noted 
above, India submitted a request for informatio n from the United States in the Subsidies 
Committees with respect to the aforemen tioned program (see, G/SCM/Q2/USA/59). 
The United States replied to these questions (see, G/SCM/Q2/USA/61). 
 
Secretariat Report 3.142, Page 81:  
Question 37: How does the U.S. ascertain that the public works eligible for recovery funds under 
ARRA, 2009 are solely for government purposes  and not for commercial sale or resale?  
 RESPONSE: ARRA provided funding for various Federal Government activities and 
programs, including numerous programs prov iding Federal financial assistance. The 
implementing regulations for Federal procur ements using ARRA funds defined "public 
building or public work" as "a building or work to serve the interest of the general 
public". FAR §25.601. The regulations governing the use of Federal assistance funds 
provided under ARRA define "public bu ilding and public work" as being of a 
governmental entity. 2 CFR §176.140 (a)(2). The various Federal activities and 
programs that received ARRA funding impose  additional criteria on the use of those 
funds that would address the use of the public building or public works for which funding was provided.  
Question 38: Could the U.S. confirm that for each and every public work implemented in 
furtherance of ARRA, 2009 recovery funding, no toll/fee or charges of similar nature are being 
levied for the use of said public works? 
 
RESPONSE: ARRA provided funding for various Federal Government activities and programs, including numerous programs prov iding Federal financial assistance. The 
various Federal activities and programs that received ARRA funding impose additional 
criteria on the use of those funds that wo uld address the use of the public works for 
which funding was provided. Any information wo uld be anecdotal to a specific program.  
 
Secretariat Report para 3.143, page 81: WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 281 - 
 
  "Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) continues to be an important aspect of U.S. trade policy, 
helping firms and workers adjust to trade liberaliz ation. In 2011, the President signed an extension 
of the worker, firm, and farmer programmes until 31 December 2014."  
Question 39: U.S. is requested to provide detail s about Trade Adjustment Assistance. What would 
be future course of action (in place of T AA), as it is valid till 31st December, 2014? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see the U.S. Department of Labor's website for detailed information 
on the Trade Adjustment Assistance  (TAA) program (http://www.doleta. 
gov/tradeact/). Regarding the expiration of  the TAA program, Congress may choose to 
extend the authorization period of the TAA. If Congress does not extend the 
authorization period, or take other action  through appropriations or authorization 
legislation, the program will begin to ph ase out on January 1, 2015. Under such a 
scenario, only workers who were included in groups certified as eligible to apply for 
TAA and adversely affected on or before Dece mber 31, 2014, or in the case of ATAA and 
RTAA have begun receiving payments as of  December 31, 2014, will receive benefits 
after January 1, 2015. No new groups will be  certified and no workers in a certified 
group adversely affected after Dece mber 31, 2014 will receive benefits. 
 Secretariat Report 3.166, Page 85: "For fiscal year 2012, U.S. spending on federal procurement contracts amounted to US$517 billion, 
approximately 14% of 2012 federal government expenditures." 
 Question 40: Out of the amount of US$517 bn., co uld the U.S. provide details of the value of 
procurement made from suppliers outside the U.S. and the countries from which these 
procurements were made? Could the U.S. also indicate the amount of procurement made at the sub-federal level during 2011 and 2012, which are covered by obligations under the GPA?  
 
RESPONSE: As indicated in Paragraph 3.186,  the United States is overhauling its 
database of procurements covered under in ternational agreements. Once finalized the 
public will have access to the database to obtain information. Statistics on the 
procurement conducted by the 37 states covered by U.S. commitments under the GPA 
are included in the statistics that the United States submits to the WTO Committee on Government Procurement. 
 
Question 41: Out of the amount of US$517 bn. co uld the U.S. indicate the value of procurement 
through limited tendering on grounds of protection of exclusive rights and additional purchases 
from original suppliers? Could the U.S. further indicate the percentage of these procurements 
made from foreign suppliers?  RESPONSE: As indicated in Paragraph 3.186,  the United States is overhauling its 
database of procurement covered under inte rnational agreements. Once finalized the 
public will have access to the database to ob tain information, including information on 
limited tendering procurements the United States covers under the GPA.  
 
Question 42: Out of the amount of US$517 bn. could the U.S. indicate the value of procurement of 
IT Services during 2011 and 2012? Could the U.S.  further indicate the percentage of these 
procurements made from foreign suppliers? 
 RESPONSE: As indicated in Paragraph 3.186,  the United States is overhauling its 
database of procurements covered under in ternational agreements. Once finalized the 
public will have access to the database to  obtain information. The database will allow 
the public to search for information on the value of procurements of goods and services, 
including IT services, the United States covers under the GPA . 
 
Secretariat Report 3.177, Page 86:  
Question 43: Could the U.S. state the value of pr ocurement made from the designated groups in 
which the value of the contract was above the threshold of U.S. obligations under the GPA? 
 RESPONSE: The Small Business Goaling report for Fiscal Year 2013 is available online: 
https://www.fpds.gov/downloads/top_req uests/FPDSNG_SB_Go aling_FY_2013.pdf.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 282 - 
 
   
Prior year small business reports are available online at: https://www.fpds.gov/ 
fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports/63- small-business-goaling-report.html . 
 
The goaling report includes contracts with an estimated value of US$3,000 or more and 
modifications to those contracts.  
Secretariat Report para 3.184, page 87: 
 Question 44: Which all products have been waived by USTR from "Buy American Act" requirement in acquisitions covered under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement? 
 
RESPONSE: The Buy American Act applies to all goods procured by the U.S. Federal government. The Buy American Act is waived  for eligible products in acquisitions 
covered by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and some relevant free trade 
agreements (FTA). Information on the United States coverage schedule under the revised GPA can be located on the WTO webpage: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ gproc_e/gp_app_agree_e.htm#revisedGPA . 
 
Information on the United States coverage  schedule under Free Trade Agreements can 
be found on the webpage of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 
https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/government-p rocurement/ftas-government-procurement-
obligations . 
 
 
Secretariat Report 3.200, Page 94:  
Question 45: Could the U.S. state the number of compulsory licenses issued till date under 28 USC 
§1498, under the Clean Air Act (42 USC §7608) and as a remedy to anticompetitive practices under the Sherman Act, separately? Could the U.S. further specify the products for which the compulsory licenses have been issued? Could the U.S. also clarify the grounds on which such 
compulsory licenses have been issued? 
 RESPONSE: The United States recognizes that  Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement permits 
other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the rightholder 
under certain conditions. As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public 
Health, the United States respects a trading pa rtner's right to protect public health and, 
in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, and supports the vital role of the 
patent system in promoting the developm ent and creation of new and innovative 
lifesaving medicines. Consistent with these vi ews, the United States respects its trading 
partners' rights to grant compulsory licenses in a manner consistent with the provisions 
of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, and en courages its trading partners to consider 
ways to address their public health cha llenges while maintaining IPR systems that 
promote investment, research, and innovation.  
 
Question 46: Could the U.S. state the number of compulsory licenses issued for government use out of the total compulsory licenses issued? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes that  Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement permits 
other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder under certain conditions. As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public 
Health, the United States respects a trading pa rtner's right to protect public health and, 
in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, and supports the vital role of the 
patent system in promoting the developm ent and creation of new and innovative 
lifesaving medicines. Consistent with these vi ews, the United States respects its trading 
partners' rights to grant compulsory licenses in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, and en courages its trading partners to consider 
ways to address their public health cha llenges while maintaining IPR systems that 
promote investment, research, and innovation.   
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 283 - 
 
  Question 47: Could the U.S. elucidate whether any assessment has been undertaken to ascertain 
the impact of compulsory licenses being issued on the research and development expenditure of 
patent holders?  
RESPONSE: The United States recognizes that  Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement permits 
other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder under certain conditions. As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public 
Health, the United States respects a trading pa rtner's right to protect public health and, 
in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, and supports the vital role of the 
patent system in promoting the developm ent and creation of new and innovative 
lifesaving medicines. Consistent with these vi ews, the United States respects its trading 
partners' rights to grant compulsory licenses in a manner consistent with the provisions 
of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, and en courages its trading partners to consider 
ways to address their public health cha llenges while maintaining IPR systems that 
promote investment, research, and innovation.   
 Secretariat Report 3.222, Page 100: 
 
Question 48: The Panel in U.S. Section 301 was clear in its reasoning when it stated that Members faced with even a threat of unilateral action, espe cially when it emanates from an economically 
powerful Member, may in effect be forced to give in to the demands imposed by the Member 
exerting the threat, even before DSU procedures have been activated. Could the US, then, confirm 
that without recourse to the multilateral trading system it shall not identify any WTO member country as priority foreign country pursuant to Sections 181 and 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a 
Priority Foreign Country classification would be a unilateral determination inconsistent with the 
provisions of Article 23 of the DSU?   
RESPONSE: In its report, the panel in U.S. – Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974  
(DS152) determined that Sections 304, 305, and 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 were not inconsistent with the obligations of the United States, including the obligations under Article 23 of the DSU.  
 
Secretariat Report 4.3, Page 102:  
Question 49: Could U.S. explain the reason s for eliminating CCP and direct payment? 
 RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill emphasizes fa rmers' participation in crop insurance 
programs. The Farm Bill terminated the Dire ct and Countercyclical Payment program.  
 Secretariat Report 4.4, Page 102: "In the PLC programme, deficiency payments are provided when commodity prices fall below the 
statutory "reference prices". The PLC payments are coupled to current prices, but decoupled from 
actual production, to the extent that payments are based on historical yields and a percentage of historical planted acres (base acres)…" 
 
Question 50: PLC programme is similar to CCP prog ramme in terms of nature of support. It is 
requested to explain the reasons for elimination of Counter-cyclical payments. Why the upland 
cotton is not covered under PLC? 
 RESPONSE: See response to previous question.  
Under the 2014 Farm Bill, upland cotton is not covered under the PLC or ARC programs 
and is instead eligible for the new Stocke d Income Protection Plan (STAX) program 
which provides an additional insurance option for upland cotton producers only.  
 
Secretariat Report 4.14, Page 106:  
Question 51: Considering PLC is only for wheat, feed grains, rice, oilseeds, peanuts and pulses; 
could the U.S. confirm that the domestic support given under PLC will be notified as product specific and not as non-product specific under the amber box? Secretariat Report 4.17, Page 107: 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 284 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of WTO 
classification of any programs established in  the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States will 
notify the classification of these programs as part of its official domestic support 
notification.  
 
Question 52: Could the U.S. clarify whether the do mestic support given under ARC will be notified 
as product specific or as non-product specific under the amber box and the reasons thereof ? 
RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of 
WTO classification of any programs establishe d in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States 
will notify the classification of these programs  as part of its official domestic support 
notification.  
 
Secretariat Report 4.18, Page 107: "The ARC scheme is revenue-based. The programme guarantees a portion of a producer's revenue 
loss relative to a target (benchmark) revenue fr om covered commodities"……... "Farmers are given 
a choice between a revenue guarantee that is dete rmined at farm-level (individual ARC) or at 
county level" 
 
Question 53: What is the difference between ARC at county level and individual level?  
 RESPONSE: The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program is a new revenue-based 
program that makes payments to producers when revenue drops below a percentage of 
the "benchmark" revenue. The ARC program bases payments on 85% of historical 
"base" acres. Producers may choose co unty-based or individual coverage. 
 
·   County-based Coverage  
For producers choosing county-based ARC, pa yments are provided to producers with 
historical "base" acres when county crop revenue (actual averag e county yield times 
national farm price) drops below 86% of the county benchmark revenue 
(5-year Olympic average county yield times 5-ye ar Olympic average of national price or 
the loan rate—whichever is higher for each  year). For each covered commodity enrolled 
on the farm, the county ARC payment amount is the difference between the per-acre guarantee (as calculated above) and actual per-acre revenue, times 85% of base acres 
of the commodity. 
 ·   Individual Coverage 
 
For producers choosing individual ARC covera ge, payments are based on the difference 
between an individual farm guarantee and ac tual individual farm revenues. The farm's 
individual ARC guarantee equals 86% of th e farm's individual benchmark guarantee, 
defined as the ARC guarantee price (the 5 ‑year Olympic average of national price or the 
loan rate—whichever is higher for each year) times the 5-year Olympic average 
individual yield, summing across all crops on  the farm and weighting by plantings. The 
payment amount is the individual farm payment rate (the difference between the 
individual farm guarantee and actual indivi dual farm revenue, but no greater than 10% 
of the farm's benchmark revenue) times 65% of base acres for all covered commodities 
for the individual farm.  Also what are the similarities between ACRE and ARC? 
 
RESPONSE: ACRE and ARC are both revenue- based programs, and both programs make 
payments based on historical base acres. 
 
Secretariat Report 4.57, Page 115: "The Federal crop insurance programme is permanently authorized under the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act of 1980, as amended, inter alia, by subsequent Farm Bills. The new Farm Bill retains 
the federal crop insurance programme, albeit with a number of amendments and increased spending for subsidized crop insurance. Most of the increase is due to two new insurance plans: for cotton (Stacked Income Protection Plan for producers of upland cotton), and for other crops 
(Supplemental Coverage Option). New insurance plans will also be made available for peanuts 
(peanut revenue insurance) and bio-energy crops, amongst others" WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 285 - 
 
   
Question 54: How much is the premium subsidy (percentage) under the Federal crop insurance programme, STA, SCO and peanut revenue insu rance? Why a new insurance programme for 
cotton and peanut is introduced under 2014 bill? How the premium subsidy under different 
insurance programme will be treated under WTO provisions related to domestic support to 
agriculture sector?  
RESPONSE: The premium subsidy for Stacked In come Protection (STAX) is 80 percent. 
The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) subsidy is 65 percent. The new Peanut 
Revenue plan of insurance has the same subs idy level as other Fe deral reinsured plans 
of insurance and is dependent on the coverage level chosen by producers.  
 
The new insurance program for cotton producer s was developed as an alternative to the 
commodity programs for other commodities. Th e new Peanut Revenue plan of insurance 
was developed as a result of peanuts not prev iously being eligible for crop insurance and 
is consistent with current Federal reinsure d plans of insurance for other commodities 
such as corn, soybeans, rice, barley and cotton. 
 
The SCO and STAX insurance programs will no t be available before the 2015 crop year 
and thus have not yet been fully implemen ted. The United States will determine how 
they will be notified after they are fully in place. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 286 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM INDIA 
  (Secretariat Report) 
---- 
 Secretariat Report Para 1.32, Page 20 
 "Services imports are as diversified as exports. Transport, travel, and insurance services are the 
main categories. While the United States is a net exporter in the major services categories, its balance continues to be negative in transport, communication, and computer and information 
services." 
 Question 1:  The U.S. GATS commitments put no limitations ('None' entry) for Mode 1, 2 and 3 of 
Computer and related services. However, the Ohio state Governor issued an Executive Order on 
June 21, 2011 governing the expenditure of public funds for offshore services. According to this 
Order, no state cabinet agency, Board or Commission (Executive agency) shall enter into any 
contract, which uses any public funds within its control to purchase services, which will be 
provided outside the United States. The U.S. is requested to clarify how this Executive Order is consistent with its GATS commitments for computer and related services, which prescribe no limitations on mode 1. The U.S. is also requested to  inform if any other State is also having similar 
or other restrictions on outsourcing of services. 
 RESPONSE: The GATS does not cover government procurement. 
 
Question 2:  The U.S. is requested to inform whether restrictions on content development, 
distribution and projection, exhibition and broadcasting of foreign audiovisual production exist 
(both federal and state level) or not. If yes, it is requested to indicate what these restrictions are.  
 RESPONSE: We are not aware of any measures  restricting the production, distribution, 
and exhibition of content based on nationalit y in the United States. The United States 
maintains restrictions on ownership of broadcasting entities, but those do not extend to 
nationality-based restrictions on the content.  
Question 3:  The U.S. is requested to inform if there exist any restrictions on foreign films, such 
as, broadcasting quotas, local content requirements , screen quotas etc. The U.S. is also requested 
to inform the regulations/restrictions applied at the state level by various states on foreign service 
providers in the following services (all modes)- (i) Architectural services; (ii) Accountancy services; 
(iii) Legal services; (iv) Audio-visual services.  RESPONSE: Please see the response to Ques tion 2 above with respect to audiovisual 
content. The United States maintains GATS  commitments for audiovisual services and 
the professional services sectors identified, and our state-level restrictions can be found 
in those entries. It is beyond the scope of this exercise to provide all the non-
discriminatory regulations relevant to fo reign service suppliers in these sectors.   
 Secretariat Report Para 3.91, Page 69-70 
 "The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA is responsible, inter alia, for ensuring 
the safety and accurate labelling of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, including imports. The FSIS is also responsible for recognizing fore ign regulatory systems as providing a level of 
protection for these commodities equivalent to that provided in the United States. The 
United States has recognized 35 countries with meat, poultry, and/or egg inspection systems…..."  
Question 4: The U.S. is requested to provide the list of 35 countries with whom it has entered 
into equivalence agreements.   
RESPONSE: FSIS has made a determination that there are 35 countries eligible to export 
meat, poultry, and processed egg products to the United States. A list of those countries 
eligible and the species that are eligible for export to the U.S. can be found at: 
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wc m/connect/4872809d-90c6-4fa6-a2a8-
baa77f48e9af/Countries_Products_Elig ible_for_Export%2B.pdf?MOD=AJPERES . WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 287 - 
 
  Secretariat Report Para 3.139, Page 80 
 
The latest subsidies notification to the WTO on federal and sub-federal programmes, submitted in May 2014, contained statistical information up to 2012. The magnitude of government assistance 
has decreased since the previous review (Table 3.15). 
 3.140. In most cases, subsidies take the form of grants, tax concession, loan guarantees, and 
direct payments. The agriculture and energy sectors remain the largest recipients. 
 US Subsidies Notification - WTO Do cument G/SCM/N/253/USA of 9 May 2014 
2.1 Energy Supply – Renewable Energy Resources 
 
1. Periods covered by the notification 
 
The period covered is fiscal years 2011 and 2012.  
 
2. Policy objective and/or purpose 
 To lead the national effort to develop renewable energy technologies, to accelerate acceptance and 
use of renewable energy technologies and to impr ove the United States' overall economic, energy 
security, and environmental health through th e development of clean, competitive power 
technologies.  
 3. Background and Authority 
 P.L. 101-218, "Renewable Energy and Energy Effi ciency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989" 
 
Question 5:  In the U.S. Subsidies Notification (G/SCM/M/253/USA of 9 May 2014) to the WTO 
under the programme at serial no. 2.1 Energy Supply – Renewable Energy Resources there are several legislations to implement the programme. This question relates to P.L. 101-218, "Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency  Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989. 
As per Section 6 of the Act, which deals with Joint Ventures, one of the aims of the Act is to 
enhance the ability of domestic firms to compete with foreign enterprises in sales of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Can th e U.S. please clarify what is the eligibility 
criterion for U.S. firms to be eligible to avail the benefits under this programme? Whether there is 
any criteria to use domestically produced goods as a condition to avail the benefits under this programme? 
 
RESPONSE: The eligibility criterion are consiste nt with the policy objectives discussed in 
the U.S. subsidies notification. Any assistance provided is not contingent upon the use of 
domestic over imported goods.  
 
Question 6:  In the U.S. Subsidies Notification to the WTO the programme at serial no. 3.10 
relates to Advanced Energy Property Credit. Can the U.S. please clarify what is the eligibility 
criteria for applicants or firms to be eligible to avail the benefits under this programme? Whether 
there is any criteria to use domestically produced goods as a condition to avail the benefits under this programme?  
 
RESPONSE Beyond the detailed information already provided in the United States' 
subsidies notification, below please below fi nd the definition of a "qualifying advance 
energy project" taken from the Internal Re venue Code (I.R.C. §48CIRCS48C, 26 U.S.C.A. 
§48C). Eligibility for this program is not co ntingent upon the use of domestic over 
imported goods.  
§ 48C. Qualifying advanced energy project credit 
 (c) Definitions.-- 
 (1) Qualifying advanced energy project.-- 
(A) In general.--The term "qualifying ad vanced energy project" means a project 
   (i) which re-equips, expands, or es tablishes a manufacturing facility for the 
production of-- WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 288 - 
 
  (I) property designed to be used to produce energy from the sun, wind, 
geothermal deposits (within the meaning of section 613(e)(2)), or other renewable resources, (II) fuel cells, microturbines, or an  energy storage system for use with 
electric or hybrid-electric motor vehicles, 
    (III) electric grids to support the transmission of intermittent sources of 
renewable energy, including storage of such energy, 
    (IV) property designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide  
    emissions,     (V) property designed to refine or blend renewable fuels or to produce 
energy conservation technologies (i ncluding energy-conserving lighting 
technologies and smart grid technologies), 
    (VI) new qualified plug-in electr ic drive motor vehicles (as defined by 
section 30D), qualified plug-in electr ic vehicles (as defined by section 
30(d)), or components which are design ed specifically for use with such 
vehicles, including electric motors, ge nerators, and power control units, or 
    (VII) other advanced energy property designed to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions as may be determined by the Secretary, and 
   (ii) any portion of the qualified in vestment of which is certified by the 
Secretary under subsection (d) as eligib le for a credit under this section. 
  (B) Exception.--Such term shall not in clude any portion of a project for the 
production of any property which is used in the refining or blending of any 
transportation fuel (other than renewable fuels). 
 
 (2) Eligible property. --The term "eligible prop erty" means any property-- 
  (A) which is necessary for the producti on of property described in paragraph 
(1)(A)(i), 
  (B) which is-- 
   (i) tangible personal property, or    (ii) other tangible property (not including a building or its structural 
c o m p o n e n t s ) ,  b u t  o n l y  i f  s u c h  p r o p e r t y  i s  u s e d  a s  a n  i n t e g r a l  p a r t  o f  t h e  
qualified investment credit facility, and 
  (C) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is 
allowable. 
 
 Question 7: Does the United States have data on subsidies regarding federal and sub federal 
programs reflecting 2013/2014? 
 RESPONSE: The United States is currently updating the information for the over 650 subsidy programs included in its 2011/2012 subsidies notification to reflect the 
years 2013/14. The next new and full notification is due June 30, 2015. 
 Question 8: Has the United States made any changes to its subsidies programs since 2012?  
 
REPONSE : As noted above, the United States is in the process of compiling its 
2013/2014 subsidies notification. Given the numb er of programs previously notified for 
2011/2012 (over 650), it is likely that there have been changes to one or more of the 
programs since 2012.   Question 9: Why are the target price or reference price for most commodities under PLC much 
higher than CCP as shown in Table A?  
 RESPONSE: The reference prices were determined by Congress as part of the 2014 Farm 
Bill and reflect a significant shift in market dynamics seen over the past several years. 
 Given the higher reference rate and elimination of direct payments, does USA agree that PLC is 
more trade distorting than CCPs?  
 RESPONSE:  PLC payments are made on historical  production without reference to 
current production removing the incentives that lead to surplus production. Because WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 289 - 
 
  producers cannot increase their payments as a result of current planting decisions, 
plantings would be based on market incentives.   
 What is the rationale behind exclusion of Upland cotton under PLC? 
 
RESPONSE:  Under the 2014 Farm Bill, upland cotton is not covered under the PLC or ARC 
programs. Upland cotton is instead eligible for the new Stacked Income Protection Plan 
(STAX) program, which is available for only upland cotton. 
 
Table A: Target Price for Various Crops under PLC and CCP  
(US$) 
Commodity  Quantity measure  Target prices 
under CCP  Target prices 
under PLC 
Wheat  Bushel  4.17 5.5 
Corn  Bushel  2.63 3.7 
Grain sorghum  Bushel  2.63 3.95 
Barely  Bushel  2.63 4.95 
Oats  Bushel  1.79 2.4 
Upland cotton  Pound  0.71 n.a 
Long-grain rice  Hundredweight  10.5 14 
Medium-grain rice  Hundredweight  10.5 14 
Peanuts  Ton  495 535 
Soybeans  Bushel  6 8.4 
Other Oilseeds  Hundredweight  12.68 20.15 
Dry peas  Hundredweight  8.32 11 
Lentils  Hundredweight  12.81 19.97 
Small chickpeas  Hundredweight  10.36 19.04 
Large chickpeas  Hundredweight  12.81 21.54 
 
A. In domestic support notifications of USA, CCP s were treated as non-product specific to 
agriculture sector. However, as shown in Table A, target price varies for different crops 
and these target prices are product specific. The payments under CCPs were linked to 
current prices. Therefore, given the nature of CCPs, it should be treated as product specific support to agriculture sector rather than as non-product specific support. 
Given this background, what was the ration ale behind notifying CCPs as Non-product 
specific support to agriculture sector and t hus underestimating product specific support 
to various crops covered under CCPs?  
RESPONSE:  The countercyclical program made paymen ts based on fixed historical area 
and yields and not current production. Reci pients were not required to produce any 
product to receive payments. For example, a countercyclical payment for wheat base 
acres would still be given to a producer gr owing corn (or any other commodity) on those 
wheat base acres or if the producer planted no crop.   
B. As shown in Table C, payments under CCPs were largely skewed towards large farmers or 
big corporate. Top 10% of farmers have re ceived 76% of payments under CCP. Given 
the similarities between CCPs and PLC, are there any provisions under new farm bill to minimise the concentration of payments under PLC? If yes, then could the USA provide 
this information? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 290 - 
 
  Table C: Concentration of  Counter-Cyclical Payments  
Pct. of Recipients Pct. of 
Payments Number of 
Recipients Total 
Payments 
1995-2011 Payment per 
Recipient 
% %  US$ Million US$ 
Top 1% 35% 12,188 5284.2 4,33,558 
Top 2% 47% 24,377 7099.57 2,91,241 
Top 3% 54% 36,565 8124.39 2,22,190 
Top 4% 59% 48,754 8873.14 1,81,998 
Top 5% 63% 60,943 9477.38 1,55,512 
Top 10% 76% 1,21,886 11445.66 93,905 
Top 15% 84% 1,82,829 12555.75 68,675 
Top 20% 89% 2,43,772 13257.41 54,384 
Remaining 80% of recips. 11% 9,75,091 1712.23 1,756 
Source: EWG subsidy database. 
RESPONSE: The Agricultural Act of 2014,  commonly known as the 2014 Farm Bill, 
amended the statutory provisions regarding payment limitations and the adjusted gross 
income (AGI) eligibility criterion in the Food  Security Act of 1985. The provisions will 
affect the direct and indirect payments that  any individual or entity may receive for 
various programs. In the case of the Pric e Loss Coverage (PLC) Program, direct and 
indirectly attributed payments for combined  Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and PLC 
payments plus marketing loan benefits for a given program (crop) year are limited to 
US$125,000 per individual and entity. There are separate limits for "covered 
commodities" and peanuts (peanuts have a separate US$125,000 payment limit). 
Furthermore, individuals and entities whose prior 3-year (excluding the most recent 
year) average AGI exceeds US$900,000 are ineligible for these payments.   
 Secretariat Report Para 4.15, Page 106 
 
Question 10: Given the fact that updation of yield and base acre is allowed under new farm bill, 
could the USA clarify the following: A. What is the definition of generic base acre under new farm bill? 
 
RESPONSE:  Upland cotton base acres become "gen eric base acres" for use in ARC/PLC 
under the 2014 Farm Bill. Generic base acres are retained on the fa rm at the tract level 
and may: (a) not be reallocated; (b) be pl anted to any crop; (c) receive ARC or PLC 
payments for the acres planted to a covered commodity; (d) be reduced for CRP participation; (e) be reduced when taken ou t of agricultural production; or (f) be 
reduced on farms having more base  acres than available cropland. 
 
B. What are the rules governing the allocation  of payments from generic and commodity-
specific base acre? What were the specific rules for minimising the link between current 
production and payment under CCPs under Farm Act 2008? How are these proposed to be 
changed in the Farm Bill of 2014?  
 
RESPONSE: Generic base acres are retained on the farm at the tract level and may: 
(a) not be reallocated; (b) be planted to any crop; (c) receive ARC or PLC payments for the acres planted to a covered commodity; (d) be reduced for CRP participation; (e) be 
reduced when taken out of agricultural prod uction; or (f) be reduced on farms having 
more base acres than available cropland. Th e 2014 Farm Bill removed upland cotton as a 
covered commodity for the ARC/PLC programs, and upland cotton base acres cannot be reallocated (as described in section 1112) to the base acreage of another covered 
commodity. Upland cotton base acres become generic base acres for use in ARC/PLC.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 291 - 
 
  Generic base acres planted to a covered co mmodity are eligible for ARC/PLC payments 
and will be attributed to a co vered commodity as follows: 
 
• If a single covered commodity is planted on the farm and the total acreage planted 
equals or exceeds the generic base acres on the farm, the generic base acres are 
attributed to that covered commodity in an amount equal to the total number of 
generic base acres on the farm. 
 
• If multiple covered commodities are plan ted on the farm and the total number of 
acres planted to all covered commodities on the farm exceeds the generic base 
acres on the farm, the generic base acre s will be attributed to each of the 
covered commodities on the farm on a pro rata basis to reflect the ratio of:  
o The acreage planted to a covered commodity on the farm; to The total 
acreage planted to all covere d commodities on the farm.  
 
• If the total number of acres planted to a ll covered commodities on the farm does 
not exceed the generic base acres on the farm, the total acres planted to each 
covered commodity are attributed to that covered commodity. 
 
For a more detailed explanation and some exam ples see the ARC/PLC factsheet on FSA's 
webpage at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsR eleases?area=newsroom&subject= 
landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet &type=detail&item=pf_20140925_insup_en_
arcplc.htmlnd . 
 
 
Secretariat Report Para 4.18, Page 107 
 
Question 11: Could the U.S. clarify the following: 
 
A. Can a farmer choose one crop under individual ARC and other crops at county level? If yes, 
then what are the conditions that a farmer has to comply with in order to benefit from this 
flexibility? 
 
RESPONSE: No. If a farm is enrolled in individu al ARC, then the base acres of all covered 
commodities are enrolled in individual ARC. 
  
B. What kind of information is a farmer required to provide in order to enrol or register under 
ARC?  
RESPONSE: For county ARC, producers must annually enroll the farm and submit an 
annual acreage report of all the cropland on  the farm. For individual ARC, producers 
must annually enroll the farm and submit an annual acreage report of all the cropland 
and production of covered commodities on the farm . 
 
C. Is it possible for a farmer to get ARC payments under the county option without actually 
cultivating a specific crop? What is the mechanism in place to verify the farmer acre under 
various crops during each year? 
 
RESPONSE: Yes, it is possible for a farmer  to receive county ARC payments without 
actually cultivating a crop. However, producer s are required to maintain the land in an 
agricultural or conserving use and effect ively control noxious weeds. Producers are 
randomly selected for compliance review an d spot-checks of acreage reports annually . 
 
Secrétariat Report Para 4.20, Page 107  
 
Question 12: How much quantity of cotton, corn, wheat, barely and Rice was forfeited by 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) under Farm ACT 2008? 
 RESPONSE: CCC does not forfeit grain; rather , grain is forfeited to CCC. The quantity 
forfeited to CCC under the 2008 Farm Act for crop years 2008-2013 is 4,000 bushels of WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 292 - 
 
  wheat, 33,000 bushels of barley and 4,933 ru nning bales of upland cotton. No corn or 
rice was forfeited to CCC.  Question 13: What are the provisions under new Farm bill to dispose forfeited crops by 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)? 
 RESPONSE: The same provisions for disposing of forfeited crops by the CCC are in effect 
for the 2014 Farm Bill as under the 2008 Farm Bill. 
 Question 14: Whether the amount mentioned under marketing loan programme in various 
domestic support notifications of the USA covers on ly interest subsidy or full payments to farmers? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States reports benefits under the marketing loan programme on two different Supporting Tables DS6 and DS7. Marketing loan gains and loan deficiency 
payments that are provided directly to pr oducers are reported as non-exempt direct 
payments on Supporting Table DS6. Interest su bsidies, less fees paid by producers when 
loans are originated, are reported as othe r product-specific support on Supporting 
Table DS7.  
  Secretariat Report Para 4.1.1.10, Page 115 
 Question 15:  The USA has notified premium subsidy for various crops under non-product specific 
support. However, premium rate is determined on  the basis of individual crop yield and area. 
Therefore, could the USA explain the rationale behi nd the treatment of crop insurance premium as 
non-product specific support rather than product specific support?  
RESPONSE: The United States has in the past  notified its crop insurance program as 
non-product specific. However, the United States has notified crop insurance as a 
product-specific amber box program in its late st domestic support notification for 2012. 
The United States intends to submit revi sed 2008-2011 notifications reflecting our 
determination that our crop insurance pr ogram should be categorized as product-
specific.  
Question 16:  In USA, the insurance policies are so ld by 18 approved private insurance 
companies, whose operating and administrative costs are partially reimbursed and losses underwritten by the federal government. USA ha s notified these payments under green box. 
However, reimbursement of operating and administrative expenses play important role in 
determining the premium rate for various crops and private insurance company will charge lower 
premium rate for various crops. USA is requested to clarify the linkage between premium rate and reimbursement of operating expenses. Does USA ag ree that by this mechanism, private insurance 
companies are underestimating the premium rate for various crops?  
 RESPONSE: RMA determines the premium rates for the crop insurance program, and is 
directed by law to set those rates at a level sufficient to cover expected losses. Over the 
last 20 years, the average loss ratio (loss divided by premium, a common measure of 
actuarial performance) has been below 1. 00, indicating that premium rates have 
generally not been understated. 
 Question 17:  USA is requested to provide Crop wise and Farm wise insurance premium subsidy 
after 2008 onwards. 
 
RESPONSE: Data for 1989 to the presen t is available on RMA's website at: 
http://www3.rma.usda.gov/apps/sob/ .  
 
Question 18:  As per Environmental Working Group, crop insurance subsidies now cost the 
taxpayer US$9 billion a year and overwhelmingly flow to the largest and most successful farm 
businesses. While some farms annually collect more than US$1 million in crop insurance premium 
support, the bottom 80% of policyholders annually  collect about US$5,000. 26 farm businesses 
benefitted from US$1 million in subsidies to buy crop insurance in 2011. 10% of farm businesses received 54% of all insurance subsidies in 2011 Is there any mechanism under New Farm bill to 
minimise this inequitable distribution of insurance subsidy? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 293 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The premium subsidy rate per dolla r of insurance coverage does not depend 
on the size of the grower. However, the new Farm Bill increased the subsidy rate 
provided to new and beginning growers.   
Question 19:  What are the reasons behind the concentration of insurance subsidy to four crops 
(corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton) which accounted over 80% of insurance premium subsidy?  
RESPONSE: The four crops are the primar y food and fibre crops grown in the 
United States, and represent over 77% of insured value for the crop insurance program. Because premium and premium subsidy are calculated as a percent of insured value, they account for a similarly high propor tion of the total premium and subsidy. 
 
Question 20:  Crop insurance premium subsidy is also skewed towards few states like Texas, 
North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, whereas participation of other states like Massachusetts, 
Utah and West Virginia etc. in crop insurance subs idy is very low. What are the reasons behind the 
skewed nature for regional/state participation in crop insurance premium subsidy?  
RESPONSE: Texas, North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesot a, and Illinois are substantial producers 
of the four primary food and fibre crops mentioned in the pr evious question. As noted, 
those crops represent over 77% of insured value for the crop insurance program.  
 
Question 21: Instead of increasing the coverage of federal crop insurance up to 86%, why has 
the USA government introduced the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO).  
RESPONSE: The Supplemental Coverage Option  (SCO) provides growers the opportunity 
to obtain part of their insurance coverage on an area basis.  
Question 22: Stacked Income Protection Plan is a new revenue insurance that covers losses of up 
to 20 % of expected county revenue. Given the fact that STAX and SCO differentiate between various crops like cotton and other crops, would the USA agree that STAX and SCO should be 
treated as product specific support under Amber box. If not, then reasons thereof may be 
provided. 
 RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of 
WTO classification of any programs establishe d in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States 
will notify the classification of these programs  as part of its official domestic support 
notification.  
 
Question 23: USA farmers are covered through price risk programmes, revenue risk 
programmes, market assistance loan and highly subsidized crop insurance schemes. Given these programmes, it is possible that farmers are over compensated than their actual loss. What are the 
mechanism under New Farm Bill to prevent the ov ercompensation of the payments under various 
programmes?  
RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill contains specific  provisions to ensure that producers are 
not over-compensated. For example, produc ers cannot receive payments for grazing 
losses under both the Noninsured Crop Di saster Assistance Program (NAP) and the 
Livestock Forage Program (See Section 1416 (6)(d). Producers cannot enroll in both 
ARC and PLC for a given crop on a farm, and if  they choose ARC, they are not eligible for 
the Supplemental Coverage Option under fede ral crop insurance. The Risk Management 
Agency will use enrolment data to ensure th at producers cannot enroll in both ARC and 
SCO.  
 Secretariat Report Para 4.76, Page 121 
 "On 18 February 2014, the Federal Reserve approved a final rule establishing a number of 
enhanced prudential standards, including liquidity, risk management, and capital to strengthen the 
supervision and regulation of U.S. banks with assets of at least US$50 billion, as well as 
U.S. operations of foreign banks that have mo re than US$50 billion in non-agency U.S. assets. 
Under the new rule, foreign banks with U.S. assets of at least US$50 billion are required to establish intermediate holding companies for their U.S. financial operations (other than branches 
and agencies) and to meet, with some accommodative exceptions, the same capital, liquidity and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 294 - 
 
  other standards as U.S. bank holding compan ies of comparable size. The Federal Reserve 
estimates that approximately 20 foreign banks, ma ny based in the European Union, will have to 
establish intermediate holding companies in the United States. Domestic banks subject to the new rule will need to comply by 1 January 2015, while fo reign banks will generally be required to do so 
by 1 July 2016." 
 Question 24: The U.S. is requested to clarify if domestic banks with U.S. assets of at least 
US$50 billion are also required to establish intermed iate holding companies for their U.S. financial 
operations and to meet capital, liquidity and other standards?   RESPONSE: Please see the "Financial Stab ility Oversight Council 2014 Annual Report": 
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/f soc/Documents/FSOC%202014%20Annual%20R
eport.pdf . 
 
Secretariat Report Para 4.80, Page 122 
 
"The Dodd-Frank Act does not address the proble m of housing finance and the future of the 
two giant mortgage-finance agencies, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac), which remain under the control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). On 16 March 2014, the Housing Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act was introduced in the Senate and remains pending. It would wind down Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac over the next five years and establish a new system to be regulated by a new entity 
known as the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corpor ation (FMIC), modelled in part after the FDIC. 
The Act would also change other aspects of government regulation surrounding the US$10 trillion 
mortgage market. For instance, under the terms of the legislation, private investors would be 
responsible for taking a first loss position of at least 10% of the mortgage-backed security's 
value." 
 
Question 25: The U.S. is requested to clarify what aspects of the government regulations 
surrounding the U.S. mortgage market will be changed and how, after the Housing Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act comes into existence. 
 
RESPONSE: We do not expect the Housing Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act to be enacted in the 113th Congress. 
 
Secretariat Report Para 4.81, Page 122 
 
"According to the IMF, U.S. financial firms in gene ral have strengthened their balance sheets over 
the last few years. However, more progress is need ed in some areas, notably in terms of "shadow 
banking", i.e. given the size and prominence of money market mutual funds in short-term funding 
markets, their regulation should be reinforced to further enhance financial stability; and U.S. 
banks' exposure to struggling euro-zone sovereigns , although improved recently, is still relatively 
high at around 5% of their assets if indirect exposure through derivatives and guarantees is included. Moreover, the IMF has warned that "too big to fail" banks are still major sources of 
systemic risks and has called for tighter supervision. The implicit subsidy for "too big to fail" banks 
in the United States is estimated at about US$70 billion."  
Question 26:  The U.S. is requested to indicate- 
1. In what form was the implicit subsidy provided to "too big to fail" banks? 
2. What are the criteria for providing this subsidy to various banks? 
3. Does any discrimination exist in providing such subsidy to foreign banks vs domestic banks? 
If yes, details thereof. 
 RESPONSE: See the 2011 FSOC Study & Recommendations Regarding Concentration 
Limits on Large Financial Companies, wh ich notes that Dodd-Frank "establishes a 
financial sector concentration limit that ge nerally prohibits a financial company from 
merging or consolidating with, or acquiring,  another company if the resulting company's 
consolidated liabilities would exceed 10% of th e aggregate consolidated liabilities of all 
financial companies…The financial sector's co ncentration limit should help reduce the 
prospects for any increase in implicit subsidy for the nation's largest financial firms." Additional details are available at:  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 295 - 
 
  http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Doc uments/Study%20on%20Concentration%20Li
mits%20on%20Large%20Firms%2001-17-11.pdf . 
 
 
Secretariat Report Para 4.92, Page 125 
 
"……… The United States has taken an exemption under GATS Article II (MFN) to allow for 
"differential treatment of countries due to application of reciprocity measures or through 
international agreements guaranteeing market access or national treatment" for DTH and DBS television services and digital audio services  (DARS). The United States also reserved the 
right to "allow the deduction for expenses of an advertisement carried by a foreign broadcast 
undertaking and directed primarily at U.S. market only where the broadcast undertaking is located 
in a foreign country that allows a similar deduction for an advertisement placed with a U.S. broadcast undertaking". The purpose of this MFN exemption is to "encourage the allowance of 
advertising expenses internationally" 
 Question 27: The GATS, in principle, provides for removing the MFN exemptions within 10 years 
of their coming into existence. The U.S. is requested to inform when it is expected to eliminate the 
MFN exemptions in various services taken by it under the GATS?  RESPONSE: The United States will consider removing the MFN exemptions identified by 
India when the conditions that gave rise  to their scheduling substantially change. 
Specifically, market access and national treatment commitments by WTO Members for 
for DTH and DARS services are practically non-existent, and measures restricting the 
foreign supply of such services are widespre ad. The Unites States has offered to remove 
this reservation in the Doha negotiations , provided that other WTO Members make 
meaningful commitments as well. Similarly, with respect to deductability of advertising 
expenses, at least one WTO member discrimi nates against foreign suppliers and until 
this is addressed, exemption continues to be justified.   
Secretariat Report Para 4.93, Page 125 
 
"In November 2012, the FCC adopted the Report and Order (FCC-12-145) and eliminated the 
International Settlements Policy (ISP) in order to modernize its international telephony rules, 
further lower the price for international calls, and increase competition. At the same time, the FCC adopted safeguards to protect against anticompetit ive conduct in specific cases. Nonetheless, the 
FCC maintains a "List of Foreign Carriers that are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign 
Telecommunications Markets". This list of carriers is used for the purposes of implementing certain FCC rules on switched services over private lines  and U.S. international common carriers and cable 
landing licensees." 
 
Question 28: Could the U.S. clarify the following- 
1. What are the safeguards adopted by the FCC to  protect against anticompetitive conduct in 
specific cases? 
2. What are the FCC rules that are being implemen ted on switched services over private lines 
and U.S. international common carriers and cable landing licensees?  
 
RESPONSE:   
1. The key safeguards the FCC employs are a prohibition on "special concessions" 
offered by the dominant supplier in its ho me country relating to U.S. origin or 
destination traffic; and a range of a reporting requirements.  
2. There are no specific rules relating to  offering switched services over private 
lines. Suppliers looking to offer such servic es need a standard authorization to offer 
international services, known as an  international 214 authorization. 
 
Secretariat Report Para 4.97, Page 128 
 "On 4 March 2014, the United States announced its intention to negotiate Telecommunications Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with selected countries "to facilitate U.S. exports of telecommunications equipment." The United States has negotiated MRAs with a number of 
multilateral organizations and economies,  including in the context of APEC." WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 296 - 
 
  Question 29: The U.S. is requested to inform-  
1. What are the elements/provisions of Telecommunications Mutual Recognition Agreements 
(MRAs) negotiated by the US?  
 
 
RESPONSE: In each of the agreements, participating countries agree to accept the test 
results and/or product approvals performe d by the Conformity Assessment Bodies 
(CABs) of the other country based on the use of a set of internationally accepted 
procedures. The present MRAs only addre ss the issue of harmonizing conformity 
assessment procedures and do not attempt to harmonize regulatory standards or 
technical standards. The scope of the MRA includes all equipment subject to 
telecommunications regulations, includin g wire and wireless, network terminal 
attachments, terrestrial and satellite equipm ent. For such equipment the APEC TEL MRA, 
for example, covers electromagnetic compat ibility (EMC), radio and telephone terminal 
equipment requirements. 
 Secretariat Report Para 4.114 Table 4.10, Page 135 
 
"At sub-federal and municipal levels there exist numerous recent support schemes designed to 
attract, through subsidies or tax breaks, the production of films and television programs. 
Table 4.10 contains a non-exhaustive inventory of those schemes at the state level."  
 
Question 30:  Table 4.10 provides a non-exhaustive inventory of support schemes at the state 
level. However, it does not provide the eligibilit y criteria for granting these support schemes. For 
instance, it talks about qualified production expenditures for schemes in various states (such as 
Alaska, Arkansas etc.) but does not specify what constitute the qualified production expenditure. The U.S. is requested to explain the eligibility criteria for these support schemes.  
 
RESPONSE: Eligibility criteria for production in centives vary by state. The criteria for any 
specific state can be found on the website of  the relevant film commission. Links to all 
relevant film commissions in the United States can be found at: 
http://www.afci.org/directory/us . 
 
In addition, India may refer to U.S. notifications under SCM Article 25.  
 
Secretariat Report Para 4.124, Page 139 
 
"Prior to the PPACA, individuals who did not have access to any of the above sources of health 
coverage could purchase medically underwritten health insurance from regional or national insurers. Several states actually did have rest rictions on medical underwriting, but most did 
not……." 
 
Question 31:  T h e  U . S .  i s  r e q u e s t e d  t o  i n f o r m  t h e  S t a t e s  h a v i n g  r e s t r i c t i o n s  o n  m e d i c a l  
underwriting and also to explain what these restrictions are. 
 
RESPONSE: Medical underwriting is a process used by insurance companies to try to 
figure out a person's health status when he  or she is applying for health insurance 
coverage to determine whethe r to offer coverage, at what price, and with what 
exclusions or limits. For example, prior to 2014, many health insurance plans could 
charge people more because they had what was known as a pre-existing condition, a 
health problem that existed before the date that the coverage started. A pre-existing 
condition could range from HIV/AIDS or cancer  to simply being a woman or a victim of 
domestic violence. Prior to the Affordable Care  Act, 6 states had guaranteed issue for all 
products and 7 had it for some products: http://kff.org/other/state-
indicator/individual-market-guaranteed-i ssue-not-applicable-to-hipaa-eligible-
individuals/ . This meant that they could not di scriminate based on pre-existing 
conditions and must allow individuals to enro ll regardless of health status, age, gender, 
or other factors that might predict the use of  health services. Because of the Affordable 
Care Act, beginning on January 1, 2014, al l individual and group health plans must 
guarantee issue health policies/plans to all applicants, regardless of health status, and 
can only vary premiums based on age, tobacc o use, family size, geographic location and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 297 - 
 
  plan category: https://www.healthcare.gov/low er-costs/how-plans-set-your-
premiums/ . 
Secretariat Report Para 4.133, Page 141 
 
"The United States is the world's leading destination for foreign healthcare workers. It hosts the 
largest number of foreign healthcare workers in absolute terms although foreign professionals 
make up a larger share of the workforce in many European countries. In 2010, demand for 
physicians exceeded supply by 13,700 physicians an d 22% of the physicians operating in the U.S. 
graduated from foreign medical schools. As a result of the healthcare reform and the additional demand it will entail, it is expected that the supply-demand gap for physicians will widen in the coming years. As a consequence, foreign caregivers are allowed to practice in the United States 
under specific programmes, for instance a visa -waiver program, which allows U.S. trained 
international medical graduates to stay in the United States if they practice in a medically-underserved area for three years. To date, 9,000 physicians have worked under this 
program." 
 Question 32: Could the U.S. clarify the following - 
 
1. What are the specific programmes and their features under which foreign caregivers are 
allowed to practice in the U.S.? 
2. Do these specific programs also cover foreign nurses? 
3. Does the U.S. have any specific arrangement to allow for foreign qualified nurses and 
para-medical professionals to work in the U.S.? If yes, what are these programs? 
4. Are there any national treatment discrimination for foreign qualified nurses and para-medical 
professionals while they seek to work in the U.S.? If yes, what? 
 RESPONSE: The following provides an overview  of certain programs that enable health 
care providers from foreign countries to receiv e training or provide clinical care in the 
U.S. 
 
Training 
 
The Department of State's Exchange Visito r Program (EVP), provides non-immigrant 
visas for individuals to participate in academ ic or training exchange programs. Students 
and various professions including physicians are eligible for the EVP. More information 
can be found at http://j1visa.state.gov . 
 
Clinical Care  
 
In order to provide care in the United Stat es, a foreign educated or trained physician 
must be licensed in a U.S. State (in addi tion to holding an appropriate visa).  
 
To be licensed, a foreign physician must comp lete a U.S. residency program, as well as 
U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) St eps 1, 2, &3. To compete for a residency 
position, all foreign-trained physicians (inc luding U.S. citizens & permanent residents 
trained abroad) must be certified by Ed ucational Commission for Foreign Medical 
Graduates (ECFMG). 
 
Most foreign physicians enter U.S. Residencies on the J-1 (training) visa; the 2-year post 
training foreign residency requirement of the J-1 visa may be waived  in return for an 
agreement to work for 3 years in an underserved area.  
 
We are unaware of similar programs fo r nurses or paramedical professionals. 
 
We do not have detailed information about any measures of the type described for 
nurses and paramedical professionals. We note  that U.S. national treatment obligations 
under the relevant WTO Agreement do not extend to those sectors. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 298 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM INDIA 
 
 Question 33: Ohio order to curb offshoring (Aug 2010):  What steps U.S. has taken to curb 
adoption of such executive orders banning outsourcing / offshoring by other states? Is the federal 
government considering the state of Ohio to repeal its order and uphold United States free trade principles? 
 
RESPONSE: See our response to Question 1 above.   Question 34:  We understand that specific bill S.744, HR 15 other related bills in the current 
Congress would lapse if not passed by the House of Representatives before 6 January 2015, when 
the new Congress convenes. We are concerned that the Indian tech sector and overseas companies are becoming a soft target for U.S. lawmakers in the recent years. We are concerned 
that provisions such as those mentioned in S.744 bill may come back in new form. What 
assurances can U.S/ Administration provide that similar efforts by the new Congress would be thwarted and Indian IT industry would not be targeted? We have seen similar efforts in this space 
for past many years. Are there any assurances from the U.S. that it will not adopt forced 
localisation measures in the services space?   RESPONSE: The U.S. Executive Branch will not speculate how Congress may choose to 
proceed on the pending legislation mentio ned above. We also note that, to be 
considered further, legislation would need to be reintroduced in the 114th Congress, 
which will begin in early January 2015. 
 
Question 35:  Visa fee hike:  Border Security Bill (Public Law 111-230) signed by President 
Obama into law in 2010 increased visa fee for companies with at least 50 employees in the U.S. 
and more than 50% of their employees on H-1B  or L-1 visas by US$2,000 for H-1B visas and 
US$2,250 for L-1 visas through September 30, 2014. Thereafter, the James Zadroga 9/11 Act (Public Law 111-347) in 2011 increased the duration of applicability of this increase till September 30, 2015. This fee hike largely impacts Indian se rvice providers in view of the business model 
adopted by them. This is a discriminatory provision in U.S. law. We would like to know what steps 
the U.S. Government plans to take to ensure th at this provision does not get extended beyond 
September 2015?  
 
RESPONSE: The visa-related provisions in these statutes are consistent with the United States' international trade commitments. Any changes with respect to these 
provisions would be a product of the legislative process. 
 Question 36: Centralisation of L visas in Chennai:  This centralisation, when brought in, was 
with the objective of bringing in consistencies in visa adjudication process apparently and it was 
indicated that once consistency was achieved U.S. missions will go back to accepting applications 
at local missions. This measure has been in force since 2011 and has added to cost burden of companies leveraging Indian talent, and defeats the purpose of having multiple missions in large 
country such as India. Could U.S. indicate till how long this measure will remain in force?  
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Department of State has not set any timeframe for decentralizing 
Blanket L visas. Over the next six months, th e Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs 
and U.S. Mission India will evaluate the current situation and the possibility of 
decentralizing Blanket L visa adjudication.  
Question 37: L1 guidance from EO:  The latest Executive Order brought about by 
President Obama on 21
st Nov mentions need to bring about transparency in L1 visa process on the 
issue of specialised knowledge which till date uses ambiguous terms to adjudicate visas where 
specialised knowledge has been defined as "mor e than ordinary but not extra-ordinary". In 
Leading to rejection rate that is highest in the world (around 40%), Indian software sector/ NASSCOM has been calling for more objective list of  parameters which is easy to comply with and 
in fact submitted such a list to U.S. Embassy few years ago where no action was taken. Could U.S 
indicate whether the new guidance proposes to bring about objectivity in the L1 visa process.   RESPONSE: The referenced L-1 guidance is cu rrently under development. It will aim to 
promote consistency and efficiency in L-1B adjudications.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 299 - 
 
  Question 38:  The James Zadroga Act (Public Law 111-347) 2011 imposes 2 % excise tax on 
U.S. Govt procurement of goods and service purchased by foreign supplier (such as India) - Could 
the U.S. indicate till how long these measures be in force? Is there any consideration of repealing these measures. 
 
RESPONSE: The effective date of the statute was the date of its enactment, January 2, 
2011. The U.S Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in the 
process of drafting regulations. The United States is unable to provide details about the 
administration or interpretation of the le gislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations.  
FDA Drug Rates 
 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on 2 August 2014 announced rates for abbreviated new 
drug applications (ANDAs), prior approval supplements to an approved ANDA (PASs), drug master 
files (DMFs), generic drug active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) facilities, and finished dosage form (FDF) facilities user fees related to the Generic Drug User Fee Program for fiscal year (FY) 
2015. The new rates are effective 1 October 2014 and will remain in effect through 
30 September 2015. According to the Business Standard, the new fees indicate that Indian generic pharmaceutical firms may have to pay 12-15% more in annual facility fees due to the new rates. For example, a foreign FDF facility will now have to pay US$262,717 for FY2015, compared to 
US$235,152 a year ago - an increase of 12%. Similarly, the FY2015 fees for a foreign API is now 
US$56,926 - 15% higher than the current rate. A federal register notice giving more details at web link: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/ 2014/08/01/2014-18108/generic-drug-user-fee-
abbreviated-new-drug-application-prior-approval-supplement-drug-master-file  
 
Generic Drug User Fee Act 
(GDUFA) FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2013 
Domestic API Facility  US$41,926 US$34,515 US$26,458 
Foreign API Facility  US$56,926 US$49,515 US$41,458 
Domestic FDF Facility  US$247,717 US$220,152 US$175,389 
Foreign FDF Facility  US$262,717 US$235,152 US$190,389 
 
Question 39 : Can the United States provide an explanat ion of the necessity of the rate increases 
and evidence that it will not adversely impact drug  exports to the U.S? Could the U.S. clarify why 
GDUFA fees are higher for foreign facilities?  
RESPONSE: The rates for products and facilitie s subject to fees under the Generic Drug 
User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) are determined annually through a process required by statute (21 USC 379j-42) and published annually in the Federal Register 
(FR) for the upcoming fiscal  year (FY). See, for inst ance, the FR announcement 
published on August 1, 2014 setting GDUFA fees for FY2015 at (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/01/2014-18108/abbreviated-
new-drug-application-prior-approval-su pplement-drug-master-file-final-dosage-
form?utm_campaign=pi+subscription+ma iling+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=f
ederalregister.gov ). In that announcement, the calc ulations by which the fees were 
determined were explained in detail for GDUFA facility, application and Drug Master File 
(DMF) fees. In effect, the changes seen in the rates from year to year are driven by the 
economic realities of each fee type. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been a 
study of the impact on drug exports to the United States for the GDUFA rate increases. 
 
Part of the statute (see 21 USC 379j-42(b)(2)(C)-(D)) lays out the requirement that 
foreign facilities pay a higher fee than domest ic U.S. companies. This foreign facility fee 
differential is intended to reflect the actual cost of the service considering the fact that 
conducting inspections of foreign facilities  is more expensive for the FDA than for 
domestic facilities, due in part to travel c osts and the additional costs of arranging for 
visas, translation and interpretation services, etc. This factor is incorporated into the 
calculations mentioned above and are detailed in the same FR notice referenced above. 
 Question 40:  With regard to the exports of GI and PPGI under HS Code 7210, it is observed that 
the exports are mainly in the thickness range of .5  mm and below. The industry in USA is not keen 
in the manufacturing these sizes. It is observed  that while imposing antidumping duties some 
products which are not manufactured in U.S. also get covered for imposition of duty. Could the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 300 - 
 
  U.S. authorities clarify the steps taken to exclude products not manufactured in U.S. for imposition 
of antidumping duties?  RESPONSE : Whether or not to exclude products from the imposition of antidumping 
duties depends on the written scope of the a pplicable antidumping duty order. While the 
scope description accompanying an antidumping duty order normally lists HS subheadings for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope is dispositive. An interested party can request a scope inquiry in accordance with 
the U.S. Department of Commerce's regulation s if it wishes a specific product to be 
examined as to whether it should be includ ed within the scope of an antidumping duty 
order. 
 
Question 41: Has the Special 301 process been utilized in any manner that conflicts with 
WTO norms and procedures?  
 
RESPONSE: The Special 301 process is consistent with WTO norms and procedures.  
Background: The SIMA system and licensing system is mandated by Departments of Commerce 
and Treasury Institute. The stated objective of SI MA is to collect the import license information 
and assess the import trend of the steel mill product imports.   
Question 42:  What is the larger purpose this data collection?  
 RESPONSE:  The Steel Import Monitoring and Analys is system collects detailed statistics 
on steel imports in order to provide interested  parties with timely information on import 
trends in the steel sector. The system is view ed as an important and transparent tool to 
support rational decision-makin g by all interested parties. 
 
Question 43:  Could U.S. clarify the exact product coverage under this scheme? 
 RESPONSE: All imports of basic steel mill prod ucts are subject to the import licensing 
requirement. A complete list of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes covered under the 
requirement is available on the SIMA website at: http://enforcement.tra de.gov/steel/license/ .  
 
Question 44: It is understood that this scheme has been extended till 2017. If the purpose is only 
to track trend then why is it time bound? 
 
RESPONSE: Broad authority to collect information on imports is granted to the Secretary of Commerce and delegated to the Director of the Bureau of the Census. When the original authority for the SIMA system granted by the President expired in March 2005, 
the system was continued pursuant to the Department of Commerce information 
collection authority (13 U.S.C. 301(a) and 302 ). For purposes of administering the SIMA 
system, this authority was te mporarily transferre d from the Director of the Census 
Bureau to the Under Secretary for International Trade for four years. One of the 
conditions of the temporary transfer of authority to the Under Secretary for International Trade was that any future peri odic extensions of the SIMA system be 
notified to the Secretary and subject to review. Therefore, under current authority the 
SIMA system must be renewed.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 301 - 
 
  INDONESIA  
  SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.1 General Framework 
2.1.3 New Developments 
2.1.3.3 Comprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud  
Page 29 Para 2.12 
 
"In June 2014, the President established a task force to enhance coordination of U.S. Government 
efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud and directed 
the task force to develop and implement a comprehensive framework to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Further, the President noted the na tional interest to promote sustainable fishing 
practices and the plan to implement the UNFAO Ag reement on Port State Measures to Prevent, 
Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Un regulated Fishing. The framework acknowledges 
that the United States will continue to promote its policy of legally and sustainably caught, and accurately labelled seafood, and will assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat 
IUU fishing and seafood fraud." 
 Question 1. What are the procedures in place to ensure that the U.S. Government task force uses 
a science-based, transparent process to develop and implement regulations and laws?  
 RESPONSE: The Task Force is providing its recommendations to the President in 
December 2014. The recommendations will be published in the Federal Register  with an 
opportunity for public comment. Upon receiv ing guidance from the President on the 
recommendations, the Task Force will begin its implementation of the recommendations 
and, within one year, will report to the Pr esident on its progress. The Administrative 
Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) provides the basis for transparency and accountability in 
developing Federal regulations. The APA requ ires agencies to undertake a notice and 
comment process open to all members of th e public, both domestic and foreign, for 
rulemakings, and to take public comments into  account in developing final regulations. 
In addition, Executive Order 12866 – Regula tory Planning and Review sets out the 
regulatory philosophy, principles, and actions that guide federal agencies in planning, 
developing, and reviewing Federal regulati ons. These practices ensure openness, 
transparency, and accountability in the regulato ry process, and, as a result, help the 
United States to ensure that it meets its in ternational trade obligations, including, where 
appropriate, to base measures on scientific evidence.  
 
Question 2. How will task force's activities coordina te with existing U.S. reviews that address labor 
or other aspects of IUU fishing and seafood fraud? 
 
RESPONSE: The Task Force is comprised of a broad range of U.S. agencies. See 
Presidential Memorandum – Establishing a Co mprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, 
Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud (June 17, 2014). The Task 
Force is coordinating across U.S. governme nt agencies and is taking a whole of 
government approach to developing reco mmendations to combat IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud. 
 
Question 3. How will WTO members and others know  if the IUU regimens and practices are under 
review and/or being recommended for annual review  and change (e.g. like the U.S. Department of 
State Trafficking in Persons review)? 
  RESPONSE: The Task Force is providing its recommendations to the President in 
December 2014. The recommendations will be published in the Federal Register  with an 
opportunity for public comment. Upon receiv ing guidance from the President on the 
recommendations, the Task Force will begin its implementation of the recommendations 
and, within one year, will report to the Pres ident on its progress. Information regarding WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 302 - 
 
  IUU measures is available online at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/i a/iuu/iuu_overview.html . 
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.2 Regional and preferential agreements 2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential regimes 
2.3.2.2.2 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 
 Page 35 Para 2.34 
 
"Since the suspension of the GSP programme in Ju ly 2013, a number of countries continue to be 
reviewed for worker rights, child labour, IPR, or arbitral awards issues that could alter their beneficiary status. Product addition or removal petitions are also being reviewed. In 2013, the 
major products benefiting from GSP preferences were crude petroleum, automobile tyres, and 
jewellery of precious metal; and majorn beneficiaries of GSP were India, Thailand, and Brazil."  
Question 4. We would like to know the beneficiaries status for Indonesia on the U.S. GSP 
programme which suspended since July 2013?  RESPONSE: Indonesia continues to be a designated beneficiary country of the 
GSP program, notwithstanding the ongoing GS P country practices review of Indonesia's 
protection of intellectual property rights, which was launched in June 2012. However, as 
a result of the July 2013 expiration in legal authorization of the GSP program, 
GSP-eligible goods from Indonesia and m ost other GSP beneficiary countries are 
currently subject to normal-trade-relations rates of duty. (Beneficiary countries of the African Growth and Opportunity Act continue  to benefit from trade preferences under 
GSP, even during the lapse in GSP, consistent  with the provisions of the AGOA statute.) 
The full list of GSP beneficiar y countries can be found at 
http://www.usitc.gov/publications/d ocs/tata/hts/bychapter/1401gn.pdf .  
 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
3.1.6.1 Prohibitions and restrictions  
Page 57 Table 3.6 
 
"Toxic substances Imports will not be released from CBP custody unless proper certification is 
presented to presented to CBP indicating that the import "complies with" or "is not subject to" 
TSCA requirements." 
 Question 5. Related to the requirements by US-EPA which will apply formaldehyde emission 
standards for Wood Composite Products (TSCA) for: a) Hardwood Plywood (HWPW); b) Medium 
Density Fiberboard (MDF); and c) Particle Board (PB), Indonesia asks for further clarification on 
the scope of products that will be imposed because there are some allegations that it will also 
include the Laminated Products (Finished Products)? 
 RESPONSE: On 10 June 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two regulations. The first proposal woul d establish a framework for a third-party 
certification program to ensure that composi te wood panel producers comply with the 
formaldehyde emission limits established under  Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA). The second proposal would impl ement formaldehyde emission standards 
under Title VI of TSCA and would apply to hardwood plywood, medium-density 
fiberboard, particleboard, and finished good s containing these products that are sold, 
supplied, offered for sale, or manufacture d (including imported) in the United 
States. The EPA is carefully considering all co mments as it works to develop final rules. 
Therefore, EPA cannot provide a determination at this time on the issues raised. These issues, and many others, will be addressed wh en the final rules are published, including 
a comprehensive response to comment document  that will be placed in the dockets for 
the final rules. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 303 - 
 
  Question 6. Whether the difference of the new fo rmaldehyde standards with the Californian Air 
Resources Board (CARB) standards?  RESPONSE: The composite wood product formal dehyde emission standards contained in 
TSCA Title VI are identical to the emission standards currently in place in California. The 
proposed regulatory proposal would implem ent these emissions standards and is 
designed to ensure compliance with the TSCA  Title VI formaldehyde emission standards 
while aligning, where practical, with the regulatory requirements in California. 
 Question 7. Is this not inflict a double certification for the exporters?  
RESPONSE: The EPA has not yet implemented a third-party certification program. The 
proposed rule can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-
10/pdf/2013-13254.pdf.   
 
Question 8. Labelling requirements for both CARB and TCSA have the same requirements. 
Indonesia asks EPA to accept Indonesia's products which have had a label from CARB? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see the answer above.  Question 9. In addition under the terms of the new standard, the Wood Composite Products which 
is exported the U.S. must have a certificate from the third party that accredited or tested through 
other lab that which was appointed, and also shows the results test for any product every quarter as well as quality control testing which indicates that these products have met the standards 
required by. Indonesia would like to have further information from U.S. on the procedure of being 
a third party certificer (TPC) for government instit utions and private institutions in the exporter 
country? 
 
RESPONSE: Please see the answer above.  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards  
Page 67 Para. 3.78 
 
"Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs federal agencies to follow 
certain principles in planning, developing, and reviewing federal regulations, and describes the role 
of the Office of Information and Regulatory A ffairs (OIRA) within the OMB in the rule-making 
process. All "significant" regulatory actions by federal agencies must be reviewed by OIRA before publication and, to this end, agencies must submit  the text of the draft regulatory action to OIRA 
along with, inter alia, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action. In 
addition, agencies must prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for each regulation that OIRA or the agency designates as "economically signif icant" with an impact on the economy of over 
US$100 million in at least one year. The regulatory impact analysis provides a more in-depth 
cost-benefit analysis of feasible regulatory alternatives."  
Question 10. Concerning to Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), are there any standards 
methodology for agencies to issued RIA?  RESPONSE: The Office of Information and Regu latory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has develo ped reference materials to assist 
U.S. government agencies in developing regulatory impact analyses. The guidance 
document can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.  
 
Question 11. Concerning the standards for Toys product, are there any standards regulation required for import of toys? 
 
RESPONSE: Toy safety requirements in the United States are the same regardless of the source of the product. All products that are designed or intended primarily for use by 
children ages 12 or younger must meet  the following U.S. requirements: 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 304 - 
 
  • The domestic manufacturer or importer  must issue a "Children's Product 
Certificate" ( http://www.cpsc.gov/cpc ) based on passing test results from a 
CPSC-accepted, third-party laboratory ( http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-
bin/labsearch/ ).  
 
• The product must have distinguishing mark s, generally referred  to as "tracking 
labels" ( http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Busine ss--Manufacturing/Business-
Education/tracking-label )  
 
If the children's product is a toy, it must comply with the Federal toy safety standard in section 106 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The toy 
safety standard refers to ASTM F 963-11 and ASTM F 963-07 ε1 which covers toys and 
toy chests designed for use by children. A summary of these standards is available on 
ASTM International website: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F963.htm.  
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards 
 Page 68 Para. 3.81 
 
"Since the last Review of the United States, five specific trade concerns have been raised in the 
TBT Committee against measures taken by the United States. Furthermore three WTO dispute settlement proceedings taken against the United States under the TBT Agreement are pending 
(Table A2.1)." 
 Question 12. Specifically related to issues of Su stainable Palm Oil, Indonesia has asked the U.S. 
Government to revoke the issue of Notice of Data Availability (NODA) that has been pending for 
two years that prohibit the export of Palm Oil because the products from Indonesia do not meet 
the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements. Indonesia urge this revocation because there is no technical evidence showed that Indonesia plantation and industrial of palm oil caused such 
damages to the environment after the visit site ha ve been conducted by the U.S. Expert Team in 
2012?  
RESPONSE: EPA's analysis of palm oil as  biofuels feedstock is still ongoing. 
We appreciate Indonesia's comments and the a dditional information they have provided 
in that process, but we cannot comment or sp eculate further on EPA's final palm oil rule. 
As always, the United States is committed to  implementing the RFS2 program consistent 
with our WTO obligations.  
 
As a point of clarification, EPA's analysis  does not affect palm oil exports to the 
United States for food or other purposes and it  does not prohibit the export of palm oil 
biofuels to the United States. EPA's analysis will only be used to determine whether such 
fuels are eligible under U.S. law to be used to comply with the renewable fuel mandates 
of the RFS program.  
 Question 13. What are the result of U.S. Expert Team 2012 site visit in Indonesia? 
 
RESPONSE: The results of that visit w ill be integrated into EPA's analysis. 
 Question 14. Indonesia also asks U.S. to review their policy on restrictions on trans-fat so that had 
no negative impacts to the market access on export of Indonesia food products to US. 
 RESPONSE: On 8 November 2013, the U.S. Food  and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a 
tentative determination that partially hydrog enated oils (PHOs), which are the primary 
dietary source of industrially-produced trans fatty acids (or trans fat) are not generally 
recognized as safe for any use in food based on current scientific evidence, and 
therefore are subject to regulation as food additives. This tentative determination was 
based on new scientific evidence and the find ings of expert scientific panels regarding 
the health risks associated with the consumption of trans fat.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 305 - 
 
  The comment period for that determination closed on 8 March 2014. FDA is currently 
evaluating the comments received and will im plement any final determination regarding 
the regulatory status of trans fat in a manner consistent with our WTO obligations. 
  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
3.1.9.1 Food and Drug Administration 
 Page 69 Para. 3.87 
 
"The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a major reform of legislation on food safety and 
the safety of animal feed under the responsibility  of the FDA, entered into force on 4 January 2011 
(P.L. 111-353). The import-related reforms include: foreign supplier verification (i.e. importers are 
responsible for ensuring that their foreign suppliers  have adequate preventive controls in place); a 
voluntary qualified importer programme for expedited review and importation of food; an accredited third-party auditor programme; authority to require certification of imported food items 
where there is a known food-safety risk; and possible refusal of entry into the United States if 
FDA access to inspect a foreign facility is denied."  Question 15. Indonesia asks U.S. to provide th e capacity building and socialization of FSMA 
Regulation as an effort on Indonesia-US cooperation to help Indonesia industry to meet the FSMA 
requirements?  
RESPONSE: Section 305 of FSMA requires FDA to develop a comprehensive plan to 
expand technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments 
and their respective food industries in count ries from which foods are exported to the 
United States. FDA developed this plan in cons ultation with officials from other parts of 
the U.S. government; foreign government offi cials; non-governmental organizations that 
represent interests of consumers; food  industry representatives; and other 
stakeholders. FDA issued a final Internationa l Food Safety Capacity-Building Plan in 
February of 2013, available at http://www.fda.gov/downl oads/ Food/Guidance 
Regulation/UCM341440.pdf . 
 
Question 16. Indonesia urges U.S. Government in this case USFDA to make a prior notification to 
Indonesia competent authority before conducting  the inspection to verify facilitation and 
infrastructure of Indonesia industry? 
 
RESPONSE: FDA sends an advance notification  to the Competent Authority responsible 
for food safety in the country where FDA will be conducting an inspection. When 
contacting a Competent Authority, FDA copi es their Embassy. FDA always welcomes the 
Competent Authority to observe FDA inspecti ons conducted in their country. FDA's Food 
Facility Inspection Program can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/food/ 
complianceenforcement/inspections/ucm211823.htm . 
 
Question 17. Indonesia expects for U.S. recognition of Indonesia institutions that have been certified as U.S. partners associated with the pillars of partnership in FSMA? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States thanks Indonesia for its interest in U.S. recognition of Indonesian institutions. Under FSMA, FDA will be able to accredit qualified third party 
auditors to certify that foreign food facili ties are complying with U.S. food safety 
standards. 
 Page 69 Para. 3.90 
 "The FSMA authorizes the FDA to levy fees on certain domestic and foreign facilities and importer re-inspections. The costs of these activities were previously borne by the FDA. Fees may also be 
assessed for food recall activities when a domestic food facility or importer does not comply with a 
recall order, and for administrative costs associated with the voluntary qualified importer programme, food export certifications, and the third-party auditor programme." WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 306 - 
 
  Question: 
The paperwork required of food facilities is exte nsive. For example, food facilities in Indonesia 
must renew their food facility registrations during the period from October 1, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, after just doing so two years ago. FDA encourages food facilities to renew 
their registrations early in the three-month renewal period by mailing in the registration, sending a 
CD or completing online registration. The registra tion requirements in section 415 of the FD&C Act 
apply to domestic and foreign food facilities that  manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for 
human or animal consumption in the United States. 
 RESPONSE: Under FSMA, all food facilities that are required to register with FDA under section 415 of the FD&C Act, including fo reign facilities, are required to submit 
registration renewals to FDA during the regi stration renewal period. Information can be 
found at FDA's website at www.access.fda.gov.  
 
FSMA also gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administ ration (FDA) new powers to prevent food safety 
problems and to enforce mandates, including creating extensive new auditing and other 
responsibilities for the FDA overseas. However, the agency is not equipped and does not have the 
capabilities to handle these responsibilities because of its few overseas facilities and small budget 
for professional staff. This will create bottlenecks in Indonesia's and other countries' producers to gain approved audits and other approvals.  
RESPONSE: FDA works with Congress and our partners to ensure that FDA is funded 
sufficiently to achieve our food safety and food defense goals. FDA will employ a risk-based inspection strategy to meet inspectional mandates. 
 
The Government of Indonesia has applied to FDA to be recognized officially as having an equivalent food safety system and to become a "third-party auditor." It has also applied for its 
laboratory facilities to become certified to facilitate the approval processes for Indonesian food 
suppliers, manufacturers, processors, etc. However,  the FDA has not been unable to initiate the 
process to approve the Government of Indonesia's requests.  
RESPONSE: On July 29, 2013, the FDA published for public comment its proposed rule to 
establish a program for accreditation of thir d-party auditors, also known as certification 
bodies, to conduct food safety audits and issue certifications of foreign facilities and the 
foods for humans and animals they produce. The proposed rule would implement 
Section 307 of the FDA Food Safe ty Modernization Act (FSMA).  
 
The proposed rule sets eligibility requirements  for accreditation as a third-party auditor. 
A third-party auditor can be a foreign gove rnment, foreign cooperative or other third-
party  
This proposed rule has not yet been finaliz ed, so FDA has not made any determinations 
regarding the accreditation of any third party auditors.   
See http://www.fda.gov/Food/Guidanc eRegulation/FSM A/ucm361903.htm . 
 
Question 18. How do these additional food safety  regulations under FSMA comply with the WTO's 
Principle of Nondiscrimination in Trade? 
 RESPONSE: Under Article 2.1 of the WTO SP S Agreement, WTO Members have the right 
to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of human life 
and health. Under the proposed rule for the Foreign Supplier Verification Program 
(FSVP), importers would be required to perform certain risk-based activities to verify that food imported into the United States has been produced in a manner that provides 
the same level of public health protection  a s  f o o d  t h a t  i s  p r o d u c e d  b y  d o m e s t i c  
producers. The proposed rule for FSVP can be found at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ 
GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm361902.htm .  
 
Question 19. In order for the FSMA to be consistent with the WTO Principles of Nondiscrimination, the rules must be based on scientific risk assessments. Did the U.S. Government performed a scientific risk assessment that determined what FSMA would reduce? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 307 - 
 
  RESPONSE: FDA's rules that implement FSMA are still in the proposed stage and have 
not yet been finalized. At the time of the i ssuance of the proposed rules, FDA issued a 
variety of draft scientific documents rela ted to those proposed rules. These draft 
documents (and the proposed rules) can be accessed through FDA's website  
www.fda.gov/fsma .  
 
Question 20. Could the U.S. elaborate on the compli ance of the above statutes with its obligations 
under the SPS Agreement? 
 RESPONSE: FSMA and its implementing regulations are consistent with U.S. obligations under the SPS Agreement. FDA has issued seve ral proposed rules, including: Preventive 
Controls for Human Food, Preventive Controls for Animal Food, Produce Safety 
Standards, Foreign Supplier Verification Program, Accreditation of Third Party Auditors, Sanitary Transport of Food and Feed, and In tentional Contamination. FDA is currently 
working on finalizing these proposals as we ll as drafting other proposed rules, as 
directed by FSMA. Assessments of risk a ppropriate to the circumstances are being 
conducted. All proposed rules have  been notified to the WTO.  
 
Question 21. Indonesia is concerned that such statute would have a significant impact on its exports to the U.S. market. Therefore, could th e U.S. provide more detailed information on the 
status of implementation? 
 
RESPONSE: Congress has established specific implementation dates in the legislation. Some authorities will go into effect quickly, and others require FDA to 
prepare and issue regulations and guidan ce documents. FDA is committed to 
implementing the requirements through an op en process with opportunity for input from 
all stakeholders. Between January 2013 and January 2014, the FDA published for public 
comment seven proposed regulations to impl ement elements of the FSMA. The proposed 
regulations address produce safety, prev entive food controls, foreign supplier 
verification programme, accreditation of thir d-party auditors, preventive controls in the 
animal feed supply, protection against inte ntional adulteration of food, and sanitary 
transportation of food. Supplemental notices of proposed rulemaking were published on 
September 19, 2014, for four proposed rules (produce safety, preventive food controls, foreign supplier verification). 
 
Question 22. FDA has many expanded responsibilit ies, but the need for cooperation is great and 
my Government has indicated its readiness for some time. It has been at the detriment to 
Indonesia's exporters that the Government of Indonesia not been able to move forward with FDA 
on its requests for laboratory certifications, standards equivalency, and approval of third-party auditor processes. What are the U.S. Gove rnment's plans to address that problem? 
 
See response to Question 15 
 Section 305 of FSMA requires FDA to develop a comprehensive plan to expand technical, 
scientific, and regulatory food safety ca pacity of foreign governments and their 
respective food industries in countries  from which foods are exported to the 
United States. FDA developed this plan in cons ultation with officials from other parts of 
the U.S. government; foreign government offi cials; non-governmental organizations that 
represent interests of consumers; food  industry representatives; and other 
stakeholders. FDA issued a final Internationa l Food Safety Capacity-Building Plan in 
February of 2013, available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/Guidance 
Regulation/UCM341440.pdf .  
 
Question 23. How does the U.S. intend to ensure  that a sufficient number of third-party entities 
are trained and certified to determine if foreign suppliers? 
 
RESPONSE: U.S. Food and Drug Administrati on has issued a proposed rule that sets 
eligibility requirements for recognition as an accreditation body . Under the proposed 
rule, an accreditation body can be a foreign government/a gency or a private 
third-party. The proposed rule provides that  accreditation bodies could begin to apply 
for recognition when the program goes into effect, and third-party auditors could seek 
accreditation after one or mo re FDA-recognized accreditat ion bodies begin accepting WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 308 - 
 
  applications. More information is provided at the link: http://www.fda.gov/ 
Food/GuidanceRegulat ion/FSMA/ucm361903.htm   
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 3.1.9.4 Environmental Protection Agency 
 
Page 70 Para. 3.94 
 "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is re sponsible, inter alia, for registering pesticides 
(including herbicides and fungicides) for use in  the United States, and establishing maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides on food, known as "tolerances" in the United States. The EPA is required to conduct a risk assessment to study the potential health and ecological effects of a 
pesticide before it can enter the U.S. market. Since 2012, the EPA has established 897 tolerances 
for pesticides on food, 827 of which are new trade facilitating tolerances, according to the authorities; the remainder are revised tolerances." 
 
Question: The U.S. EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The 
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, 
renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders. The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the 
United States. As required under EPAct, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion 
gallons of renewable- fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the Energy Independence and Security Ac t (EISA) of 2007, the RFS program was expanded 
in several key ways, including that EISA established new categories of renewable fuel, and set 
separate volume requirements for each one. EISA  also required EPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse 
gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it replaces. The adoption of a final rule to implement 
standards for other feedstocks for biofuel now functions as a non-tariff barrier that reduces the 
value of imported palm oil fuel from Indonesia as compared to approved feedstocks such as U.S.-grown corn. In December 2011, the U.S. EPA issued a "Notice of EPA Issues Notice of Data 
Availability (NODA) Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the RFS Program. 
Its purpose was to "release and request public comments on its lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis of palm oil used as a feedstock to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel under the 
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program." EPA's analysis showed that biodiesel and renewable 
diesel produced from palm oil did not meet the minimum 20% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold needed to qualify as renewable fuel under the RFS program and, hence, could not be added to biodiesel under the RFS. 
 
Question 24. Please explain why the technical regulations to review the compliance of palm oil with RFS are not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill the objectives of the EISA of 2007? 
 
RESPONSE: EPA's analysis of the lifecycle  greenhouse gas emissions associated with 
using palm oil as a feedstock in biofuel prod uction is still ongoing, including gathering 
additional scientific information. The Unit ed States appreciates Indonesia's comments 
and the additional information it has prov ided during this process. It would be 
premature to provide further comment given that the Environmental Protection Agency is still in the process of addressing comment s on the preliminary evaluation and has not 
issued a final determination. EPA's scie nce-based methodology for assessing the 
lifecycle impact of different fuel pathwa ys was proposed on May 26, 2009 and finalized 
on March 26, 2010. The TBT Committee was no tified of both the proposed and final 
rules. The United States is committed to implementing the RFS2 program consistent 
with our WTO obligations. As a point of clarif ication, EPA's final analysis will only be 
used to help determine whether fuels made fr om palm oil are eligible under U.S. law to 
be used to comply with the renewable fuel ma ndates of the RFS program. It will have no 
impact on the import of palm oil for food or  other purposes, and it will have no impact 
on the import of palm oil-based biofuels th at are not used for compliance with the RFS 
program requirements. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 309 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 3.3.6 Intellectual Property Rights 3.3.6.7 IP Enforcement 
 
Page 100 Para. 3.222 
 
"The USTR 25th annual Special 301 Report196 monito ring IP protection in trading partners linked 
IP protection to global health, the digital econ omy, education, and entertainment internationally, 
and to more than 30 million jobs in the United States. The report focused on concerns about trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy; digital, internet, and broadcast piracy; government 
use of software; and trademark and domain name disputes. It recorded concerns that 
geographical indications (GI) protection should not violate prior trademark rights or deprive interested parties of the ability to use generic or common terms. Other aspects included IP and 
health policy, and supporting pharmaceutical and medical device innovation through improved 
market access. Some 95 trading partners were reviewed in 2013 and 82 in 2014; with 40 and 36 placed on the Priority Watch List or Watch List, respectively. The Special 301 Report also 
described positive trends in a number of countries, outlined international cooperation and capacity 
building on enforcement, and identified internat ional best practices among trading partners." 
 During the transition period and implementati on of TRIPS Agreement of WTO, Indonesia has 
conducted various adjustments of its national rules for the protection of intellectual property rights 
but still Indonesia is included in the list of PWL country.  
Question 25. Indonesia asks for U.S. clarification regarding Indonesia status on Priority Watch List 
(PWL) of the new Special 301 Report published by the U.S. Government on n 30 April 2014 because Indonesia has made a significant progress in combating infringement of intellectual 
property right in accordance with Indonesia commitment on TRIP'S Agreement? 
 RESPONSE: Indonesia has been on the Priori ty Watch List since 2009, for the reasons 
clearly identified in annual Special 301 Report s. The United States and Indonesia have 
engaged in an effort to negotiate a mutually agreed action plan to address the concerns 
identified in the report. The United States encourages Indonesia to resume its engagement in those discussions.  
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.6 Intellectual Property Rights 
3.3.6.7 IP Enforcement  Page 100 Para. 3.223 
 "The Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets for 2013 identified specific markets around the world that were assessed as causing particular economic harm to U.S. businesses and 
workers, through IP infringement.197 The report listed 23 online markets, located in Canada, East 
Asia, Eastern Europe, and the EU that were assessed as responsible for extensive copyright piracy, as well as a number of physical markets in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The report 
cited successful enforcement actions to close or disrupt a number of online markets listed in the 
corresponding review for 2012, including the closure of a BitTorrent index in Canada and the restriction of facilities enabling infringing activities and pirate and counterfeit trade on sites in China, as well as a major licensing deal with a Chinese website. Successful enforcement activities 
against physical markets in infringing goods were reported in Pakistan and Mexico." 
 Question 26. Indonesia asks for U.S. clarific ation regarding the inclusion of 4 traditional 
market/mall in Indonesia in notorius market 2013. 
 RESPONSE: The United States references the written reasons provided in the December 
2013 Notorious Markets report. The United Stat es urges the government of Indonesia to 
consider taking effective enforcement action s to address concerns with these markets. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 310 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture 4.1.1 Agriculture Act of 2014 4.1.1.1 Overview 
 
Page 101 Para. 4.1 
 
"The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2 008 Farm Bill) expired in 2012, although many 
provisions were extended for another year by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The 
new Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L . 113-79) was enacted on 7 February 2014. Most 
programmes are authorized for a period of five years (crop or fiscal years 2014-18), although 
some are permanently authorized by the legislation.  As required by the Act, the USDA is in the 
process of developing the implementing regulation s, which are necessary for producer sign-up and 
government payments." 
 
Question 27. Could U.S. gives detailed information on what kind of programmes that authorized for a period of five years and what kind of programmes that permanently authorized by the 
legislation?  
 RESPONSE: Program type does not determine whether authorization is permanent vs. short-term. The primary difference between th e two is whether a program will continue 
operating at the end of the Farm Bill period  without reauthorizatio n or will require new 
authorization under a new Farm Bill or other legislation. This difference determines 
whether a program can be ended simply by not including it in new legislation or whether 
it must be expressly terminated, suspended, or superseded by new legislation. It may 
also affect budget availability for new Farm  Bills under Congressional budget rules. 
 
Some Farm Bill programs are permanently auth orized by current or previous Farm Bills. 
The 2014 Farm Act provides new permanent authorization for the Livestock Indemnity 
Program, Livestock Forage Assistance Prog ram, Emergency Assistance for Livestock, 
Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Progra m, and the Tree Assistance Program. 
Commodity price support programs, althou gh permanently authorized under the 
Agricultural Adjustment Acts of 1938 and 1949 , are suspended in favor of the Price Loss 
Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage progra ms, but only for the life of the Farm Bill. 
The 1996 Farm Bill perman ently authorized the Noninsured Crop Assistance 
Program. Other programs are permanently auth orized under other types of legislation: 
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Developmen t Act permanently authorizes agricultural 
credit and rural development loan and gran t programs, the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
permanently authorizes the crop insurance program, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act permanently authorizes the child nutriti on programs, and other programs like 
agricultural research and extension are au thorized under a number of other laws.  
 
All other programs under the 2014 Farm Bill ar e authorized for a specific period, usually 
the five-year life of the Farm Bill. Major prog rams authorized for only five years include 
the Margin Protection Program for Dairy Prod ucers, the Conservation Reserve Program, 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Progra m, the Conservation Stewardship Program, 
Food for Peace, and the Supplementa l Nutrition Assistance Program.  
 
Question 28. What is the rationale consideration for this two type period of authorization?  RESPONSE: Please see response to Questi on 27. Congress may choose to authorize 
programs permanently or for a temporary period. 
 Page 101 Para. 4.2 
"The 2014 Farm Bill was prepared during a period (2012-13) of exacerbating budgetary pressures. Government expenditures are estimated at US$489 billion for the life of the new Farm Bill, with 
savings of about US$5 billion (Chart 4.1). Howeve r, about 80% of the projected expenditures 
under the new Farm Bill are for nutrition programmes. The 2014 Farm Bill continues a long-term 
policy shift from the traditional commodity, conservation, and disaster payments towards subsidized crop insurance (Chart 4.2)."  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 311 - 
 
  Question 29. What are programmes that will be conduct by the authority for nutrition 
programmes?  RESPONSE: Nutrition programs under the Farm  Bill include the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) and three sma ller programs: (1) the Food Distribution 
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), an alternative to SNAP that provides packages 
of nutritious foods to low-income Native Am ericans who live on or near reservations, 
(2) the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) that provides food packages to 
low-income elderly, and (3) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which 
provides USDA foods and administrative fu nds to nonprofit emergency food providers 
such as food banks. 
 
Other nutrition programs administered by US DA, including the child nutrition programs, 
and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, are authorized and funded under 
other legislation.  
 Page 102 Para. 4.3 
 "One of the most significant changes affecting th e structure of the U.S. farm safety net is the 
elimination of the Direct Payments (DP) programme. The DP programme has been a cornerstone of U.S. agricultural policy reforms since the en d of the Uruguay Round negotiations, and provided 
about US$5 billion annually in decoupled inco me support to farmers and landlords. The 
Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) programme and the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) programme have also been eliminated. These th ree measures (DP, CCP, and ACRE) have been 
replaced by two new measures, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage 
(ARC)."  
Question 30. What is the fundamental difference between the three measures (DP, CCP and ACRE) 
with the two new measures (PLC and ARC)?  RESPONSE: Under the 2008 Farm Bill, direct pa yments were made, based on historical 
acres and historical yields), regardless of market conditions or whether a crop was 
planted under the 2014 Farm Bill, the PLC program is a counter-cyclical price-based 
program. The ARC program is a revenue-bas ed program whereby the producer chooses 
either individual- or county-level covera ge for the life of the 2014 farm bill.  
 Page 102 Para. 4.7 
 "Federal crop insurance with subsidized insuranc e premiums is available for over 100 commodities 
and livestock. Crop insurance traditionally prov ides coverage for about 70 75% of expected 
revenues or yields. The 2014 Farm Bill introduces a new subsidized insurance programme 
(Supplemental Coverage Option) that allows eligib le farmers to top up their crop insurance, in 
order to cover a portion of the deductible of th e insurance. For producers of upland cotton, a 
new subsidized insurance plan, Stacked Income Protection (STAX), will be available starting in the 
2015 marketing year. The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is not available for ARC and STAX 
participants. These are examples of how the new Farm Bill attempts to address the issue of overlap of the price- and revenue-based income supports and crop insurances, and the potential 
for overcompensation of farmers' actual losses. The sugar regime with its key instruments (price 
support; a domestic marketing allotment fixed at 85% of domestic consumption; feedstock flexibility programme and other measures to divert surplus sugar to ethanol production and other uses; tariff rate quotas) remains unchanged." 
 
Question 31. What are commodities that covered on the new subsidized insurance programme?  
RESPONSE: The crops covered by SCO for 2015 are corn, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, 
rice, barley, and wheat. STAX is available only for cotton.  
Question 32. Is this subsidized insurance programm e also applies to foreign investor in agriculture 
sector?  RESPONSE: To be eligible, non-citizens must  have received either a Social Security 
Number or Employer Identification Number and must be eligible to receive federal WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 312 - 
 
  benefits. With certain exceptions, only United  States citizens, Unit ed States non-citizen 
nationals and "qualified aliens" (and sometimes  only particular categories of qualified 
aliens) are eligible for federal, state, and lo cal public benefits. The category of "qualified 
alien" is defined in the Personal Responsi bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
of 1996 (PRWORA), 8 U.S.C. § 1611 et seq. 
 4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture 
4.1.1 Agriculture Act of 2014 4.1.1.1 Overview Livestock sector 
Page 103 Table 4.1 
  
 
 
 2008 Farm Bill 2014 Farm Bill Commodity programmes Marketing loan programme  
 Maintained 
• Coupled to current prices and production  
• Loan rates unchanged, except for potential 
downward adjustment of upland cotton loan 
rate 
Direct payments  Eliminated 
• DP-style programme for upland cotton until 
Stacked Income Protection (STAX) is 
implemented 
Counter-cyclical payments (CCP) Eliminated 
  
 Introduces Price Loss Coverage (PLC). 
• Payments coupled to current prices 
(counter-cyclical) wi th a guarantee price 
level higher than in the CCP programme 
• Payments are tied to base acres and 
historical yields with the option of updating 
yields and reallocating base acres 
Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) 
programme Eliminated 
 
  Introduces Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). 
• Payments based on revenue loss  
• Choice between reve nue guarantee at 
county level (county ARC) and farm-level 
(individual ARC) 
• Payments are coupled to current prices 
• Payments are tied to base acres, with the 
option of reallocating base acres Crop 
insurance Federal Crop Insurance Programme (permanently 
authorized) 
 Maintained 
Amendments include new subsidized insurance 
programmes: 
• Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) 
• Stacked Income Prot ection Plan for 
producers of upland cotton (STAX) Disaster assistance Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Programme 
(NAP) Maintained 
 
Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments 
Programme (SURE) Not authorized after FY2011. 
Livestock Indemnity Programme (LIP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond 
Livestock Forage Disaster Programme (LFP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond 
Emergency Livestock Assistance Programme 
(ELAP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond 
Tree Assistance Programme (TAP) Renewed retroactively to cover losses in FY2012 
and FY2013, and beyond WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 313 - 
 
   2008 Farm Bill 2014 Farm Bill Export credit 
guarantees Export credit guarantee programme (GSM-102) 
 
 Maintained 
Amendments include: 
• Maximum tenor reduced to 24 months 
• Flexibility given to the U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture to adapt the programme 
pursuant to such terms as may be agreed 
between the United States and Brazil in the 
cotton dispute WTO/DS267 Sugar  Sugar programme 
 Unchanged 
Includes price support and supply control measures. Dairy  Dairy Export Subsidy Programme (DEIP) Eliminated 
Dairy Product Price Support Programme Eliminated 
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Programme Eliminated. 
  
 Introduces Margin Prot ection Programme for 
Dairy 
• Subsidized scheme for insuring milk margins 
(US$4-8/cwt)  
• Deficiency payments are made when milk 
margin declines below (insured) level of 
US$4-8/cwt  
•Decoupled from actual production 
 Introduces Dairy Product Donation Program. 
• CCC dairy product purchase programme for 
distribution to low-income people in times of 
low margins (US$4/cwt or below) 
• Time-limited market support purchases at 
prevailing market prices 
Federal Milk Marketing Orders Unchanged 
 
Question 33. How the mechanism of the policy of "Administered Price" on the program of the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) consistent with the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)?  
RESPONSE: The PLC program does not make us e of an administered price or act as a 
market price support measure. The PLC prog ram provides producers with direct cash 
payments when market prices fall below th e PLC reference price for a fixed level of 
historical production of a covered commodity . Further, PLC payments are unaffected by 
whether the producer increases, decreases, or  stops production or producers a different 
covered commodity. Market prices are not dire ctly impacted by the PLC program and can 
fluctuate freely, including below the PLC reference price.  
 Question 34. How is the consistency of the policy of granting the Export Credit Guarantee Program" with the commitment from developed country to reduce/eliminate export competition as 
the spirit in negotiating agriculture sector in WTO? 
 RESPONSE: The Export Credit Guarantee pr ogram complies with all WTO disciplines.  
 
Page 104 Para 4.9 
 
"Overall, the new Farm Bill is a big change in ag riculture policy for some products. Its impact will 
depend upon a number of choices producers must make (e.g., PLC versus ARC; ARC versus SCO; 
reallocation of base acreage, etc.). The new Farm  Bill eliminates market price support and export 
subsidies for dairy products, and direct payments for historical crop production However, the move 
from decoupled direct payments to deficiency-pay ment type instruments linked to current prices 
could potentially cause an increase in trade and production distortions."  
Question 35. Indonesia asks U.S. for further clar ification related to the impacts caused by this 
policy for agricultural export products from developing countries which enter to U.S. market. whether this policy becomes an obstacle to developing countries to export their products to 
U.S. because it will be hard to compete with U. S. domestic products which have a better quality 
products and more efficient production systems?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 314 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Although the new ARC and PLC pr ograms make payments when prices or 
revenue decline, they are decoupled from actual farm production decisions. The 
2014 Farm Bill eliminated both market price support and export subsidies for dairy products. The United States would also note that U.S. agricultural tariffs, both bound 
and applied, continue to be amongst the lowest in the world, affording export 
opportunities to all U.S. trading partners.   
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture 4.1.1 Agriculture Act of 2014 4.1.1.2 Title I (Commodities) 
4.1.1.2.1 Elimination of direct payments 
 Page 105 Table. 4.2 
 
(US$ million) 
 Marketing 
Year 2010 Marketing 
Year 2011 
Green Box  118,958 125,117 
Domestic food aid 94,915 103,151 
Direct payments 4,898 4,745 
Environmental Quality Ince ntives Program (EQIP) 1,246 1,231 
Blue Box  0 0 
Current Total AMS  4,119 4,654 
Dairy product price support  2,845 2,835 
Milk income loss contract payments (MILC)  0.6 403 
Sugar price support  1,258 1,406 
De minimis 5,880 9,714 
Subsidized crop insurance  4,712 7,461 
Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE)  525 1,442 
Counter-cyclical payments  17 0 
ACRE payments 9 52 
Marketing loan payments 128,958 139,485 
 
Question 36. Could U.S. give us data of Agregate Measures Support (AMS) period of 2012-14? 
 RESPONSE: The U.S. 2012 domestic support noti fication was posted on the WTO website 
on December 8, 2014. The United States is sti ll in the process of collecting relevant data 
for 2013 and 2014 and will continue to notify its domestic support in a timely manner.  
Question 37. Under this new regulation, does U.S.  have the revision of AMS of those products? 
 RESPONSE: We cannot say with precision what  the level of AMS support will be under 
the new Farm Bill. Any effort to estimate support levels would depend on a number of 
critical assumptions regarding program sign -up, base acre updates, and commodity 
prices.   
Question 38. How the increasing amount of domestic support program (from 2010-11) given by 
U.S. Government will be consistent with the spirit of Doha Development Agenda (DDA)? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States initially propose d that it would liberalize its agricultural 
policies as part of a broader reform in a Doha context. If and when WTO Members are 
prepared to negotiate seriously about meaningf ul reforms, in particular market access 
opening that has proven so difficult, the United States will be prepared to do its part.  
 
In the meantime, the United States remains committed to its current WTO commitments and calls upon all Members to abide by th eir existing commitments and obligations, 
including those related to transparency. Th is will permit negotiators to reach an 
agreement that will address the critical issu es that face agricultural trade today and 
achieve the spirit of the DDA.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 315 - 
 
  Page 108 Para. 4.23 
 
"The U.S. sugar programme, composed of price support and supply control measures, remains unchanged. The "non-recourse" sugar loan programme guarantees a minimum or floor price to 
domestic sugar producers. The 2008 Farm Bill requires the sugar programme to be administered, 
to the maximum extent possible, with no cost by avoiding forfeitures of sugar loan collateral. Hence, USDA must establish a level of domestic marketable supply to support a market price that 
is higher than the loan rate offered by the suga r loan programme (so-called loan forfeiture level). 
Once the U.S. government acquires ownership of the sugar, the CCC is limited in the ways it may 
dispose of it, and the CCC will always lose money wh en it sells its inventory. USDA controls the 
level of marketable sugar supply through: (1) management of the marketing allotments, which 
limits the amount of domestic sugar that may be marketed for food or human consumption during 
the year, (2) limiting import access via tariff quota administration, and  (3) the Feedstock 
Flexibility Program, which authorizes the Secret ary of Agriculture to sell surplus sugar to bio-
energy producers (sugar for ethanol). The United States is traditionally a net-importer of sugar." 
 Question 39. Could U.S. more elaborate about tariff rate quota for sugar? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. has TRQs for raw and refined sugar which are defined in U.S. 
Additional Note 5 of Chapter 17 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The raw sugar TRQ has a fixed minimum quantity pursuant to the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements 
(1,117,195 MTRV). USTR has been delegated the authority to allocate the TRQ quantity 
and has historically allocated the raw suga r TRQ among 40 countries based on their 
historical shipments to the United States during a base period. The minimum refined 
sugar TRQ to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round 
Agreements is 22,000 MTRV of which 1,656 MTRV is currently re served for specialty 
sugar. Certificates of quota eligibility mu st accompany imports from any country for 
which an allocation has been provided. 
  OTHERS 
 
Export Subsidies For Corn And Soybeans 
" Through the GSM-102 Program, GSM 103 Program and the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program 
(SCGP), corn and soybean farmers are benefiting from prohibited subsidies. This is based on the 
application of the recent Cotton Panel's findings to very similar programs benefiting corn and soybean growers. The three export guarantee prog rams essentially insure lenders, for a fee, 
against default by foreign banks and buyers. The Commodity Credit Corporation, which oversees 
and manages the operation of the export guaran tee programs, guarantees repayment of credit 
extended by lenders to finance export deals. Thus , by reducing risk to lenders, they facilitate 
exports to countries that would not otherwise be able to obtain financing to purchase the 
products." 
 Question 40. The Government of Indonesia views that the GSM-102 Program, GSM 103 Program 
and the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) qualify as export subsidies in the case of corn 
and soybeans. Article 6.3 of the Agreement on  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM 
Agreement) confirms this, as did the recent Cotton Panel finding. Why these export guarantee are 
programs continuing for corn and soybeans?  
 RESPONSE: There are no WTO findings showing that the GSM-102 program, in its current form, is a subsidy under Article 6.3. With respect to GSM-103 and the Supplier Credit 
Guarantee Program, those programs no longer  exist, as was reported in Secretariat 
Report WT/TPR/S/235.   
Question 41. To address differences that have arisen over how the United States might comply 
with the WTO cotton case won by Brazil, Title III of  the 2014 Farm Bill law granted flexibility to the 
Secretary of Agriculture to make changes to the credit guarantee program to meet the terms 
agreed upon by both countries. Have changes been made since passage and enactment of the 
2014 Farm Bill and, if so, what have they b een? Have they been notified at the WTO? 
 RESPONSE: Page 113 of WT/TPR/S/307 summarizes the changes in the Export Credit 
Guarantee program mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill. Current program terms and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 316 - 
 
  conditions are readily available on our website at http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/ 
export-credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102 .  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 317 - 
 
  JAPAN 
  Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing duties  (Question 1: Pages 61-65, Paragraphs 3.63-3.70) 
The DSB adopted its recommendations and rulings that found the U.S. statutory provision 
regarding "all others rate" to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement in August 2001, over 13 years ago. Although the U.S. took certain measures to implement part of the 
DSB recommendations, the remaining part has not yet been implemented. Up until now, since 
they have been left untreated, the provision in question has been applied to new anti-dumping 
investigations inconsistent with the WTO agreements and also could be applied in the future. The 
Government of Japan again requests the recommendation be implemented immediately. A full and 
prompt implementation of the DSB's recommendations  and rulings is essential to the effectiveness 
and credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system. Japan would like to know what steps the U.S. government intends to take to complete full implementation together with the Congress. 
 
RESPONSE: As noted in the DSB, the U.S. Administration will work with the U.S. Congress with respect to appropriate st atutory measures to resolve this matter. 
 
(Question 2: Page 61, Paragraph 3.63) The Byrd Amendment was found to be inconsistent with WTO Agreements in January 2003, and 
was finally repealed in February 2006. However,  revenues from anti-dumping duties on goods 
imported to the United States before October 1, 2007, continue to be distributed among the relevant parties under the transitional provision of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This means that although the Byrd Amendment was nominally  repealed, it continues to stay in effect. 
Therefore, the inconsistency with the WTO Agreemen ts remains at present even after the repeal of 
the Byrd Amendment. The Government of Japan ur ges the Government of the U.S. to promptly 
halt the distribution of revenues under the Byrd Amendment and resolve the inconsistency with 
the WTO Agreements. In this respect, please indicate  the specific view about further distribution of 
the U.S. Government.  
RESPONSE: As Japan notes, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 was 
repealed in 2006. Pursuant to that repeal, th ere has been no distribution to domestic 
firms of antidumping and countervailing du ties collected on goods entering the 
United States on or after October 1, 2007. Therefore, the United States has taken all 
steps necessary to implement the DSB's re commendations and rulings as regards the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.   
(Question 3: Page 61, Paragraph 3.64) 
According to the Report by the Secretariat, in  2014, following the outcome of a court case, the 
Department of Commerce (DOC) confirmed that it would not apply the previously withdrawn 
regulatory provisions governing targeted du mping. However, the DOC has not changed its 
approach to apply the average-to-transaction me thod under the second sentence of the Article 
2.4.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, which includes the denial of offsets for non-dumped sales when aggregating the transaction specific comparis on results (so-called "Zeroing"). Japan is of the 
view that Zeroing is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement and is concerned that the DOC applies 
the above mentioned sentence as an alternative me thod to Zeroing. Japan would like to know the 
US's opinion on this point. 
 
RESPONSE: When Commerce finds a pattern of  export prices (or constructed export 
prices) that differ significantly among purchase rs, regions, or time periods, and it can 
explain why these differences cannot be take n into account appropriately by using the 
average-to-average method, it may calcul ate margins of dumping by comparing the 
weighted average of the normal values to in dividual export price (or constructed export 
price) transactions (i.e., the average-to-trans action method). Commerce's application of 
the average-to-transaction method is consistent with the Antidumping Agreement. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 318 - 
 
  3.1.7.2 Sunset reviews 
 (Question 4: Pages 65-66, Paragraphs 3.71-3.72)  
Removal of the Long Continued Anti-dumping Measures 
With regard to the anti-dumping measures against products made in Japan, the oldest existing 
measure was imposed in 1978, and the average length of the measures is about 17 years. Anti-dumping measures must be ineffective in 5 years in principle in accordance with the 
WTO Agreement . Only if the lifting of the measures may cause continued/renewed dumping and 
damages, the period of the measures may be extended as an exception. However, upon request of domestic industries, the U.S. government repeats the extension of the period for anti-dumping measures and continues them over the long term in many cases. The Japanese government calls 
for the U.S. to quickly remove unfairly long-continued anti-dumping measures and would like to 
know the U.S. view on this.  
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with 
applicable WTO agreements. The determinations in each sunset review are case-specific. 
The results for all sunset reviews can be found on the USITC's website 
(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/ ). From this website Japan can obtain, on a 
case-by-case basis, information about the rationale for either the continuation or 
termination of an antidumping duty order.   
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.5 Government procurement 3.3.5.1 Overview 
 
(Question 5: Page 85, Paragraph 3.168)  Please explain whether or not the bills titled "GROW AMERICA ACT" and "Invest in American Jobs 
Act of 2014" are still been viable following the midterm elections. 
 RESPONSE: It would be inappropriate for th e U.S. Executive Branch to speculate how 
Congress may choose to proceed on this pending legislation.  
 
(Question 6: Page 85, Paragraph 3.168)  Recently, the concept of "localization barriers to tr ade" has been taken up at various international 
forums dealing with trade and investment. Would the United States clarify whether the local 
content requirement imposed in the process of th e Government Procurement is included in the 
concept of "localization barriers to trade"? Does the United States agree that Parties to the WTO 
should decrease or delete "localization barriers to trade" even outside the commitments made in 
the WTO or GPA frameworks?  RESPONSE: The United States has one of the most open and transparent procurement 
systems in the world. Like every other GPA member the United States excludes certain 
procurements. The United States does not be lieve maintaining exclusions under the GPA 
is contrary to our interest in reducing "localization barriers to trade." The United States 
strongly supports additional WTO Members joining the GPA and recognizes that 
flexibility on critical sensitivities is ofte n the key to opening up other commercially 
significant government procurement market s. As such the United States believes 
expanded GPA membership is critical to it s work on combating/reducing localization 
barriers to trade.  (Question 7: Page 85, Paragraph 3.168)  
Please provide the USG's view on the rationale of  introducing Buy American provisions, especially 
from the viewpoint of U.S. economic growth and job creation. At the same time, Japan would like the U.S. to provide some examples of the opinio ns expressed by the U.S. stakeholders including 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable on costs or impact of Buy American 
policy on U.S. growth and job creation.  
RESPONSE: The United States Executive Branch  does not track all legislative proposals. 
The United States is committed to ensuring  its covered government procurement is 
conducted consistent with its obligations  under the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 319 - 
 
  (Question 8: Page 85, Paragraph 3.168)  
Japan is concerned about the recent trend that Buy American provisions are built into recent laws such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. In addition, Japan is also concerned that the new bill that, for a waiver 
for rolling stock, gradually raises the percentage of cost of components and subcomponents 
produced in the United States from 60% to 1 00%. Japan requests that such regulations and 
operations are consistent with the obligations of the U.S. under the Agreement on 
Government Procurement (GPA) and that they do not counter the international efforts against 
protectionism. In this context, Japan would like to know if the U.S. has esta blished or is planning 
any new laws with Buy American provisions since 2012 except the laws as mentioned above.  
RESPONSE: The executive branch of the U.S. federal government does not oversee the 
legislative proposals introduc ed by members of the federa l or state legislatures. The 
United States is committed to ensuring its covered procurements are conducted 
consistent with U.S. international obligations.  
 3.3.5.2 Procedures 
 
(Question 9: Page 86, Paragraph 3.177)  According to Paragraph 3.177 of the report by the Secretariat, purchases below US$150,000 are reserved for small business categories under a "simplified acquisition procedure". Would the 
United States clarify whether foreign SMEs are accorded the same treatment as U.S. SMEs? If not, 
would the United States explain the rationale or historical background underlying this policy?  
RESPONSE: Information on the U.S. small bu siness preference programs and eligibility 
requirements can be found at the following webpage: https://www.sba.gov/category/navi gation-structure/contracting .  
 
The Small Business Act states that "[i]t is th e declared policy of the Congress that the 
Government should aid, counsel, assist, and pr otect, insofar as is possible, the interests 
of small-business concerns in order to preser ve free competitive enterprise, to insure 
that a fair proportion of the total purchase s and contracts or subcontracts for property 
and services for the Government (including bu t not limited to contracts or subcontracts 
for maintenance, repair, and construction) be placed with small-business enterprises, to 
insure that a fair proportion of the total sa les of Government property be made to such 
enterprises, and to maintain and strength en the overall economy of the Nation." 
15 U.S.C. §631(a). 
 
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights  (Question 10: Page 89, Paragraph 3.189)  
The United States has a five-year marketing exclusivity for new chemical entity (NCE) which is 
shorter compared with EU countries, Canada and Japan with eight- to ten-years of marketing exclusivity. Does the United States have a plan to extend the NCE exclusivity period? 
 
RESPONSE: Extending the exclusivity period in  the United States for undisclosed test or 
other data submitted as a condition of a pproving the marketing of pharmaceutical 
products which utilize new chemical entities  would require an act of Congress. The 
current Congress, which is the 113
th Congress, is scheduled to end on January 3, 2015. 
The 114th Congress will begin thereafter and exte nd until January 3, 2017. We are not in 
a position to provide information on whet her Members of Congress may introduce draft 
legislation in the new Congress, and how data exclusivity issues may be addressed, if at 
all. 
 
*21 U.S.C. §355. New drugs 
(c) Period for approval of application; period for, notice, and expedition of hearing; period for issuance of order 
(3)(E) 
(ii) If an application submitted under subsection (b ) of this section for a drug, no active ingredient 
(including any ester or salt of the active ingredient) of which has been approved in any other application under subsection (b) of this section, is approved after September 24, 1984, no 
application which refers to the drug for which the subsection (b) application was submitted and for WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 320 - 
 
  which the investigations described in clause (A) of subsection (b)(1) of this section and relied upon 
by the applicant for approval of the application were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of re ference or use from the person by or for whom 
the investigations were conducted may be submitted under subsection (b) of this section before 
the expiration of five years from the date of the approval of the application under subsection (b) of 
this section, except that such an application may be submitted under subsection (b) of this section 
after the expiration of four years from the date of  the approval of the subsection (b) application if 
it contains a certification of patent invalidity or noninfringement described in clause (iv) of 
subsection (b)(2)(A) of this section.  (j) Abbreviated new drug applications 
(5)(F) 
(ii) If an application submitted under subsection (b ) of this section for a drug, no active ingredient 
(including any ester or salt of the active ingredient) of which has been approved in any other 
application under subsection (b) of this section, is approved after September 24, 1984, no 
application may be submitted under this subsection which refers to the drug for which the subsection (b) application was submitted before the expiration of five years from the date of the 
approval of the application under subsection (b) of  this section, except that such an application 
may be submitted under this subsection after the expiration of four years from the date of the 
approval of the subsection (b) application if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or 
noninfringement described in subclause (IV) of paragraph (2)(A)(vii). 
 
3.3.6.3 The patent system  
(Question 11: Page 94, Paragraph 3.202)  
It is often pointed out that granting low-quality patents through low-quality examination may result in causing problems of so-called "patent thickets" or "evergreening of patents". To address 
this situation, the United States seems to take measures to promote high-quality examination and 
Japan is interested in them. Would the United States elaborate in detail on the measures the United States has adopted or will adopt, if any, to address patent quality issues other than monitoring quality through the Quality Composite Score referred to in paragraph 3.202? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has created a number of programs and initiatives to continue improvin g patent quality. For example, the Patent 
Examiner Technical Training Program (PETTP) is designed to ensure patent examiners 
keep pace with the state of the art developm ents by inviting volunteer assistance from 
scientists, engineers, professors and indust rial designers to participate as guest 
lecturers. The Prior Art Search  initiative is part of the Software Partnership which 
involves the scientific community in sharin g best practices in search strategy and 
improvement of tools and resources which sh ould help the USPTO identify the most 
relevant search resources and determine the best prior art for examination. For further 
information see: http://www.uspto.gov/patent s/init_events/index.jsp . 
 
(Question 12: Page 95, Paragraph 3.204)  
Japan is interested in the initiatives of the United States to protect innovators from "frivolous 
litigation". Japan considers that one of the factors which induce frivolous litigation is high litigation awards, including high attorney's fees most of which are for the discovery process and the large 
amount of damages awarded by courts which can be three times the amount of actual injury at 
maximum. Has the United States taken or will it take any measures or initiatives to address "frivolous litigation" focusing on these regards,  other than the 7 legislative recommendations and 
5 executive actions announced on the website re ferred to by the link in footnote 171? Please 
explain the measures of initiatives, if any. 
 RESPONSE: The discussion in the United Stat es on patent litigation reform legislation 
relating to abusive patent litigation is ongoing.  
 3.3.6.4 Trade secret protection 
 
(Question 13: Pages 95-96, Paragraph 3.207)  We would like to know the developments of the "Adm inistration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of 
U.S. Trade Secrets", which was issued in Feb 2013. As it has been one and a half years, could you 
please provide the information about the concrete results of the respective 5 action items which WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 321 - 
 
  are mentioned in the strategy. In particular, we are interested in knowing the support for 
developing Voluntary Best Practice and st atistics related to Enforcement Operations. 
 RESPONSE: On June 20, 2013, the United States issued a request for public comment on 
voluntary private sector initiatives regardin g IPR protection and enforcement, and is 
currently in the process of evaluating those response. In light of this on-going review, 
the United States is not in a position to prov ide an evaluation of such initiatives at this 
time. U.S. government IPR enforcement acti ons are distinct from voluntary private 
sector initiatives.   With regard to the request for statistics on enforcement operations referenced above, 
the Department of Justice and the Federal Bu reau of Investigation each issue an annual 
report to Congress pursuant to the PRO-IP Ac t, describing their IP enforcement efforts, 
including trade secret enforcement. The PRO-IP Act reports covering the past year 
should be completed and rele ased in the near future. 
 
Agencies at U.S. embassies around the worl d form IPR working groups in support of 
U.S. companies abroad and formulate work plans in support of those goals. Trade 
secrets are part of those IPR work plans. Foreign Commercial Service Officers from the 
International Trade Administration and In tellectual Property Attaches from the 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office collaborate  with embassy interagency teams to ensure 
protection and enforcement of trade secrets. 
 The United States Patent and Trademar k Office and the International Trade 
Administration conduct outreach and provid e training to small- and medium-sized 
businesses in the United States on the paramo unt importance of trade secret protection 
and enforcement in the United States and in foreign markets through the Stopfakes.gov 
Roadshows. At roadshows, the Federal Bu reau of Investigation presents on its 
enforcement role when confronting trade secr et theft and economic espionage as well as 
trains businesses on how to protect trade secr ets as well as on resources to which they 
have access when the need for enforcement arises. 
 
3.3.6.7 IP enforcement  
(Question 14: Pages 99-100, Paragraph 3.221)  
With regard to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC establishes a "target date" for final determination in each investigation within 45 days of the initiation of an investigation. Please 
indicate the average number of days between the initiation of an investigation and (1) "the target 
date", or (2) the actual date of final determinat ion. Please provide us with the data of (1) and 
(2) for the past three years (2012-2014 to date). Furthermore, please provide us with updated information, if any, on the pilot program whic h was reported on the ITC's website as to be 
launched in June 2013. 
 RESPONSE: USITC calculates the average leng th of investigations for investigations 
completed on the merits in months. USITC calculates this average starting on the day an 
investigation is instituted, the day the Notice of investigation is published in the Federal 
Register, through the day the Commission issues  its final determination of violation or 
no violation terminating the investigation (the  target date). USITC does not include in 
its calculation investigations terminated due to withdrawal of complaints, settlements, 
consent orders or arbitration.  
The average length of investigations completed on the merits for the last three fiscal 
years is as follows: 
 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 
Annual average 
length of investigations concluded on the merits (in months) 16.5 19.7 17.1 
 
For information about each investigation inst ituted on or after October 1, 2008, USITC 
has released a new information system, 3 37Info, on its website. The information 
includes: date of publication in the Federa l Register of the Notice of Institution WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 322 - 
 
  (i.e., institution date); target date; date of final determination on the merits or 
otherwise; and date of termination.   In June 2013, USITC launched a pilot prog ram whereby the Commission may designate 
a potentially dispositive issue for early de cision (within the first 100 days of an 
investigation) by the Administrative Law Judge. To date, there has been one 
investigation with a domestic industry issue decided within 100 days of institution. In 
that investigation, the Administrative La w Judge found, and the Commission affirmed, 
there was no domestic industry and the in vestigation was terminated. USITC will be 
evaluating this pilot program in fiscal year 2015.   
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Agriculture 4.1.1 Agricultural Act of 2014 
4.1.1.1 Overview 
 (Question 15: Page 102, Paragraph 4.3)  
The new Farm Bill eliminated the direct payment classified in Green Box and started the PLC and 
the ARC which are considered as Amber Box. Could the United States explain how this change is consistent with the WTO disciplines? The payment based on insurance schemes such as PLC, ARC and SCO are likely to be affected by the fluctuation of international grain prices. How would the 
United States manage possible expansion or fluctuation of outlays? 
 RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill is consistent with WTO disciplines. The United States 
notes that the 2014 Farm Bill not only elimin ates the direct payment program, but also a 
number of Amber Box programs, including co untercyclical payments and the Average 
Crop Revenue Election program. Moreover, th e 2014 Farm Bill, like previous Farm Bills, 
contains a "circuit breaker" that gives th e Secretary of Agriculture the authority to 
ensure that the United States does not exceed its commitment for its Total Aggregate Measure of Support.   
(Question 16: Page 102-103, Paragraph 4.7)  
Does the United States have any schemes to prev ent overlapping and overcompensating with PLC, 
ARC, and SCO other than avoiding farmers from enrolling them simultaneously? 
 
RESPONSE: USDA agencies will monitor enrollment electronically so producers cannot receive benefits from both ARC and PLC, or from both ARC and SCO.  
 
4.1.1.2 Title I (Commodities) 4.1.1.2.4 Marketing loan programme  
(Question 17: Page 108, Paragraph 4.21)  
Could the United States explain the details of th e environmental cross-compliance provisions in the 
market loan programme? 
 
RESPONSE: Producers who obtain commodity lo ans must be in compliance with highly 
erodible land conservation and wetl and provisions of the Farm Bill. 
 
4.1.1.2.8 Eligibility criteria  (Question 18: Page 111, Paragraph 4.36)  
Could the United States explain why payment limit for peanuts is separated from other products? 
 RESPONSE: Peanuts historically had a separa te program system from other "program" 
commodities prior to 2002. Trea tment of peanuts in more rece nt farm bills reflects this 
legacy. For example, peanuts had a separate subtitle in the 2008 Farm Bill. Peanuts have 
also been identified for separate treatment— this time regarding payment limits—in the 
2014 Farm Bill.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 323 - 
 
  4.1.1.5 Title IV (Nutrition) 
 (Question 19: Page 113, Paragraph 4.49)  Please explain programs/activities to reduce the expenditure for SNAP, if any. 
 
RESPONSE: Most U.S. states consider Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP) payments in their calculation of  SNAP benefits. The 2014 Farm Bill amends 
how LIHEAP payments are treated in the calcul ation of SNAP benefits, which is expected 
to reduce SNAP benefits and accounts fo r most of the estimated cuts in SNAP. 
 4.2 Services 
4.2.2 Telecom 
4.2.2.2 Legal and institutional framework  
(Question 20: Pages 124-125, Paragraph 4.90)  
According to the report by the Secretariat, Se ction 310 of the Communications Act, restricts 
granting of a common carrier wireless license to foreign governments, as well as to any 
non-U.S. citizens or corporations, or any corp oration with more than 20% foreign ownership. 
However, the FCC can determine to forbear from that restriction if the particular foreign investment is consistent with the public interest. Are there any clear criteria for the FCC to judge whether a foreign investment is consistent with 
the public interest or to apply "forbearance"? Would you give us some examples of cases where 
foreign investments are consistent with the interests of the public?  
RESPONSE: Following the WTO conclusion of negotiations on basic telecommunications 
and adoption of the Fourth Protocol, the FCC adopted a "rebuttable presumption" that foreign investment from WTO Member countri es in common carrier licensees does not 
pose competitive concerns in the U.S. market. The FCC continues to apply that 
presumption. The FCC also continues to consider , as part of its public interest analysis, 
any national security, law enforcement, fore ign policy or trade policy concerns that may 
be raised by proposed foreign investment  that would exceed the limits of the 
Communications Act.  
 (Question 21: Page 124, Paragraph 4.90)  
According to the report by the Secretariat, a common carrier wireless license with more than 
20% ownership is restricted. Are there any restrict ions on foreign investment in a common carrier 
wire license or cable license? If any, would you explain about the restriction? 
 
RESPONSE: There are no restrictions on foreign investment in common carrier wireline or cable services, except to the extent that they also seek to own certain radio licenses 
(e.g for microwave links). Even in the latte r case, a foreign-owned company can invest, 
if it does so indirectly (i.e. thro ugh U.S.-established subsidiaries.) 
 (Question 22: Page 125, Paragraph 4.94)  
According to your report, all eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) are required to offer voice 
services and also broadband services. What are the conditions or criteria to determine whether a telecommunications carrier is eligible? 
 
RESPONSE: Requirements are set out in Section 213(e) of the Communications Act, requiring, inter alia, that the carrier: 
 
(A) offer the services that are supported by Federal universal service support 
mechanisms under section 254(c), either us ing its own facilities or a combination 
of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's services (including the services 
offered by another eligible te lecommunications carrier); and  
 (B) advertise the availability of such se rvices and the charges therefore using 
media of general distribution.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 324 - 
 
  4.2.5 Maritime transport 
4.2.5.1 Recent developments  (Question 23: Page 142, Paragraph 4.138)  
Regarding the Jones Act, does the U.S. governme nt think that the conditions which created the 
need for the exemption still prevail?  
RESPONSE: Yes, the United States consid ers that the domestic cabotage regime 
continues to be an important means of ensuri ng the availability of experienced seafarers 
and maintaining domestic shipbuilding capabi lity, which are important national security 
objectives. 
 
With regard to the "Jones Act vessels" or US-flag vessels, Section 304(a) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 stipulates that the Secretary of Transportation shall develop 
and implement a program to promote the transporta tion of liquefied natural gas to the United 
States on United states flag vessels ((c) progra m). Has such a program already been developed or 
implemented? 
 
RESPONSE: The Maritime Administration has de veloped a program, entitled StrongPorts, 
to assist ports with capacity and efficien cy projects aimed at improving port and 
intermodal infrastructure. Th e program groups its assistance efforts around three 
product lines: Planning & Engagement, Fina ncing, and Project Support. Additional 
information is available at http://www.strongports.gov/toolkit .  
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 325 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN 
  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.2 Services 
4.2.5 Maritime transport 
4.2.5.1 Recent developments  (Question 1: Page 142, Paragraph 4.138)  
With regard to U.S. response to question 23, we would like to obtain clarifications on whether the 
objective of the "StrongPorts" program developed by  U.S. Maritime Administration is to improve 
port and intermodal infrastructure, and not to promote the use of U.S.-flag LNG vessels. If so, is it 
correct to understand that currently there is no program to promote the use of U.S.-flag LNG 
vessels under the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006?  
RESPONSE:  Through Maritime Administration's Deepwater Ports Licensing Program, 
MARAD has been promoting the transportation of LNG to the United States for several 
years. To date, twenty Deepwater Port Licens e Applications have been filed for approval. 
(Eighteen applications were filed for license s to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 
two applications were filed fo r licenses to import oil).  
 Of the twenty applications, nine have been approved. Currently, there are three existing 
Deepwater Ports – (two LNG terminals and one oil facility).  
 The Maritime Administration is also currentl y developing a National Maritime Strategy 
that will provide recommendations aimed at supporting the growth of the U.S. maritime 
industry and ensuring the availability of U.S. -flag vessels for the nation's economic and 
national security. The strategy will address issu es such as port infrastructure, U.S. flag 
vessels, cargo, mariners and other maritime matters. 
 
For further details on MARAD's Deep Water Port Program, see:  http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_ page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_curre
nt_ports/dwp_current_ports.htm . 
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_ page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_vesse
ls_mariners/dwp_ve ssels_mariners.htm . 
 
(Question 2: Page 142, Paragraph 4.138)  With regard to U.S. response to question 23, re cently, some members of the Congress introduced 
a bill called the Growing American Shipping Act to encourage the use of U.S.-flag vessels to export 
U.S. LNG to other countries including Japan. Japan is following the situation with great concern as 
the bill may be inconsistent with the principle of the freedom of navigation and various international agreements depending on how it will be implemented. Japan would like to know the 
current status and future prospect of the deliberation of the bill. 
 RESPONSE:  We cannot comment on current deliberat ions of this proposed measure or 
speculate as to the outcome. 
  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 326 - 
 
  KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 
  PART I: Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report 
 Page 20 (Para 1.34) 
 
Efforts have been under way since 2012 to boost the U.S. tourism trade. In May 2012 the 
Government launched the National Travel and Tourism Strategy to develop and further increase travel and tourism to the United States. Its long-term goal is for 100 million foreign visitors annually by 2021. In May 2014, the President issu ed a report detailing progress made, including 
significant increases in the use of the Trusted Travel Programs, and significant reductions in visa 
waiting times, especially in Brazil and China. Th e United States is the world's largest tourism 
exporter. 
 
Question 1 
 
Korea and the U.S indeed maintain close relations in a variety of areas, including politics, the 
economy and culture, etc. In particular, people -to-people exchange has significantly increased 
since the two nations agreed on the Visa Waiver Program in 2008. However, the U.S. immigration clearance takes on average 80 minutes while it takes only 13 minutes at the Incheon International 
Airport in Korea. The long waiting time causes inconvenience for travellers and leaves room for 
improvement. Please let us know the U.S. government's input regarding this issue. 
 
RESPONSE: Over the past two years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has 
taken a number of critical steps to expedi te international arrivals and improve the 
passenger experience, including automating travel documents. CBP eliminated the I-94 
and I-94W form and is working toward Au tomated Primary Control kiosks to allow 
passengers to scan their passports and enter their customs declaration information. CBP 
has also increased the availability of mobile applications to expedite passport control, 
and it has made its trusted traveller progra m, Global Entry, available directly to 
U.S. citizens, U.S. lawful permanent reside nts, and nationals of seven other countries. 
CBP will continue to find solutions to impr ove the international arrivals process while 
ensuring a safe and secure border .  
 
Page 42 (Para 3.2.) 
 
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as  part of the Department of Homeland Security 
has a primary role in facilitating trade and enfo rcement, both security and trade related, at 
U.S. ports of entry. However, some 30 of federal agencies have a role in trade enforcement activities. Recent developments include more coordination and cooperation among federal 
agencies, including through the Border Interagenc y Executive Council (BIEC) and the International 
Trade Data System (ITDS).  
Page 42 (Para 3.3.) 
 
The import process has three main stages, pre-entry, entry, and post-entry, each with specific 
requirements (Chart 3.1). CBP regulations from 2003 require advance electronic transmission of 
cargo information to CBP for both arriving and departing cargo and provide for various effective 
dates depending upon the mode of  transportation. Section 2013 of the SAFE Port Act mandates 
development of a regulation to require additional data for improved high-risk targeting, including 
appropriate security elements to be provided prio r to the cargo being loaded on a vessel destined 
for the United States. The Importer Security Filing (ISF) rule was established in 2008 and entered into effect in 2009; there have been no major ch anges since that time. For maritime shipments, 
the importer is responsible for providing an ISF, wh ich consists of ten data elements ("importer of 
record" number, consignee number, seller (owner ) name and address, buyer (owner) name and 
address, ship to party name and address, manufacturer (supplier) name and address, country of 
origin, HTS classification (to the 6-digit level) , container stuffing location, and consolidator 
(stuffer) name and address) and two from the carrier (vessel stow plan and container status messages). The ISF information is generally due 24 hours prior to the cargo being loaded. Where a vessel voyage is less than 24 hours, the ISF ma y be submitted any time prior to arrival. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 327 - 
 
  Page 44 (Para 3.13.) 
 
C-TPAT is a voluntary public-private partnership programme which recognizes that CBP can provide the highest level of cargo security only  through close cooperation with the principal 
stakeholders of the supply chain. Established in 200 1, it was codified into law by the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. Through this programme, CBP asks businesses to ensure the integrity of their security practices, and communi cate and verify the security guidelines of their 
business partners within the supply chain. Busine sses that apply to C-TPAT are reviewed, and if 
the review is favourable, receive Tier I certification status. Thereafter, Tier II may be achieved after physical examination of a company's supply chain and minimum security measures. A third level, Tier III, exists for those importer partners that show a sustained commitment beyond 
minimum security and have exceeded the programme's requirements and applied best practices. 
The advantages of participating in the C-TPAT programme include a reduction of risk score that results in fewer CBP inspections, and eligibility fo r expedited treatment and processing. As of June 
2014, there were more than 10,732 C-TPAT certified companies, resulting in over 25,160 total 
validations, and accounting for around 54.1% of total merchandise imports into the United States by value. 
 
Question 2 
 Exporters from Korea have noted that they receive requests from CBP for specific documents for 
material or identification papers that are generally not used in Korea or by Korean manufacturers. 
As an example, to verify the origin of a synt hetic fiber scarf, a Korean exporter was asked to 
provide cutting tickets, sewing tickets and batc h numbers; however those documents are not used 
or clearly outlined in Korea. 
 Does the United States have plans to request documents that are used more globally for the origin 
verification? 
 RESPONSE: U.S. Customs and Border Protec tion (CBP) has developed and provided 
written guidance to CBP personnel and th e trade community regarding documents CBP 
considers in reviewing claims for preferenti al tariff treatment of textiles and wearing 
apparel entered into the United States under  various preference programs (including 
KORUS).  
 
The website for such guidance is: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-
issues/textiles/supp-docs-app  
 
Question 3 
 There have been instances in which different CBP field operation officers lack consistency when 
requesting documents to verify the origin of prod ucts. As an example, to verify the origin of a 
textile product, HS code 5903, three different officers each requested different documentation:   
 Officer 1: affidavit corresponding to each originating material, flow charts, technical 
specifications and other documents explaining  the manufacturing materials, documentation 
pertaining to assists, inventory manage ment methods, indirect materials,  
  Officer 2: fabric construction, respective weights of coating/laminating substance versus 
textile, weight per square meter, use of the coated fabric, etc   Officer 3: original purchase order, invoice and proof of payment, timeline for all steps of 
production from fiber production to yarn to greige fabric to all processing steps performed, a 
profile of the manufacturing factory, etc 
 Does the United States have plans to create more consistent requirements for what documents 
might be requested for each product line? 
 RESPONSE U.S. CBP officials might ask for different documents depending on the nature 
of the product line and whether the documents are necessary to demonstrate that the 
goods was originating and qualified for pr eferential treatment. To help achieve 
uniformity of treatment at the ports of entry, CBP has established Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEEs). By focusing on indu stry-specific issues and providing tailored 
support for the participating importers, the CEEs will help to facilitate trade, reduce WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 328 - 
 
  transaction costs, increase compliance with  applicable import laws, and, and further 
strengthen CBP's understanding  of industry practices. 
 Question 4 
 Exporters from Korea voice concern that the CBP's security and trade examinations are too costly. When CBP executes a security examination, the time and expense for the company affected is 
significant. Combined, primary and secondary security examinations run 9-12 days and cost 
US$1,400-US$1,600 per container. In addition, trade examination runs 5-6 days and costs US$1,000-US$1,600 per container. The rate at which both examinations are conducted is too high, particularly on consolidated cargo containers. Both security and trade examinations increase the 
likelihood that goods are damaged while the expe nses imposed on importers are determined by 
negotiations between the Central Examination Station (CES) and CBP. The importers who are 
billed lack input mechanisms to address needed issues. 
 
Korea suggests that CBP reduce or waive securi ty examinations for importers certified as 
C-TPAT Tier 3. Korea also requests that CBP bring in more employees and make the operations of 
the Central Examination Station more efficient for marine freight in order to reduce the time and 
expense spent on examinations. Korea also suggests that CBP reduce the general rate of trade examination in light of unnecessary delays and expense and that CBP expand and make the operations of the Central Examination Station more efficient for marine freight. 
 
Along these lines, could the United States explain the plans that it has prepared or is preparing to make its customs procedure more efficient and transparent? 
 
RESPONSE: CBP has no plans to waive security examinations but C-TPAT Partners continue to be examined at a considerably lower rate than non-C-TPAT Partners. Entries 
from non C-TPAT Partners are 3.5 times more  likely to undergo a security based exam 
than those from C-TPAT Tier II Partners; an d nine times more likely than those entries 
filed by C-TPAT Tier III companies. C-TPAT do es not have a relationship with the Central 
Examination Station, as examinations ar e at the discretion of CBP Officers. 
 
C-TPAT is currently offering Korean exporters to the U.S and members of Korea's Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) program benefits including, but not limited 
to, providing targeting reduction equivalent to  C-TPAT Tier I reduction benefits, front of 
the line benefits, and priority proce ssing for cargo that is examined.  
 
Question 5 
 
Although shipping documents are not required fo r 90% of paperless entry, importers encounter 
problems when they must provide CBP with additi onal paperwork. The requested information must 
often be collected from multiple sources into one response document, along with the explanation 
and analysis as requested by local officials.   
Korea suggests that CBP expand the time frame allocated for importers to obtain the requested 
information, or that CBP encourage local port officials to advise importers that if additional time is necessary, the importer may contact the local officials who will present an extension request to 
his/her port management for review. 
 Does the United States have any plans to provide an expanded time frame for importers when requesting additional paperwork after the entry process?  
 
RESPONSE:  CBP has no current plans to extend time frames for the submission of 
information. The importer has sufficient time to respond to any requests for additional 
information and is often provided the right to  request a time extension past deadline for 
submission of information. The ports genera lly take a liberal approach and grant these 
requests. 
 
Question 6 
 CBP Importer Security Filing (ISF) requires importers and carriers to electronically report cargo 
information at least 24 hours before a shipment is loaded for boarding to a container vessel. This WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 329 - 
 
  imposes a heavy burden on the importer and is duplicative of the efforts required to obtain a 
C-TPAT certification, effectively constituting the equivalent of performing the same task twice on 
the same entry.   
Korea would suggest that an importer who obtains C-TPAT Tier-3 certification should be exempt 
from ISF reporting requirements.   
Could the United States explain the plans that it has prepared or is preparing to make its customs 
process including ISF more efficient?  RESPONSE: At this time, CBP is not consider ing exempting importers from ISF reporting 
requirements. An ISF Importer which is a cert ified Tier 2 or Tier 3 C-TPAT member may 
receive additional mitigation of up to 50% of the normal mitigation amount, depending 
upon the tier of C-TPAT participation. CBP currently allows Tier 3 C-TPAT and Tier 2 C-
TPAT members the opportunity to register  with CBP to receive their ISF Progress 
Reports directly from CBP.   
 
Page 61~65 (Para 3.66.~3.70.) 
 
(3.66) The United States had 294 anti-dumping and countervailing measures in place at the end of 2013, an increase of 18% since 2010. There was a general increase in the use of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties on emerging markets during 2010-14, while remedies with respect to 
developed countries decreased. China was the country  mainly affected, accounting for over 40% of 
all orders in 2013. The Republic of Korea and Chin ese Taipei were also slightly more impacted 
during the period, whereas EU countries, Japan, and Brazil all had slightly lower levels of remedies 
applied. (3.67.) U.S. anti-dumping investigations  have generally been below historic levels in 
recent years, with the exception of 2013, when th ere was a significant increase in investigations. 
Some 39 investigations were initiated in 2013, compared to an average in the other 4 years of 
2010-14 of 9 per year. (3.68 .) In terms of product group, anti-dumping investigations generally 
targeted a mix of products, except in 2013 when 35 investigations were launched in the metals sector, 33 of them relating to steel products. (3.69 .) The trend for countervailing duty 
investigations during 2010-14 was similar to that of anti-dumping investigations. They remained 
relatively low with the exception of 2013 when 19 in vestigations were initiated. Asian countries, in 
particular China, were the most affected with countervailing duty investigations. (3.70) In terms of 
products covered, the impact is diverse. In 2011 and 2013, the metals sector was particularly 
affected, while in other years agriculture, wood, machinery, chemicals, and transport and vehicles 
were the subject of investigations.  
 
Question 7 
Although WTO members have a right to apply trade remedy measures in accordance with WTO rules, the Korean government is concerned over  a recent sharp increase in the initiation of 
trade remedy investigations of the U.S. government . In particular, it worries that investigations 
are concentrated on steel products. In this regard, Korea would like to request that the U.S. deal with this issue in an objective and fair manner. It would also like to know the U.S government's 
view on the surge in the number of trade remedy investigations. 
 RESPONSE : The United States administers its trad e remedy laws in accordance with 
applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to a peti tion filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual determination of whether dumping exists 
and whether dumped imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a 
domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a 
factual determination of whether counterva ilable subsidies exists and whether such 
subsidized imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic 
industry. Where dumped/subsidized imports, an d material injury by such imports have 
been found, the United States will impose  an antidumping or countervailing duty 
measure, as applicable.  
 
Page 102 (Para 4.3 .) 
` 
One of the most significant changes affecting the structure of the U.S. farm safety net is the 
elimination of the Direct Payments (DP) programme. The DP programme has been the cornerstone WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 330 - 
 
  of U.S. agricultural policy reforms since the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations, and it 
provided about US$5 billion annually in decoupled income support to farmers and landlords. The 
Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) programme and the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) programme have also been eliminated. These th ree measures (DP, CCP, and ACRE) have been 
replaced by two new measures, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage 
(ARC).   
Question 8 
 
Korea understands that producers preferred CCP ov er ACRE before they were replaced by new 
programs, PLC and ARC, respectively. Which program, between PLC and ARC, does the 
United States find more preferred by its producers? 
 RESPONSE: Only 8% of base acres nationally were enrolled in the ACRE program under 
the 2008 Farm Bill. Virtually all of the remain ing base acres were enrolled in the direct 
and counter-cyclical payment program (DCP). National and state-level enrollment data 
for DCP and ACRE are available at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area= 
home&subject=dccp&topic=09cy .  
 
USDA does not have data yet on PLC and ARC sign-up, as the election and enrollment process is just getting started. 
 
 Question 9 
 The direct payment system is a way of compensating farmers for public interests which they accommodate while maintaining farmland, such as by protecting rural views and sustaining 
conditions for cultivation and ecological benefits. In this regard, the EU, Japan and Korea tend to 
increase the usage of fixed direct payment or green direct payment. On the other hand, the United States is moving toward abolishing fixed direct payment and raising the reference price of Price Loss Coverage (PLC) instead. Could the United States please explain reasons for this change 
and whether it is related to budget matter? 
 RESPONSE: The 2014 Farm Bill emphasized farmers' partic ipation in crop insurance 
programs. As part of this decision, Congre ss terminated the Direct and Countercyclical 
Payment program. New programs are paid on historical production without reference to 
current production. Because producers cannot increase their payments as a result of 
current planting decisions, plantings would be based on market incentives. Further, 
there are some counter-veiling factors in cert ain U.S. farm programs, which will provide 
lower payments when commodity prices fall and remain low.  
Page 103 (Para 4.7 .) 
 
The 2014 Farm Bill introduces a new subsidized  insurance programme (Supplemental Coverage 
Option) that allows eligible farmers to top up their crop insurance, in order to cover a portion of 
the deductible of the insurance. For producers of  upland cotton, a new subsidized insurance plan, 
Stacked Income Protection (STAX), will be available starting in the 2015 marketing year. The 
Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is not available for ARC and STAX participants. 
 Question 10 
 
According to the report, the newly replaced PLC is linked with the crop insurance (Supplemental 
Coverage Option). Considering CCP is a non-product- specific price stabilization program, can it be 
assumed that PLC is also irrelevant to the product and provided based on the past yielding acreage 
and commodity? If so, could United States please explain how it can be compatible with the SCO, 
which is provided on a product-specific basis?  
RESPONSE:  PLC and SCO are separate programs. Enro llment in PLC is not required to 
purchase SCO coverage, and the payments  for the two programs are not linked. 
Producers who enroll in the PLC program will re ceive payments based on their historical 
base for the enrolled commodity, but are not re quired to plant that commodity to receive 
payments. However, if they do choose to  plant the commodity for which they are WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 331 - 
 
  enrolled in PLC, they are eligible to purcha se an SCO policy for their current crop to 
supplement traditional crop insurance coverage.  PART III: Other Questions 
 Question 11 
 
With regard to the E2 visa extension for Koreans working at the U.S. branches of 
Korean companies, many applications have recent ly been refused by the U.S. Considering that a 
candidate for "essential employees" or workforce th at is "employed in a supervisory, executive" 
post, or of "highly specialized skill capacity" cannot be easily replaced, the recent rejections 
impose a heavy burden on Korean investors who have contributed to creating quality jobs in the 
U.S. We would like to hear the U.S. views on this issue.   
RESPONSE:  With regard to the E2 visa extension for Koreans working at the 
U.S. branches of Korean companies, many ap plications have recent ly been refused by 
the U.S. Considering that a candidate for "essential employees" or workforce that is 
"employed in a supervisory, executive" post , or of "highly specialized skill capacity" 
cannot be easily replaced, the recent reje ctions impose a heavy burden on Korean 
investors who have contributed to creating qua lity jobs in the U.S. We would like to hear 
the U.S. views on this issue. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 332 - 
 
  LAO PDR 
  Secretariat Report 
Unilateral preferential regimes 
Page 35, para 2.33 The U.S. provides unilaterally preferential acce ss to its market for LDCs through its GSP (LDC) 
scheme, AGOA and other arrangements. Despite the Bali decision on DFQF market access for LDCs 
(and Decision on measures in favor of LDCs –para 36a, Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration), Lao PDR does not benefit from any preferential access to the U.S. market. This puts Lao PDR in a less favorable position compared not only to other LDCs but also to the other 
developing countries -beneficiaries of U.S. unilateral preferences.  
 Having in mind the objective of DFQF decision adop ted in Bali MC to further the integration of LDCs 
into the multilateral trading system and promote their economic growth and sustainable 
development, could U.S. please explain how it intends to implement its political commitment to provide at least 97% of DFQF for all LDCs? What  are the perspectives of U.S. extending the 
broader AGOA and other unilateral preferences to Asian LDCs? 
 RESPONSE: The United States supports the MC9 decision on Duty-Free and Quota-Free (DFQF) Market Access for Least-Developed Countries. As noted in the Secretariat's 
report, the U.S. Congress is responsible for initiating and passing legislation to amend 
and re-authorize U.S. unilateral preference programs, including the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).  
 
Legal authorization for the GSP program expi red on July 31, 2013. The Administration 
fully supports the economic development object ives of the U.S. Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP) program and continues to work with the U.S. Congress to reauthorize 
the program at the earliest opportunity. In J une 2013, the United States held a public 
hearing to gather information regarding the eligibility of the Lao People's Democratic 
Republic for GSP trade benefits. The informat ion presented at the hearing and collected 
through public submissions will be used to determine the eligibility of the Lao People's 
Democratic Republic for GSP benefits if the GSP program is reauthorized. 
 
The United States is committed to examining our preference programs to make them 
work better for developing countries. For ex ample, the Administration has recently 
completed an extensive review of the Afri can Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and 
has been consulting with the U.S. Congress  about how to update that program. The 
Obama Administration believes it is importan t that any prospective reform of the GSP 
program take into account both the needs of the world's poorest countries and the growing competitiveness of many em erging market GSP beneficiaries. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 333 - 
 
  MALAYSIA 
  SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
2.3.1 Participation in the WTO (Page 30)  
2.17. In the on-going Doha Round, the United States  played an active role in the Trade Facilitation 
negotiations, submitting 31 new or revised proposals. It has been a strong supporter of and participant in the TFA, including in reaching th e successful Bali outcome. It continues to support 
developing and least developed countries in technical assistance activities. During the review 
period, the United States did not submit any proposals to other negotiating bodies. 
 2.18. Recently, the United States completed its domestic consultation procedures to enter into EGA 
negotiations. The United States and 13 other WTO Members announced their intention to start 
negotiations of an EGA in Davos in January 2014 and in June, shared information about this initiative in the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment. The negotiations were launched in 
July, with the aim of eliminating tariffs on a broad set of environmental goods. 
 QUESTION 1: Malaysia would like to get clarification from the U.S. on its plans on how to move forward other 
outstanding areas under the DDA, in particular the NAMA negotiation; and 
  RESPONE: The United States is committed to  making progress wherever possible on the 
Doha Development Agenda (DDA), based on common efforts. Now is the time to craft 
credible, innovative approaches to the WTO' s work as an institution that liberalizes 
trade and creates and applies meaningful ru les to trade based on active commitment 
and participation from all Members, both developed and developing. This includes 
WTO Members' approach to the NAMA negotiations.   QUESTION 2: 
Appreciate if the U.S. could share its expectation towards the plurilateral EGA negotiations as well 
indicate specific products on top of APEC list th at it might be pushing for tariff elimination. 
 
RESPONSE: The recently launched EGA negotiations present a unique opportunity to 
advance U.S. economic and environmental objectives, and to add impetus and energy to the multilateral trading system. The EGA is being negotiated by a group of 
WTO Members committed to liberalization in this  sector, but the benefits will accrue to 
all WTO Members, as the participants plan to eliminate tariffs on agreed products on an 
MFN basis. By eliminating tariffs on a broad set of environmental technologies, including 
those already endorsed by APEC Leaders,  WTO Members can improve access to these 
technologies globally, thus lowering the cost of environmental protection, while 
unlocking opportunity for our exporters and sp urring innovation in green technologies.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 334 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM MALAYSIA 
  
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
2.1.3.3 Comprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and 
Seafood Fraud 
 2.12. In June 2014, the President established a task force to enhance coordination of U.S. Government efforts to combat illegal, unrep orted, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood 
fraud and directed the task force to develop and implement a comprehensive framework to combat 
IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
11 Further, the President noted the national interest to promote 
sustainable fishing practices and the plan to implement the UNFAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate I llegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.
12 The 
framework acknowledges that the United States will continue to promote its policy of legally and 
sustainably caught, and accurately labelled seafood, and will assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 
 
Question 
 
1. In relation to the Comprehensive Framew ork to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and 
Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud, Malaysia would like to understand further about 
the Framework. Does the framework involves new recommendation in making rules or new market measures to combat IUU fishing?  
 
2. Could the U.S. share the outcome of the task force and comprehensive framework thus far, 
in enhancing coordination efforts to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud? 
 
RESPONSE: The Task Force provided its recommendations to the President on December 18, 2014. There are four thematic areas focu sed on addressing IUU fishing and seafood 
fraud: (1) international engagement; (2 ) enforcement; (3) partnerships; and 
(4) traceability. The full text of the recommendations was published in the Federal 
Register  and can be found online at: 
https://www.federalregiste r.gov/articles/2014/12/18/2014-
29628/recommendations-of-the-presidenti al-task-force-on-combating-illegal-
unreported-and-unregulated . Upon receiving guidance from the President on the 
recommendations submitted by the Task Force on December 18, 2014, the Task Force 
will begin its implementation of the reco mmendations, including identifying more 
specific actions to implement them, and, with in one year, will report to the President on 
its progress.   
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements 
 
2.21. There have been no major developments in reciprocal trade agreements since the last 
Review of the United States when the free-trade agreements with the Republic of Korea, Panama, 
and Colombia were entering into force. No new FTAs have been concluded or entered into force since that time. However, the United States is negotiating with the European Union on T-TIP, and 
with a group of countries in Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas, with TPP (see Section 2.2).
16 At 
this time, neither has been concluded.  Question 3 
 The strength of the WTO is in its multilateralism.  What would be the US' view on the likelihood of 
achieving an ambitious outcome in the DDA given that as more countries are involved in the 
regional and preferential agreements; the more difficult it would be to reach this goal. 
 RESPONSE: A core objective of U.S. trade policy is to open markets and to advance the 
rule of law through the multilateral trading system, as it has been since before the 
founding of the GATT. A strong and vital Worl d Trade Organization (WTO) is central to 
that task. The United States also pursues b ilateral and regional free trade agreements 
(FTAs) that are complementary to and comp atible with advancing the goals of the 
multilateral trading system. U.S. FTAs, be cause of their breadth of commitments, WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 335 - 
 
  produce significant benefits for its partners , and, through the economic growth this 
brings, for other trading partners as well. This also strengthens and expands the forces 
working towards global trade reforms. The li beralization undertaken by many of our FTA 
partners has often led those Members to increa se participation in liberalizing efforts at 
the WTO. 
  
2.3.3 Other agreements and arrangements  
2.3.3.1 Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement 
 
2.43. The United States is a signatory to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a 
plurilateral agreement negotiated among 11 trading partners.41 The ACTA aims to combat 
infringement of intellectual property rights, in part icular piracy and counterfeiting. It provides for 
enhanced international cooperation, promotion of  enforcement practices, and a legal framework 
for IPR enforcement. Although the agreement was finalized in 2011, it has not yet entered into 
force. The agreement reportedly does not require any statutory changes to U.S. law.  
Question 4 
 
Since the ACTA has yet to enter into force, is there any other legal instruments in place in combating piracy and counterfeiting? If yes, what are the approaches taken by the U.S. that make 
them more effective in the fight against fake goods? 
 RESPONSE: The United States has taken an in tegrated approach to combating piracy and 
counterfeiting by addressing, civil, bord er and criminal intellectual property 
enforcement. The following is an illustrati ve list of federal statutes that address 
intellectual proper ty enforcement: 
 
1. Trademarks 
a.  Civil Enforcement: 
 15 USC section 1114 and 15 USC 1125 – infringement 
  15 USC section 1116 (1) – injunctions 
  15 USC section 1116(d)(1)(A) – ex parte seizure   15 USC section 1117(a) – damages, costs and attorney's fees 
  15 USC section 1118 – destruction of infringing articles   
b.  Border Enforcement: 
 19 USC section 1526 – Customs' seizure, forfeiture and destruction   
 authority for marks that are recorded with CBP 
 19 USC section 1595a(c)(2)(C) and 18 USC section 2320 – Customs    seizure, forfeiture and destruction authority for counterfeit marks not recorded  with CBP 
 19 USC sections 1526 and 1595a(B) – fines and penalties 
c.  Criminal Enforcement: 
   18 USC section 2320 – Trafficking in counterfeit goods  
  
2.  Copyrights 
a.  Civil Enforcement: 
 17 USC section 501 – infringement 
 17 USC section 502 – injunctions  17 USC section 503 – seizure and destruction  17 USC section 504 – damages 
 17 USC section 505 – costs and attorney's fees 
b.  Border Enforcement: 
 17 USC section 602 – infringing  importation or exportation 
 17 USC section 603 – disposition of excluded articles 
c. Criminal Enforcement: 
 17 USC section 506 – criminal offenses 
 17 USC section 509 – criminal seizure authority 
 18 USC section 2319 – criminal copyright infringement 
18 USC section 2319B – unauthorized recording of a motion 
picture WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 336 - 
 
   18 USC section 2318 - trafficking in ill icit labels or co unterfeit labels, 
 documentation or packaging for copyrighted works  18 USC section 2319A - trafficking in reco rdings of live musical performances 
 
 
3.1.1.1 Trade facilitation measures  
3.1.1.1.1 Single window 
 3.5. It is expected that by the end of 2016, ACE will provide si ngle-window functionality for all 
agencies requiring documentation to clear imports or  exports, allowing traders to submit electronic 
data and documentation for importation and exportat ion. Electronic filing options will be available 
in lieu of current paper filing requirements and manual processes will be streamlined. ACE is being 
implemented or deployed in seven phases, each allowing new modules and functions to be added. As of April 2014, ACE had deployed the third of the seven modules covering simplified entry, 
exports, and entry summary. All import and export cargo manifest data will have to be submitted 
through ACE as of 1 May 2015.  
Question 5 
 
Can the U.S. share the level of improvements made thus far, since the deployment of the third ACE modules covering simplified entry, ex ports, and entry summary in April 2014. 
 
RESPONSE:  The United States does not yet have complete data on the results of ACE 
improvements since April 2014. However, in itial improvement include: Electronic 
Corrections and Cancellations (deploye d November 2013), which automated a 
paper-based process for CBP personnel;  Entry summary validations (deployed 
November 2012 – October 2013); Incorporatio n of commodity filing into ACE (deployed 
October 2014); New advanced tools for cargo pr ocessing; Electronic air export manifest 
processing (deployed November 2014) and el ectronic ocean and rail export manifest 
processing (deployed January 2015), whic h will replace paper-based processes; 
Automated transmission of data to the US DA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) via the Inte roperability Web Services (IWS) capability (deployed 
October 2014), to eliminate redundant data.  
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
 3.69. The trend for countervailing duty investigat ions during 2010-14 was similar to that of 
anti-dumping investigations. They remained relatively low with the exception of 2013 when 19 investigations were initiated. Asian countries, in particular China, were the most affected with countervailing duty investigations (Chart 3.6). 
 
3.70. In terms of products covered, the impact is diverse. In 2011 and 2013, the metals sector was particularly affected, while in other years agriculture, wood, machinery, chemicals, and 
transport and vehicles were the subject of investigations (Chart 3.7). 
 Question 
 
6. Malaysia requests the U.S. to provide break down of cases according to countries in Asia 
which was initiated and investigated until Final Determination of Measure under metal, wood & paper; machinery and electrical equipment and misc. manufactured.  
 
RESPONSE: The decision memoranda and public  notice for every preliminary and final 
antidumping and countervailing duty determ ination that the U.S. Department of 
Commerce makes is available at the following site:  http://trade.gov/enforcement/ . This 
online database is also searchable by individu al country. Similarly, the status of each 
U.S. International Trade Commission inve stigation – from initiation to final 
determination – can be found at https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-external/app . 
 
7. Referring to Chart 3.6, can the U.S. explain the reasons for the increasing number of CVD 
cases, specifically on metals product? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 337 - 
 
  RESPONSE: With regards to the volume of CVD investigations, a countervailing duty 
investigation is initiated in resp onse to a petition filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to 
impose a countervailing duty me asure is based on a factual determination of whether 
countervailable subsidies exist and whether such subsidized imports have caused, or 
threaten to cause, material injury to a dome stic industry. Where subsidization, material 
injury, and a causal link between the two has been found, the United States will impose 
a countervailing duty measure.  
 
3.1.7.2 Sunset reviews 
 3.71. Section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the review of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty orders no later than five years after their publication. An average of 40 reviews 
per year have been conducted in the United States over the last several years, to determine whether revocation of the order would lead to co ntinuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidy, 
and material injury. Through the domestic processes for review, the Department of Commerce and 
the USITC determine whether the duties should be kept in place (continued) or lifted (revoked).  
3.72. While the number of reviews has varied over the last eight years, there has been a 
significant trend with fewer orders being revoked. In 2007-8, approximately half of all orders were 
revoked, whereas in 2013-14, about 90% of review s resulted in the continuation of the remedy 
(Chart 3.8). 
 
Question 8 
 
It is noted in the Secretariat Report that in 20 07-8 approximately half of all orders of Sunset 
Reviews were revoked, however about 90% of revi ews in 2013-14 resulted in the continuation of 
the remedy. Malaysia would like to know which investigated country and sectors are involved in 
2013-14 (i.e. specify metal or wood or E&E or etc.)?  
 RESPONSE: The decision memoranda and public  notice for every preliminary and final 
antidumping and countervailing duty determ ination that the U.S. Department of 
Commerce makes is available at the following site: http://trade.gov/enforcement/ . This 
online database is also searchable by individu al country. Similarly, the status of each 
U.S. International Trade Commission inve stigation – from initiation to final 
determination –can be found at https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-external/app . 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards 
 3.80. The United States submitted 269 TBT noti fications in 2013 (248 in 2012)69, including sub-
federal measures notified under Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement (Table A2.2).The United States was the only WTO Member to notify at the local government level during the review period, with 
11 sub-federal notifications submitted in 2013, mainly relating to environmental protection. The 
federal regulatory agencies with greatest number of  TBT notifications related to international trade 
include: the Department of Energy (DOE), Food  and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Transpor tation (DOT), Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The 
National Institute of Standards and Technology is the United States' enquiry point and notification 
authority under the TBT Agreement and responds to Members' requests for documents and 
information within two days, and usually within one day, according to the authorities. Comments received or inquiries for clarification of technical details in a notified measure are transmitted by the enquiry point to the relevant U.S. regula tory agency for reply as soon as possible. 
 
Question 9 
 
Can the United States share the governance mechanism around management of the TBT enquiry 
point? What commitments does the United States make to respond to enquiries to the TBT enquiry 
point and is there a deadline for responding to requests? 
 
RESPONSE: The statutory authority for the U.S. WTO TBT Inquiry Point derives from 19 USC 2544. This authority was delegated to the Department of Commerce, and in turn, 
the Department of Commerce assigned the authority to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 338 - 
 
  The U.S. Inquiry Point responds to WTO Member requests for documents and 
information within two days, and usually rep lies within one day. Comments received or 
inquiries for clarification of technical details  in a notified measure must be transmitted 
to the relevant U.S. regulatory agency for reply. 
 
With respect to inquiries regard ing actions by U.S. regulatory agencies, the U.S. Inquiry 
Point's role is limited to conveying the inquir y to the relevant U.S. regulatory agency and 
reminding agencies when inquiries ar e outstanding and require a response. 
 In addition, the Administrative Procedures Act requires regulators to publish regulatory proposals in the Federal Register , solicit comments on the proposal from the public, and 
respond to substantive comments received du ring the comment period when the final 
rule is published.  
 
Table 3.12 Specific government programmes supporting export activities 
 
Question 10 
 
Referring to table 3.12, some of the programmes un der NEI/NEXT such as Export Credit Guarantee 
Program, Facilities Program, and Dairy Export Program involve the use of export financing and 
export subsidy. Please explain the specific measures under these programs? Can the U.S. share 
how these programs to be seen as in line with the "Bali Package"?  
RESPONSE:  Please see the Secretariat Report fo r more detail about these programs: 
 
• Section 4.1.1.2.6, para 4.27 (page 109) notified the elimin ation of the Dairy Export 
Incentive Program, and 
 
• Section 4.1.1.4.2, para 4. 46 (page 113) described the Export Credit Guarantee 
Program. The Facilities Guarantee Progra m is a subset of the Export Credit 
Guarantee Program and is to be used for establishment of, or improvement on 
facilities, and the export of goods (not ag ricultural products or commodities) and 
services. Where applicable, the program w ill adhere to the OECD Guidelines on 
Officially Supported Export Credits. 
 The United States maintains an open and transparent system of export measures 
consistent with the Bali ministerial decision on export competition, which requires WTO 
Members to provide increased transparency on the implementation of their export 
competition programs.  
.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.1 Incentives 
 3.137. Given their role in supporting job creation and fostering economic growth, small businesses 
continue to be a priority on the government's agenda.
124 The U.S. Small Business Administration 
(SBA) provides counselling and financial assistance to small businesses through, inter alia, loan 
guarantees and federal procurement opportunities. Within this framework, the SBA has 
32 permanent programmes, and approved 101,066 loans over the fiscal year 2013.  Question 11 
 As stated in 3.137, the SBA has 32 permanent programmes and approved 101,066 loans over the 
fiscal year 2013, can the U.S. give examples of the programmes and what are the types of small 
business that had benefitted from the loans given. 
 RESPONSE: SBA does not have 32 programs . SBA has 17 major programs, under the 
broad categories of Capital, Contractin g, Counseling/Technical Assistance, and 
Innovation:  
• Capital: 7(a) business loans; 504 (Certi fied Development Corporation) loans; 
Microloans; Disaster loans; Surety Bond s; Small Business Investment Companies 
• Contracting: Prime contracting; HUB Zones; 8(a) Business Development  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 339 - 
 
  • Counseling/Technical Assistance: In ternational Trade; Small Business 
Development Centers; Women Business Centers; Veteran Business Centers; 
SCORE; 7(j) Management Assistance 
• Innovation: Small Business Innovation an d Research; Small Business Technology 
Transfer 
 Each of these programs is described in full on the SBA website (see, 
https://www.sba.gov/ ). The primary program is the 7(a)  loan guaranty program. Under 
this program SBA provides a guaranty on a lo an when the lender certifies that it would 
not make the loan without a guaranty due to  the perceived greater risk of the credit 
(borrower). Because of the perceived greater risk, the business is often left with the 
choice of not getting a business loan or ob taining a loan with an SBA guaranty. SBA 
charges to take that risk (guaranteed shares vary from 50% to 90% of the loan amount, depending on the loan size and program), which passes through to the borrower. The 
guaranty fee that SBA charges on the guarant eed portion of the loan is tiered: 2% on 
loans up to US$150,000, 3% on loans from 500,001 to 700,000, 3.5% on loans 700,001 to US$1 million, and 3.75% on guaranteed portion over US$1 million. As a result, the 
borrower typically pays a higher total cost th an it would if it were able to obtain 
financing without SBA support. SBA programs  assist small business in nearly every 
sector of the economy.  
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance 
 
3.140. In most cases, subsidies take the form of grants, tax concession, loan guarantees, and 
direct payments. The agriculture and energy sectors remain the largest recipients. 
 Question 12 
 Why do these two sectors still remain the largest recipients of subsidies and does the U.S. consider reducing subsidies in these two sectors in the future?  
RESPONSE: The U.S. Congress is largely resp onsible for the establishment and continued 
funding of U.S. subsidy programs. Therefore, it is difficult to speculate as to why specific 
policy outcomes are reached or w ill be reached in the future.  
 
3.1.1.1.5.1 Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)  
 
3.13. C-TPAT is a voluntary public-private partnership programme which recognizes that CBP can 
provide the highest level of cargo security only  through close cooperation with the principal 
stakeholders of the supply chain. Established in 200 1, it was codified into law by the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006.9 Through this programme, CBP asks businesses to 
ensure the integrity of their security practices, and communicate and verify the security guidelines 
of their business partners within the supply ch ain. Businesses10 that apply to C-TPAT are 
reviewed, and if the review is favourable, receive Tier I certification status. Thereafter, Tier II may 
be achieved after physical examination of a company's supply chain and minimum security 
measures. A third level, Tier III, exists for those importer partners that show a sustained commitment beyond minimum security and have exceeded the programme's requirements and 
applied best practices. The advantages of participating in the C-TPAT programme include a 
reduction of risk score that results in fewer CBP inspections, and eligibility for expedited treatment and processing. As of June 2014, there were more than 10,732 C-TPAT certified companies, resulting in over 25,160 total validations, and accounting for around 54.1% of total merchandise 
imports into the United States by value. 
 Question 13 
 What is the current status of the pilot programs under the Importer Self-Assessment Program (ISA) i.e. the Importer Self-Assessment-Product Sa fety Pilot, and the Customs Broker Importer 
Self-Assessment Pre-Certification (Broker ISA PC) test? 
 RESPONSE: The ISA PC pilot is designed to pr ovide an additional avenue for participation 
for those small and medium sized enterpri ses who may not have the resources or 
expertise to apply for ISA. With ISA PC, elig ible applicants will be approved for the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 340 - 
 
  program in 90 to 120 days rather than 9 to 18 months. The ISA-Product Safety Pilot has 
been ongoing since October 2008. This partne rship extends to include Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (CPSC) requirements for the company to maintain a high level of 
product safety compliance and thus realize e fficiencies associated with CPSC processing. 
 
2.1.1 Trade promotion authority 
 
2.5 Procedures set out in the Trade Act of 1974 and its predecessor have been used for 
consultations and approvals of most multilateral an d reciprocal trade agreements entered into by 
the United States in recent years. Following its establishment, TPA was renewed regularly, except 
during 1995-2002, and more recently since it lapsed in 2007. 
 
Question 14 
 
The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) remains lapsed since 2007, even though the U.S. is currently 
engaging in trade negotiations most notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trade in Services Agreement. With the absence of the TPA, what is 
the impact to the U.S. ongoing trade negotiations especially in convincing the negotiating partners 
who very much aware that Congress will make the final decision in ratifying concluded talks?  RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to 
pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (T PA) legislation. As the Administration 
works with Congress on TPA, we will conti nue to advance bilateral, plurilateral and 
multilateral negotiations.  
 
3.2.5 Export finance, insurance, guarantees  
 
3.2.5.1 Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank)  
 3.121. The Ex-Im Bank is an independent governme nt agency, and serves as the official export 
credit agency of the United States. It is self-f inanced in the sense that its fees and services 
charged, cover its operating costs. However Congress sets a limit on the Bank's activities per the 
appropriations process.113 In its last reauthorization in 2012, Congress set its lending authority limit to US$100 billion, rising to US$140 billion in FY2014. 
 
Question 15 
 
The U.S. Ex-Im Bank Congressional authorizat ion expired on 30 September 2014 and will no 
longer be able to extend new loan guarantees to U.S. exporters, importers and traders. Is U.S. Ex-Im Bank will disappear and what would be the impact of non-reauthorization to the on going negotiations at the U.S. and China-le d International Working Group on Export Credits 
(IWG) which aims to establish a robust international export credit guidelines? 
 RESPONSE: The Ex-Im Bank's charter was reauthorized by Congress in 
September 2014. The new date of ex piration is June 30, 2015.  
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 341 - 
 
  MEXICO 
  Informe de la Secretaría  
 Summary, párrafo 4 (Pág. 10).  En la sección "Summary' de la página 10, el párrafo 4 señala lo 
siguiente: "The United States remained the world's largest single recipient of foreign direct 
investment, although inflows have declined over the last two years. In order to counteract this 
trend, the government maintains or continues to develop programmes to promote foreign investment. The 2011 SelectUSA programme continues to serve as the centralized hub to attract and retain investment, and the 2012 "Make it in America" programme is designed to accelerate 
insourcing, i.e. bring back investments and jobs." 
Pregunta 1: México desea conocer si este programa es consistente con el Acuerdo sobre las medidas en materia de inversiones relacionadas con el comercio.  
 
RESPONSE: The Make it in America program was a one-time program, carried out in 
2012, to identify innovative projects focuse d on increasing investment and employment. 
Further information is available at www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2012/ 
09/25/fact-sheet-make- it-america-challenge ." 
 
Summary, paragraph 11 (Page 11).   
 2: Could you please elaborate on the process that is followed to implement the review of 
regulatory practices referred in this paragraph?  
RESPONSE: Information regarding the process to revise Circular A-119 can be found 
online: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pk g/FR-2014-02-11/pdf/2014-02891.pdf . 
 
Sumary and 4.2.1.2 Recent developments, párrafos 13 y 4.75 (Pág. 11 y 119). En el 
párrafo 13 del resumen se indica: "The services sector continues to play an important role in the U.S. economy, and several services sectors un derwent reforms during the review period. A 
number of enhanced prudential standards on financia l services have been established, including on 
liquidity, risk management, and capital, to strengthen the supervision and regulation of financial 
institutions. Under the new rules, foreign banks with U.S. assets of at least US$50 billion are 
required to establish intermediate holding companies for their U.S. financial operations and to 
meet, with some exceptions, the same capital, liq uidity, and other standards as U.S. bank holding 
companies of comparable size. Domestic banks w ill need to comply by 1 January 2015, and foreign 
banks will be required to do so by 1 July 2016 U. S. financial firms in general have strengthened 
their position over the last few years. Nonetheless, more progress is needed in some areas, 
including on "too big to fail" banks, which rece ive an implicit subsidy of about US$70 billion."  
Por otro lado, el párrafo 4.75 de la sección 4.2 de Servicios, en la página 119, indica "4.75. The recent financial crisis revealed the need to implement financial regulatory reforms to address 
critical gaps and weaknesses within the U.S. financial system. On 21 July 2010, the "Dodd-Frank 
ActI'83 was signed into law, instituting the most sweeping set of reforms to the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression.  
Pregunta 3: ¿Cuál ha sido el impacto más significativo para los inversionistas (tanto positivos como 
negativos) como resultado de las medidas mencionadas?  
RESPONSE: Please see the "Financial Stab ility Oversight Council 2014 Annual Report"; 
(http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/f soc/Documents/FSOC%202014%20Annual%20
Report.pdf ) 
 
Summary and 4.2.2.3 Policy actions,  párrafos 14 y 4.94 (Pág. 11 y 125). El párrafo 14. del 
resumen, en la página 11, se indica: "During the review period, the United States eliminated the International Settlements Policy in order to modernize its international telephony rules, further 
lower the price for international calls, and increase competition. 
El párrafo 4.94. de la sección 4.2 sobre servicios, en la página 125, se indica: "The FCC has also taken measures to reform and modernize the universal service and intercarrier compensation 
systems to make available affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile. 
 Pregunta 4: ¿Se tienen previsto algún plan de Comunicación de los resultados positivos en materia de competencia o algún medio para difundir las experiencias más exitosas del sector?  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 342 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The FCC pulishes a range of repo rts on the state of competition in the 
communications market. Examples, all availble at http://www.fcc.gov/reports  include: 
• Internet Access Services Report 
• Measuring Broadband America 
• Local Telephone Competition 
• Mobile Wireless Competition Report. 
 
Summary and 4.2.4.1 Statistical overvi ew, Párrafos 16 & 4.118 (Pág. 12 y 138). En et 
párrafo 16 det resumen se indica: "The United States is by far the largest market for health services with total spending of over US$2. 5 trillion in 2010. Private spending was about 
US$1.2 trillion, and per capita spen ding approximately US$8,000. Th e health insurance market is 
also the largest in the world as it ensures and finances a proportionaliy much larger share of the 
health expenditures than in other developed countries where public social security systems dominate. 
 
El párrafo 4.118. en la página 138, se indica: "The world's largest health organizations are located in the United States and most of them are private, in contrast to those in Other countries where 
there are often limits for the scope of private econom ic activity in the sector. Further, eight of the 
world's ten largest private healthcare companies are American." Pregunta 5: Deseamos conocer si EEUU ha llevado a cabo alguna evaluación sobre el impacto que pudiera generar la portabilidad del sistema púb lico de seguros médicos (Medicare) hacia otros 
países.  
 RESPONSE: No impact assessments have been undertaken to transfer Medicare to other 
countries. 
 Summary, Párrafo 17 (Pág. 12). El párrafo 17 del resumen, en la página 12, se indica: "The 
U.S. audiovisual industry is the largest in the world, with revenues (2011) of about US$46 billion 
for the motion picture production and distribution segment, US$161 billion for the television segment (including broadcast television stations, cable TV, satellite TV, and online video distribution), US$18 billion for the radio segment,  and US$8 billion for the music segment (record 
production and distribution). Exports largely exceed imports, as do outward foreign affiliate sales 
(sales by U.S. subsidiaries established abroad) -compared to inward foreign trade affiliates sales. The trade relevant aspect of audiovisual services is fairly stable and the only major development 
during the review period was the relaxation by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) of 
the foreign ownership policy scheduled under the GATS and FTA commitments."  
Pregunta 6: México reconoce la gran competitividad de los servicios audiovisuales en EEUU. 
Deseamos conocer ¿cuál es el subsector con mayores subsidios a nivel nacional? y ¿qué Estados 
proporcionan los mayores subsidios a la industria audiovisual y en qué subsectores se concentran?  RESPONSE: The largest direct support by the federal government for audiovisual 
services is funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; most of the funding 
supports local public radio and public television stations and their programming. Support for the audiovisual sect or at the state level is generally focused 
on non-discriminatory tax-credit incentive programs to attract television and film 
production to the state; New York, Louisi ana, Georgia, and Florida have operated the 
largest tax-credit progra ms in recent years.  
 
2.1.1 Trade promotion authority, párrafo 2.6. (Pág. 25)   7: Con respecto a la propuesta para volver a autorizar el TPA en 2014, ¿Dicha propuesta incluye algunas disposiciones ambientales relacionadas con el Cambio Climático y su política comercial? 
¿Se incluyen disposiciones relativas a la transición hacia una economía estadounidense baja en 
emisiones?   
RESPONSE: The Administration welcomed the introduction of draft TPA legislation in 
2014. For more information on the TPA bill intr oduced in 2014, please refer to text of 
the bill ( http://www.gpo.gov ).  
 
2.1.1 Trade promotion authority, 2.4. y 2.6 (Pág. 25)   8: Con respecto a la propuesta para volver a autorizar el TPA en 2014, ¿Dicha propuesta incluye disposiciones en materia laboral de OIT plus? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 343 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Administration welcomed the introduction of draft TPA legislation in 
2014. For more information on the TPA bill intr oduced in 2014, please refer to text of 
the bill http://www.gpo.gov ).  
 
2.1.1 Trade promotion authority, 2.6 (Pág. 25)  
 9: ¿Cuáles son las dos mayores negociaciones regionales que se pretenden concluir?  
RESPONSE: The United States is currently nego tiating a number of bilateral, plurilateral 
and multilateral trade agreements. We expect  to make significant progress on these 
negotiations in the coming year. As with any negotiation, the substance of the negotiations will ultimately dictate the timing of concluding an agreement.  
 
2.1.3.2 Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, 2.11. (Pág. 28-29):   10: Con respecto al fortalecimiento de la aplicación de las leyes y la aplicación de los acuerdos 
internacionales en materia de vida silvestre, ¿Se tiene previsto el fortalecimiento para la aplicación 
de acuerdos internacionales relativos a la Biodiversidad, tales como el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica? ¿Los tratados de libre comercio futuros a que refieren tienen previsto 
mecanismos de cooperación ambiental en materia de Biodiversidad?  
 RESPONSE:  The U.S. government remains committed to biodiversity conservation, both 
at home and abroad, and will continue to partic ipate as an observer in the Convention on 
Biological Diversity.  
 2.1.3.3 Comprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 
Fishing and Seafood Fraud, 2.12. (Pág. 29):   
 11: ¿Los esfuerzos a que refieren consideran la reformulación de su actual política en material de subsidios a la pesca?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States has long been  a leader and advocate in support of 
disciplines on harmful fisheries subsidies in the WTO and in other fora. The United 
States remains committed to securing an am bitious result on fisheries subsidies and 
stands ready to continue this work in the WTO and other fora.  
 2.3.1 Participation in the WTO, párrafo 2.18. (Pág. 30):  
 12: Con respecto a la iniciativa señalada en este punto, ¿Cómo considera EE.UU. la compatibilidad 
de este proceso en el que participa a la luz del papel que asume en el foro multilateral de la OMC para este mismo tema?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States sees no conflict between the EGA negotiations and the CTE-SS' work to liberalize trade in environmental goods.  The recently launched EGA 
negotiations present a unique opportunity to add impetus and energy to the multilateral 
trading system. The EGA is being negotiated  by a group of WTO Members committed to 
liberalization in this sector, but the benefits will accrue to all WTO Members, as the 
participants plan to eliminate tariffs on agre ed products on an MFN basis. By eliminating 
tariffs on a broad set of environmental tec hnologies, including those already endorsed 
by APEC Leaders, WTO Members can improve a ccess to these technologies globally, thus 
lowering the cost of environmental protec tion, while unlocking opportunity for our 
exporters and spurring innovation in green technologies. 
 2.3.1 Participation in WTO,  párrafo 2.19 (Pág. 30)  
 13: Se menciona un "record de notificaciones", ¿Cuántas notificaciones en materia de TBT realizó 
Estados Unidos? Se describen en el curso del documento 269 notificaciones en 213, pero no se 
describen las que van a la fecha en 2014  
RESPONSE: The United States submitted 170 WTO TBT notifications from 1 January 2014 
to 8 December 2014.  
Párrafo 2.12 (Pág. 29) 
 14: ¿Cuáles han sido los mecanismos de cooperación y ayuda con otros países para combatir la 
pesca INDNR y la forma de acceder a éstos? ¿Cuáles han sido los avances en el desarrollo de los programas integrados para combatir la pesca INDNR contemplados por el Memorándum y sus 
principales lineamientos? WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 344 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Task Force is providing its recommendations to the President in 
December 2014. The recommendations will be published in the Federal Register  with an 
opportunity for public comment. Upon receiv ing guidance from the President on the 
recommendations, the Task Force will begin its implementation of the recommendations 
and, within one year, will report to the Pr esident on its progress. Capacity building 
activities and opportunities are one of th e elements for possible inclusion in the 
recommendations that the Task Force is co nsidering. Through the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act an d other authorities, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service engages in international co operation and assistance, with particular 
emphasis on efforts to combat IUU fishing, mitigate bycatch of pr otected living marine 
resources, and conserve sharks. One purpose is to assist nations that are identified 
under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, so that they may better 
address the activities for which they were id entified, including IUU fishing. Information 
regarding IUU measures is available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia . 
 
2.4 Investment Flows and Regime, párrafo 2.44 (pág. 37). En el párrafo 2.44 del apartado 
2.4 Investment Flows and Regime en la sección sobre TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME, página 
37, se señala lo siguiente: "During the review period, the United States remained the worldls 
largest single recipient of foreign direct investment, however, inflows have declined since 2012 reflecting the general trend of historically low FDI inflows to developed countries.42 Investment inflows fluctuated broadly year to year, often in re lation to economic growth. After recovering from 
the economic downturn in 2009, investment infl ows climbed in 2010 and 201 1, but fell in 2012 
and 2013. Sources of FDI are generally highly conc entrated among highly industrialised countries, 
the United Kingdom and Switzerland are the largest contributors. Investment inflows from 
emerging economies remain relatively small. 
 Pregunta 15: ¿Se están considerando medidas complementarias a mediano plazo que se estén 
considerando para incrementar los niveles de inversión? 
 RESPONSE: As the Secretariat's Report notes, the United States remains the single largest recipient of foreign direct investment in the world. The United States' attraction 
as an investment destination is a result of, among other things, a large and lucrative 
consumer market; a competitive investment an d business climate; a highly educated and 
productive workforce; and a research and in tellectual property environment that spurs 
innovation. The United States is building upon past successes in attracting inward 
investment by continuing to develop and promote the SelectUSA program, the United 
States' first coordinated effort to actively recruit businesses to br ing investment to the 
U.S. In 2013, President Obama expanded an d enhanced this program by, among other 
things, enhancing coordination with region al, state, and local economic development 
organizations; expanding outreach to prosp ective investors from  economies with the 
largest potential for investment into th e United States; and creating a single 
point-of-contact for investors ready to invest in the United States.  
 2.4.1 Investment agreements, párrafos 2.46 & 2.47 (pág. 37). En el párrafo 2.46, 
subapartado 2.4.1 lnvestment agreements ubicado en el apartado sobre Investment Flows and 
Regime de la sección TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME, página 37, se señala "The United States has used international investment agreements as tool to encourage foreign direct investment. The 
agreements are in the form of trade and investment framework agreements (TIFAs), bilateral 
investment treaties (BITS), and F TAS that contai n investment provisions (Table 2.2). TIFAs are 
generally the first step in establishing stronger trade and investment links with a country; there are currently 50 in place with individual or country  groups." Posteriormente el párrafo 2.47 indica 
"BI Ts have typically been at the core of U.S.  reciprocal binding agreements on investment'. 
 Pregunta 16: Deseamos conocer cuál es el criterio principal además del incremento de la inversión 
para considerar una negociación de un Acuerdo B ilateral de Inversión (BIT, por sus siglas en 
inglés) con un país específico   
RESPONSE: The aims of the U.S. BIT program are to protect investment abroad in 
countries where investor rights are not already protected through existing agreements; encourage the adoption of market-oriented po licies that treat private investment in an 
open, transparent, and non-discriminatory  manner; and support the development of 
international law standards consistent with these objectives. The United States selects WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 345 - 
 
  BIT negotiating partners based on a variety of  factors relating to these and other policy 
objectives.   2.4.1 Investment agreements, párrafo 2.47 (pág. 37). El mismo párrafo 2.47 
continúa:"...The U.S. has negotiated BITS on a model framework, and in 2012, the Administration 
released a new model BIT, which contains key provisions on national and MFN treatment, the minimum standard of treatment, expropriation, transfers, and performance requirements, as well 
as provisions protecting the right of investors to engage senior managers of their choosing, and 
two sections on dispute settlement. Pregunta 17: ¿Qué tan frecuentemente considera EE.UU. revisar el modelo de texto de sus BITS? ¿Cuáles son los tiempos de consulta pública después de cada revisión?  
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. model BIT has been reviewed and revised at periodic intervals throughout the 30-year history of the U.S. BIT program. The most recent review was 
initiated by the Obama Administration in Fe bruary 2009, a review intended to ensure 
that the model BIT was consistent with the public interest and the Administration's 
overall economic agenda. The review entailed extensive public and stakeholder 
consultation, including the solicitation of wr itten public comments; a public meeting; 
recommendations from advisory committees  representing the views of labor, 
environmental and public interest organiza tions and the academic, business, and legal 
communities; consultations with the Congress ; and consultations with representatives 
of U.S. state and local governments. The Admi nistration announced the conclusion of its 
review in April 2012.  
3.1.1.1.2 Border Interagenc y Executive Council (BIEC), párrafos 3.7. y 3.8 (Pág. 43):  18: 
Con respecto al establecimiento y funcionamiento de l BIEC, ¿Cuál es el papel de la EPA en el BIEC? 
 
RESPONSE: Since the establishment of the BI EC, EPA has been a key stakeholder in the 
development of policies and proc esses to improve interagency review of electronic trade 
data transmitted through the Automated Co mmercial Environment (ACE). EPA has been 
preparing for the electronic filing of trade data with the help of CBP for the past few 
years. Through EPA's sharing of experiences and providing technical expertise with the 
BIEC, partnering government agencies are able to better understand the process to 
successfully execute its elec tronic processing plans for ACE in the near future. 
 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailin g duties, paragraph 3.64 (Page 61).  
 19: Paragraph 3.64 states that in late 2013 changes for anti-dumping investigations were made. 
Such changes regard the selection of respondent s in administrative review proceedings, by 
applying a statistically valid sampling method to select respondents. Can the referred sampling method be further explained?  
 
RESPONSE: Further explanation about changes to the U.S. Department of Commerce's 
methodology for respondent selection in ce rtain antidumping proceedings can be found 
at 78 Fed. Reg. 65,963 (Nov. 4, 2013) ( http://www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-
04/html/2013-26266.htm ).  
 
3.1.7.2 Sunset reviews, paragraph 3.72 (Page 65).  
 20: According to Paragraph 3.72, there has been a significant trend with fewer anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty orders being revoked after review investigations. What elements could be considered to justify this trend?  
RESPONSE: In determining whether revocati on of a countervailing duty order or an 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to  continuation or recurrence of material 
injury within a reasonably foreseeable time, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(USITC) considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a). In determining 
whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence  of a countervailable subsidy or sales of the 
subject merchandise at less than fair va lue, the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(Commerce) considers the factors set out in U.S. law at 19 U.S.C.  §§1675a(b) and (c), 
respectively. The determinations in each sunset review conducted by the USITC and Commerce are case-specific. The results for all sunset reviews can be found on the 
USITC's website (http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/ sunset/). From this website Mexico can WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 346 - 
 
  obtain, on a case-by-case basis, information about the rationale for either the 
continuation or termination of a counterva iling duty or an antidumping duty order. 
 3.1.7.2 Sunset reviews, paragraph 3.72 (Page 65).  
 21: Paragraph 3.63 states that the U.S. continued to use trade remedies, with a considerable rise 
of such measures in 2013. Both anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations increased significantly during 2013 [Paragraphs 3.67 and 3. 69], while the revocation of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty orders after reviews decrease d sharply [from about 50% in 2007/8 to only 
10% in 2013/14 (Paragraph 3.72)]. Can these figures be explained?  RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with the 
applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to a peti tion filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual determination of whether dumping exists 
and whether dumped imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a 
domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a 
factual determination of whether counterva ilable subsidies exists and whether such 
subsidized imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic 
industry. Where dumped/subsidized imports, and material injury caused by such imports have been found, the United St ates will impose an antidumping or 
countervailing duty measure, as applicable.  
 
See also response to Question 20 above.  
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.75 (Pág. 66).  
 22: ¿Cuáles son los cambios en el rol del gobierno federal dentro de las actividades de normalización y evaluación de la conformidad? 
 
RESPONSE: As the Secretariat report notes, "In the period under review, no major changes were made to U.S. regulatory po licy. However, regulatory practices are 
currently under review with re spect to the participation of federal regulators in the 
development and use of standards, and in conformity assessment activities." 
Information regarding the process to revise OMB Circular A-119 can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-2014-02-11/pdf /2014-02891.pdf . 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, paragraph 3.75 (Page 66)   
 23: How was the participation of federal regulators  in the ongoing review of regulatory practices 
referred in this paragraph 
 RESPONSE: U.S. government agencies, as well as other interested parties, were provided an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed revisions to OMB Circular A-119. 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, (Pág. 66)   24: ¿A qué portal web se puede acceder para consultar los reglamentos técnicos y distintas clases 
de estándares que Estados Unidos expide, en el caso de que algún representante de un sector 
económico quisiera identificarlos?  
RESPONSE: The Standards Incorporated by Reference (SIBR) Database includes the 
voluntary consensus standards, governme nt unique standards, private industry 
standards, and international standards referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Please see: https://standards.gov/sibr/query/ . 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, (Pág. 66)   25: Independientemente de las notificaciones ¿cuántos reglamentos técnicos se crearon y 
publicaron? ¿Respecto al TPR anterior hubo un aumento o una disminución? 
 RESPONSE: Executive Order 12866, "Regulator y Planning and Review," establishes and 
governs the process under which The Office  of Information and Regulatory Review 
(OIRA) within the Office of Management an d Budget reviews agency draft and proposed 
final regulatory actions. The objectives of the Executive Order are to enhance planning 
and coordination with respect to both new and existing regulations; to reaffirm the 
primacy of Federal agencies in the regulato ry decision-making proc ess; to restore the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 347 - 
 
  integrity and legitimacy of re gulatory review and oversight; and to make the process 
more accessible and open to the public. Fo r all significant regulatory actions, the 
Executive Order requires OIRA review before the actions take effect.   
Current and historical data on the number of regulations under OIRA review can be 
found online: http://www.reginfo.gov/pu blic/do/eoHistoricReport . 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.76 (Pág. 66)  
 26: Se hace menciona las distintas clasificaciones de estándares por parte de Estados Unidos, ¿cómo se define cada una de ellas y cuáles son sus principales características?  
 
RESPONSE: The definitions of the various term s are contained in Section 4 of Circular 
A-119, which can be found online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 . 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, paragraph 3.76 (Page 66) 
 27: Could you give us more information on the consensus referring to this paragraph and the process on how they became mandatory these provisions? 
 
RESPONSE: Section 6 of Circular A-119 stat es that "All federal agencies must use 
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of  government-unique standards in their 
procurement and regulatory activities, except  where inconsistent with law or otherwise 
impractical." This means when choosing to mandate a standard, Federal agencies should 
first look to voluntary standards develo ped through a consensus based process. 
Paragraph 6.a.2 specifies "impractical" as in cluding "circumstances in which such use 
would fail to serve the agency's progra m needs; would be infeasible; would be 
inadequate, ineffectual, ine fficient, or inconsistent with agency mission; or would 
impose more burdens, or would be less us eful, than the use of another standard." 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.77  (Pág. 67)   
 28: Respecto a la Circular A-119, tomando en consideración que el periodo de comentarios se cerró el 12 de mayo de 2014 ¿Cuándo se va a notificar la Revisión final de dicha Circular?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States will notify the revised circular to the WTO when it is 
finalized. 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, paragraph 3.78  (Page 67)   
 29: Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs federal agencies to 
follow certain principles in planning, developing, and reviewing federal regulations, and describes 
the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the OMB in the rule-making process. All "significant" regulatory ac tions by federal agencies must be reviewed by 
OIRA before publication and, to this end, agenci es must submit the text of the draft regulatory 
action to OIRA along with, inter alia, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the 
regulatory action. In addition, agencies must prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for each regulation that OIRA or the agency designates as "economically significant" with an impact on the 
economy of over US$100 million in at least one ye ar. The regulatory impact analysis provides a 
more in-depth cost-benefit analysis of feasible re gulatory alternatives. - On this subject, it would 
be important to clarify what share of total regulati ons does this cover. There is also a concern on 
regulations issued by other bodies or agencies that  may not be subject to this process, in order to 
verify if there is a mechanism in place to detect possible impacts on trade for rules not covered by the OIRA, and to give information about which ag encies are subject to Executive Order 12866 and 
which are exempt from the described process. Also, to verify if there exists a mechanism for rules 
without "economically significant" impact on the economy, but that could be relevant as trade 
measures.  
RESPONSE: In 2013, the Office of Informatio n and Regulatory Affairs in OMB conducted 
105 reviews of economically significant rules. Historical data for previous years can be 
found here: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eoCountsSearchInit?action=init . 
The centralized review portions of EO 12866 do not apply to the statutorily designated 
independent regulatory commissions identi fied in the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Nevertheless, the U.S. TBT In quiry Point reviews all propose d measures from all Federal 
agencies on a daily basis and notifies pr oposed technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures to the WTO.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 348 - 
 
  3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, paragraph 3.80  (Page 67).   
 30: The United States submitted 269 TBT notifications in 2013 (248 in 2012)69, including sub-federal measures notified under Article 3.2 of the TBT Agreement (Table A2.2). The United States was the only WTO Member to notify at the local government level during the 
review period, with 11 sub-federal notifications submitted in 2013, mainly relating to 
environmental protection. The federal regulatory agencies with greatest number of TBT notifications related to international trade incl ude: the Department of Energy (DOE), Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA), Department of Transportation 
(DOT), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Cons umer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The National Instit ute of Standards and Technology is the United 
States' enquiry point and notification auth ority under the TBT Agreement and responds 
to Members' requests for documents and information within two days, and usually within one 
day, according to the authorities. Comments receiv ed or inquiries for clarification of technical 
details in a notified measure are transmitted by th e enquiry point to the relevant U.S. regulatory 
agency for reply as soon as possible. - On this, it would be helpful if they could describe what is 
the mechanism in place for notifications at the local governments and how it's working.  
RESPONSE: The U.S. WTO Inquiry Point staff reviews on a regular basis a database of 
sub-federal proposed measures. The Inquiry Point and the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative work together in close collabo ration to ensure that the United States 
notifies proposed state technical regulations to the WTO.  
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.80. (Pág. 67):   31: Con respecto a las notificaciones a nivel de gobiernos locales ¿Cuáles han sido los retos del 
proceso de coordinación? 
 RESPONSE: U.S. Inquiry Point staff has been reduced in the last few years due to 
reductions in the budget, so there are fewer staff available to handle the work. 
However, Inquiry Point staff continue to regu larly review a propriet ary database of state 
regulations identified for potential notifica tion, and the Inquiry Point communicates the 
possible notifications to USTR for review and approval to send to the WTO. 
  
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.83 (Pág. 68)   32: Para llevar a cabo la evaluación de la conformidad, Estados Unidos utiliza a entes públicos y 
privados. Sin embargo, no es claro quién los acredita 
 RESPONSE: As the Secretariat report notes, "The United States relies on a broad range 
of approaches to conformity assessment, depe nding on the sector (supplier's declaration 
of conformity, third-party testing or certific ation, etc.). Accreditation programmes are 
operated by all levels of government and the private sector, and frequently rely on 
private-sector conformity assessment bodi es." In other words, the procedures for 
accreditation of conformity assessment bodi es will vary, depending on the particular 
standard or technical regulation.  
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), under the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Ac t, is responsible for working with 
U.S. government agencies to coordinate co nformity assessment activities, with private 
sector conformity assessmen t activities, with the goal  of eliminating unnecessary 
duplication and complexity. OMB Circular A-119 Federal Participation in the 
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensu s Standards and in Conformity Assessment 
Activities  provides additional guidance to agen cies regarding conformity assessment, 
including directing the Secretary of Commerce to issues guidance to the agencies to 
improve coordination on conformity assessm ent. . NIST has published Guidance on 
Federal Conformity Assessment Acti vities, which can be found here: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg /FR-2000-08-10/pdf/00-20262.pdf . 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.84 (Pág. 68)  
33: ¿Los Acuerdos de Reconocimiento Mutuo (ARM) que suscribe Estados Unidos contemplan: 
público-público, privado-privado, mixtos?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 349 - 
 
  RESPONSE: It is unclear what is meant by  this question. With respect to certain 
government-to-government MRAs to which the United States is a party, accreditation 
bodies may be private sector bodies.   
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards, párrafo 3.85 (Pág. 68)   
34: ¿Para fomentar la cooperación regulatoria Estados Unidos firma ARM en qué sectores?  
RESPONSE: Information on the individual MR As and the sectors covered can be found 
here: http://gsi.nist.gov/global/index.cfm/L1-4/L2-16/A-89 . 
 
3.1.9.1 Food and Drug Administ ration, párrafo 3.86 (Pág. 69)  
35: Paragraph 3.86 refers to the responsibilities of  the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Could 
it be described the process followed by such Administration in notifying the proposed and/or final SPS measures in accordance to the transparency  obligations under the WTO SPS Agreement? In 
which stage of the process the notification to the WTO is made?  
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) followed the WTO notification 
process to ensure transparency  under Article 7 of the SPS Agreement. As explained in 
paragraph 3.88, between January 2013 and January 2014, the FDA published for public comment seven proposed regulations to implement some of the key elements of the FSMA.
16 WTO notifications were made for th e proposed rules with accompanying 
addenda to extend the comment  periods beyond the original 90-day comment periods. 
The proposed regulations address produce safety17, preventive food controls18, foreign 
supplier verification programme19, accreditation of third-party auditors20, preventive 
controls in the animal feed supply21, protection against intentional adulteration of 
food22, and sanitary transportation of food. See footnote at paragraph 3.88 for listing of 
WTO notifications. Supplemental notices of  proposed rulemaking were published on 
September 19, 2014, for four proposed rules (produce safety, preventive controls for 
human food, preventive controls for animal food, and foreign supplier verification), and 
WTO addenda notified a 90-day comment  period, closing December 15, 2014.23 The 
regulatory drafting process is ongoing. FDA is currently working on finalizing the 
proposed rules as directed by FSMA. The WTO w ill be notified upon the finalization of the 
rules.   
 
3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Health Insp ection Service, 3.92 (Pág. 70)  
36: Existen productos regulados por el APHIS que tienen restringida su importación a 
Estados Unidos, ¿Cuál es la lista detallada de estos productos agrícolas? 
 RESPONSE: APHIS Veterinary Services (VS) regulates the importation of animals and animal-derived materials to ensure that ex otic animal and poultry diseases are not 
introduced into the United States. Generally , a VS veterinary permit is needed for 
materials derived from animals or exposed to  animal-source materials. Materials which 
require a permit include animal tissues, blood, cells or cell lines of livestock or poultry 
origin, RNA/DNA extracts, hormones, enzymes,  monoclonal antibodies for IN VIVO use 
in non-human species, certain polyclonal anti bodies, antisera, bulk shipments of test kit 
reagents, and microorganisms including ba cteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi. 
Exceptions to this requirem ent are human and non-human primate tissues, serum, and 
blood. Various other animal materials which require a permit include dairy products 
(except butter and cheese), and meat products  (e.g., meat pies, prepared foods) from 
countries with livestock diseases exotic to the United States. A detailed list of products 
that may or may not need a permit is available on the public USDA website. 
 3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspecti on Service, paragraph 3.92 (Page 70).  
                                               
16 FDA online information. Viewed at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/. 
17 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2503, 10 January 2013. 
18 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2502, 10 January 2013. 
19 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2569, 30 July 2013. 
20 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2570, 30 July 2013. 
21 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2593, 30 October 2013. 
22 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2610, 13 January 2014. 
23 WTO document G/SPS/N/USA/2631, 10 February 2014. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 350 - 
 
  37: Paragraph 3.92 states that the Animal and Plan t Health Inspection Se rvice (APHIS) regulates 
the import of live plants and animals, and th at a number of APHIS-regulated products are 
regulated by FSIS as well. Which products are regulated by both agencies (APHIS and FSIS)?  
RESPONSE: FSIS is the U.S. public health and food safety agency responsible for 
ensuring that the production of meat, poul try, and processed egg products is safe, 
wholesome and accurately labe led, while AHPIS has the mission of protecting animal 
and plant life and health. They each have different requirements that reflect their 
different missions. Animal materials which are subject to APHIS import requirements 
include meat products (e.g., meat pies, prep ared foods) from countries with livestock 
diseases exotic to the United States. If these same products are intended for human 
consumption, they will be regulated by the FSIS. 
 3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspecti on Service, paragraph 3.93 (Page 70).  
38: Paragraph 3.93 states that the BSE Comprehensive Rule allows APHIS to conduct its own risk 
assessment regarding the import of some previously restricted bovine products. Where can more information about APHIS risk assessment procedures be found?  
 
RESPONSE: APHIS' regulations in title 9 of th e Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter 
D, govern the exportation and importation of  animals (including poultry) and animal 
products from and into the United States. On December 4, 2013, new BSE-related import 
regulations, including risk assessment proc edures, were published in the U.S. Federal 
Register, publically available electronically  on the internet. This rule was effective 
March 4, 2014. The contents of the rule can be found at 78 FR 72979 -73008 (30 pages). 
See: http://www.regulations.gov/#! docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0010 . 
 
3.1.9.4 Environmental Protection Ag ency, paragraph 3.94 (Page 70).  
39: Paragraph 3.94 mentions that the EPA is responsible for registering pesticides for use in the 
United States. Where can we find a comprehensive and updated registry of such pesticides?  
 
RESPONSE: The Pesticide Product Information System (PPIS) is the website that 
contains information concerning all pesticide products registered in the United States. 
The files located in this download area are pr esented in a format that enables interested 
parties to access them using a variety of da tabase and spreadsheet software. The site 
can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/PPISdata/ . 
These files are updated weekly. 
 
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government as sistance, Table 3.15 "Federal subsidy 
programmes, 2012" (Pág. 81)  40: Se solicita información específica sobre la descripción y tipo de subsidios que se otorgan a la 
madera y sus productos (lumber and timber). 
 
RESPONSE: See page 35-37 of the United States notification (G/SCM/N/253/USA). 
 
3.3.3 Competition policy, paragraph 3.146 (Page 81).  
41: How do the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice (DOJ); ensure the enforcement the federal antitrust laws? What mechanisms do they have 
for the enforcement of the relevant Acts? 
1.  
2. RESPONSE: The FTC developed a brief ov erview of its investigative and law 
enforcement, available at http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-
do/enforcement-authority , which outlines its investigative authority ( See §I) and 
its antitrust enforcement authority ( See §II.B). 
 
Detailed answers to Mexico's general question can be found, i nter alia , in the 
United States Department of Justice, Antitr ust Division's publicly available Antitrust 
Division Manual, and in particular Chapters I.A-B, IIA & D, and VII.A of the Manual; see 
the link to the Manual.24 
 
3.3.3 Competition policy, paragraph 3.148 (Page 82).  
                                               
24 http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/divisionmanual/index.html. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 351 - 
 
  42: Paragraph 3.148 states that certain practices are considered violations per se according to 
U.S. law and practice, and subject to criminal investigations as well as civil lawsuits. Can you further explain how, or according to what criterion is it defined whether such violations undergo a criminal or a civil prosecution? Can both processes be carried out simultaneously?  
 
RESPONSE: The answers to this additional general question can also be found , inter alia , 
in the Antitrust Division's Antitrust Division  Manual, in particular, its Chapter III.C.1. 
See the link identified above. 
 3.3.5.1 Overview, párrafo 3.166 (Pág. 85).   
43: En relación con las cifras citadas, en particular sobre el 30% de las compras federales que no 
fueron realizadas por el Departamento de Defensa, puede Estados Unidos indicar cuál fue el monto 
aproximado de compras que se realizaron bajo la cobertura de tratados internacionales?  
 
RESPONSE: Statistics on the procurement covere d by the GPA is included in the statistics 
that the United States submits to the WTO Committee on Government Procurement. 
 
3.3.5.1 Overview, párrafo 3.167 (Pág. 85).   
44: Por favor aclare qué se entiende, para efectos del impuesto fiscal, por "foreign entities". ¿Este concepto incluye o se aplica exclusiv amente a proveedores extranjeros? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. The Unit ed States is unable to provide details about 
the administration or interpretation of the legislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations. 
 3.3.5.1 Overview, párrafo 3.168 (Pág. 85).   
45: Por favor explique las consideraciones por las que la Ley de Acuerdos Comerciales de 1979 
permite al Presidente otorgar excepciones a los requerimientos discriminatorios de compras con 
respecto a compras cubiertas por el ACP y Acuerdos de Libre Comercio, en lugar de incorporar una medida sistémica que excluya de esos requisitos a todas las compras cubiertas por dichos 
acuerdos 
 RESPONSE: Under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Congress granted the President 
authority to waive discriminatory purchasing  requirements for elig ible products from 
designated countries (19 USC § 2511(a)) . GPA and FTA members are designated 
countries under the Trade Agreements Act (1 9 U.S.C. §§ 2511(b), 2518). The U.S. Trade 
Representative has waived the Buy Americ an Act requirements consistent with 
U.S. international obligations.   3.3.5.2 Procedures, párrafo 3.176 (Pág. 86).   
46: ¿Existe alguna limitación a la política de considerar "required sources" cuando las compras, por 
sus características, están cubiertas por tratados?   
RESPONSE: When use of a required source involves a procurement action covered under 
U.S. government procurement market access ob ligations, then that procurement is open 
to the eligible goods, services, and supplie rs of other parties consistent with those 
obligations. 
 3.3.5.2 Procedures, párrafo 3.178 (Pág. 87).  47: ¿Existe un monto o porcentaje que deba tomarse como referencia cuando los contratos de 
construcción deben incluir el plan de subcontratación a pequeñas empresas?  
 RESPONSE: There is no government-wid e minimum percentage that must be 
subcontracted to small businesses for ea ch construction contract awarded.  
 3.3.5.2 Procedures, párrafo 3.181 (Pág. 87).  
48: ¿Cuáles son las principales causas de protesta, es decir, acciones que ocurren antes de que el 
contrato sea otorgado, que se han registrado en la Government Accountability Office y cuáles en la Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 352 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The United States does not main tain statistics of the most common bases 
alleged when filing a challeng e to a procurement action. 
 Tabla T3.23 (Pág 93).   
49: Por favor describa la protección a las indicaciones geográficas prevista en la Ley Lanham de 
1946, mencionada en la tabla T3.23.   
RESPONSE: The Lanham Act of 1946 is the operative trademark law in the 
United States. GIs are protected under th e trademark system. Registered GIs are 
protected against subsequent applications an d uses of confusingly similar designations. 
 
3.3.6.3 The patent system, párrafo 3.204 (Pág. 95). 
50: ¿También se estaría considerando la introducción de medidas para evitar "litigios frívolos" en 
materia de protección de datos de productos farmacéuticos? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has propose d several ways to address "frivolous 
litigation," including a proposed rule on transp arency to ensure that records of patent 
ownership are accurate and up to date, and a crowdsourcing initiative to expand ways 
for identifying prior art relevant to determin ing the novelty of claimed inventions. These 
initiatives are not industry-specific.  
3.3.6.3 The patent system, párrafo 3.204 (Pág. 95).   
51: Como complemento del párrafo 3.204, ¿puede comentar cuál es la relevancia de las industrias de medicamentos genéricos en la economía de los estados Unidos? ¿Qué disposiciones incluye el 
marco regulatorio en relación con las necesidades particulares de información y acceso a la 
tecnología por parte de estas industrias?   
RESPONSE: The United States does not have the requested statistics in regards to the 
generic medicines industry.  3.3.6.3 The patent system, párrafo 3.205 (Pág. 95).  
52: Describir las iniciativas en el marco del "Patent for Humanity Program" relativas a la reducción 
de precios de medicamentos.  
RESPONSE: Patents for Humanity is a voluntary program that recognizes excellence in 
using patented technologies to help the less fortunate. Financial considerations are 
explicitly excluded from the evaluation crit eria, which focus on the real-world impact a 
technology makes on improving lives. Two of the 2013 Patents for Humanity award 
recipients, Gilead Sciences and the Univ ersity of California Berkeley, developed 
innovative ways to lower the costs of certain HIV and malaria medicines. More 
information about their efforts can be found on the USPTO website at 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_event s/patents_for_humanity/awards2013.jsp . 
The USPTO recognizes that different mo dels can be effective for addressing 
humanitarian issues and does not require any particular funding model for participation 
in the program. 
 3.3.6.5 Copyright, párrafo 3.208 (b) y 3.209 (pág 96).   
53: ¿Puede describir cuáles son las medidas que se están considerando en las mesas redondas 
para mejorar el sistema Notice & Takedown?   RESPONSE: In the Department of Commerce's Green Paper on Copyright Policy, 
Creativity and Innovation in the Digital Econ omy and in a subsequent request for public 
comments, the Department stat ed its intention to establish an open multistakeholder 
forum aimed at improving the technical day-to-day operation of the notice and 
takedown system for removing infringing co ntent from the Internet under the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which was en acted into in 1998. The goal of the forum 
is to provide a collaborative forum throug h which all interested stakeholders could 
identify best practices and/or produce voluntary agreements for improving the 
operation of the DMCA notice and takedown sy stem by the end of 2014. The goal of this 
process is not to identify ways to change the law, but rather to determine how the operation of the existing system can be  improved within the existing legal 
framework. The multistakeholder forum has met five times in public session and has WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 353 - 
 
  established a working group to focus on reachi ng consensus on specific issues selected 
by the forum. The next public meeting of the multistakeholder forum is scheduled for 
December 18. Documentation and information pe rtaining to this process can be found at 
the following website: http://www.uspto. gov/ip/global/copyrights/index.jsp  
 
3.3.6.5 Copyright, párrafo 3.211 (a) (pág 97).   
54: ¿Cuáles son los sistemas de solución de controversias alternativos a los que se hacer 
referencia? 
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Copyright Office's  2013 report Copyright Small Claims 
recommended that Congress consider the creation of an alternative forum that will 
enable copyright owners to pursue small infringement matters and related claims 
arising under the Copyright Act. In light of the existing constitutional landscape and the challenges of the current federal system, th e most promising option to address small 
copyright claims would be a streamlined ad judication process in which parties would 
participate by consent. A potential home fo r such a system would be within the U.S. 
Copyright Office. 
 
3.3.6.5 Copyright, párrafo 3.214 (pág 98).  Párrafo 3.214. 
55: Describir sistema de licencias estatutarias para la retransmisión de señales de radiodifusión. 
¿Cómo se relaciona dicho sistema con los derechos previstos en favor de los organismos de 
radiodifusión y de los titulares de derechos de autor previstos en el artículo 14.3 del Acuerdo sobre 
los ADPIC?  
RESPONSE: There are three statutory licenses in  the U.S. Copyright Act pertaining to the 
retransmission of broadcast signals: 
 
• Section 111. The Section 111 license permits a cable operator to retransmit both 
local and distant radio and television sign als to its subscribers who pay a fee for 
such service. The purpose of Section 111 is to permit cable systems to carry distant broadcast signals while compensa ting copyright owners for the public 
performance of their works carried th erein, without the transaction costs 
associated with marketplace negotiatio ns for the carriage of copyrighted 
programs. Section 111 allows cable operator s to complement the carriage of local 
broadcast signals with distant signal pr ogramming that is generally unavailable 
in local television markets. The cable st atutory license covers the retransmission 
of all broadcast station signals, although a royalty payment is generally only 
required for the carriage of distant broa dcast signals. To be eligible for cable 
statutory license, cable operators must file Statements of Account with the 
U.S. Copyright Office every six months  along with the appropriate royalty 
payment for the carriage of distant broadcast signals.  
 
• Section 119. The Section 119 license perm its a satellite carrier to retransmit 
distant television signals (but not radio signals) to its subscribers for private 
home viewing and to commercial establishments. The purpose of the Section 119 
license is to clear the public performanc e rights of copyrighted works contained 
in a broadcast signal so that a satellite carrier could offer non-network station 
(formerly "superstations") to a home dish  owner anywhere in the United States 
and network programming to a househol d that could not receive adequate 
over-the-air signals from local network affiliates (i.e., "unserved 
households"). To be eligible for Sectio n 119 license, satellite carriers must file 
Statements of Account with the U.S. Copy right Office every six months along with 
the appropriate royalty payment for the ca rriage of distant broadcast signals.  
 
• Section 122. The Section 122 statutory license permits satellite carriers to 
retransmit local television signals into the stations' local market. This "local-into-local" license is contingent upon the satellite carrier complying with 
the rules, regulations, and authoriz ations established by the Federal 
Communications Commission governing th e carriage of television broadcast 
signals and is directly tied to Section 338 of the Communications Act which 
requires satellite carriers to carry every broadcast signal in a local market if it 
carries at least one broadcast signal under the license. The principal purpose of WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 354 - 
 
  Section 122 is to provide local broadcas t television programming to satellite 
subscribers in their local markets. The secondary purpose of Section 122 is to 
promote competition between satellite carri ers and cable operators by permitting 
a parallel array of local television prog ramming. The Section 122 is, except in 
very limited circumstances, a royalty-free license. 
 
Related Communications Act provisions: A cable operator is generally required to obtain 
the consent of local and distant commercial br oadcast stations, under Section 325 of the 
Communications Act, before retransmitting such signals. A satellite carrier is required to 
obtain the consent of only local commercial television stations, under Section 325, before retransmitting such signals. A loca l commercial broadcast station may opt to be 
carried by cable operators under the must ca rry provisions of Section 614 of the Act or 
be carried by satellite carriers under "carry-o ne carry-all" provisions found in Section 
338 of the Communications Act, instead of un der the retransmission consent provisions 
of Section 325. Noncommercial television st ations only have must carry rights and 
cannot invoke retransmission consent under  Section 325 of the Communications Act. 
The FCC has the jurisdiction to enforce the must carry provisions and broadcasters may 
resort to the courts to enforce retransmi ssion consent agreements (although the FCC 
has a policymaking function for retransmission consent). 
 
The U.S. is not a party to the Rome Convention and does not protect broadcasters under 
a neighboring rights regime, so the first sent ence of TRIPs Article 14.3 is inapplicable 
here. Instead, broadcast stations are prot ected through various provisions of the 
Communications Act and the FCC's rules and regulations, as explained above. With 
regard to the second part of Article 14.3, wh ich does apply in this instance, the statutory 
licensing systems in place under the Copyrigh t Act are permitted through the three-step 
test. 
 
 Informe de EE.UU. 
4.1 WTO Agreements and Initiatives, párrafo 4.2 (Pág. 11)  
56: Se menciona un rol activo en las negociacio nes del "Information Technology Agreement 
(ITA)", ¿en qué consistió la aportación de Estados Unidos a la negociación?  
RESPONSE: The United States was one of the six founding members of the current 
negotiations and is working actively to fi nalize a balanced and commercially significant 
ITA agreement that eliminates tariffs on a meaningful product list in the shortest 
timeframe possible. 
 4.1 WTO Agreements and Initiatives, párrafo 4.3 (Pág. 11-12)  57: ¿De qué manera se han abordado en Estados Unidos las decisiones de Bali? (a pesar del 
bloqueo de ciertos países) ¿Cuál es la estrategia para que Estados Unidos impulse el TFA? 
 RESPONSE: The United States supports th e full implementation of all of the 
Bali agreements. We supported trade facilitat ion reforms throughout  the negotiations, 
and will continue to do so to promote effect ive implementation of the agreement. We 
now look forward to engaging with other Me mbers, at all levels of development, to 
ensure that we reach the prescribed threshol d for the TFA to enter into force as soon a 
feasible. The United States also looks forward to  continuing its efforts to extend bilateral 
assistance in connection with implementation of the TFA. 
 
4.2 Regional Initiatives, paragraph 4.10 (Page 13).   
58: What legislative implications will the US' commi tments have in this agreement? When do you 
estimate that the chapter of regulatory coherence will be implemented? 
RESPONSE: The TPP agreement is still being ne gotiated among all 12 Parties, including 
the United States and Mexico. Once the negoti ation is concluded, the Administration will 
work closely with Congress on all legislativ e measures necessary for its approval and 
entry into force, including related to any regulatory issues. 
 4.2.1 North American Free Trade Agreement, párrafo 4.15 (Pág. 13)  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 355 - 
 
  59: ¿Cuáles han sido los resultados concretos en materia forestal y cuáles han sido los 
mecanismos de coordinación, así como los montos de inversión en México, de parte de Estados Unidos y Canadá, durante al menos los 2 últimos años?  
RESPONSE: The United States has successfully partnered with Mexico to address 
forestry and illegal logging-related matters. Fo r example, almost half of USAID's Global 
Climate Change Program in Me xico, US$70 million over five ye ars, focuses on specific 
mitigation efforts in the forestry, land-use, and land-use change sectors in support of 
the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradatio n (REDD+) program. 
Through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States has supported Mexico's 
efforts to protect and conserve forests, includ ing a forest that is a critical habitat for 
monarch butterflies. The WWF, an environm ental NGO, has also supported Mexico's 
efforts to protect this forest. These joint effo rts have resulted in reduced levels of illegal 
logging in this forest. The United States l ooks forward to continuing to collaborate and 
coordinate with Mexico to address fore stry and illegal logging issues through 
appropriate bilateral, regional, and multilate ral mechanisms, including the APEC Experts 
Group on Illegal Logging and Associated Trad e and the International Tropical Timber 
Organization. 
 4.2.3 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooper ation Forum, paragraph 4.25 (14).   
60: Do you consider that activities in the field, in the framework of APEC have helped strengthen 
the implementation of good regulatory practice s of member economies? Is there any mechanism 
for monitoring and evaluation to measure these impacts?  
RESPONSE: APEC's continued focus on strengthening the implementation of good 
regulatory practices, particularly regarding conducting public consultations, ensuring 
the internal coordination or regulatory work, and assessing the impact of regulations, is 
producing tangible progress. APEC provides  a regular forum for its members to learn 
from one and other on the dynamic progre ss they are making in their domestic 
regulatory processes in each of these areas. In 2014, APEC endorsed a new set of voluntary steps its economies could take to improve their public consultations through 
information technology and the Internet (' APEC Actions on Public Consultations on 
Proposed Regulations in the Internet Era'). In 2015, APEC will undertake further capacity building efforts to assist econom ies with implementing these actions. To 
measure the impacts of its members' efforts to strengthen the implementation of good 
regulatory practices, in 2015 APEC will upda te the Baseline Study on Good Regulatory 
Practices in APEC Member Economies an d place a particular focus on public 
consultations.  
 4.3.5 United States – Israel Free Trad e Agreement, párrafo 4.57 (Pág. 19)  
61: ¿Qué mecanismo existe en Estados Unidos para dar trazabilidad a los informes de los 
laboratorios y la expedición de certificados? ¿E xiste un record integrado a nivel federal/estatal? 
 RESPONSE: Implementation of the telecomm unications mutual recognition agreement 
(MRA) began earlier this year. In March 2014 , the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) MRA Program Office bega n accepting applications from qualified 
U.S. testing laboratories seeking to be de signated by NIST and recognized by the 
State of Israel under the term s of the MRA. As of 12 Decemb er 2014, 11 laboratories had 
been designated as conformity assessment bo dies for Phase I of the MRA. The list of 
those laboratories can be found online : http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/cabs/ 
Israel_Phase_ I.html. 
 
The MRA text does not include specific provis ions that relate to the tracking of test 
reports or certificates issued by the design ated conformity assessm ent bodies. However, 
regulatory schemes of individual countries pa rticipating in MRAs may require conformity 
assessment bodies or manufacturers/importers  to input conformity assessment results 
as a condition of market access. For exampl e, in the United States, telecommunication 
certification bodies recognized by the Fe deral Communications Commission (FCC) under 
the MRAs are required to upload the cert ification and supporting documents into a 
publicly available system for products subjec t to certification. However, for products 
subject to approval using a Supplier's Declar ation of Conformity, the FCC does not have 
a system of tracking test reports.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 356 - 
 
  4.3.11 United States – Peru Trade Promotion Agreement / 6 Trade and The Environment,  
62: se hace referencia general a varios esfuerzos realizados por el gobierno de Estados Unidos dirigidos a combatir la tala y comercio ilegal de productos forestales, incluyendo lo relativo a su participación en el Grupo de Expertos en Tala Ilegal y Comercio Asociado en el seno de la APEC 
(página 26), así como iniciativas bilaterales, como en el caso del gobierno de Perú (sección 4.3.11, 
pág. 22); se solicita información sobre las acciones y resultados concernientes a la aplicación de la enmienda de la Lacey Act, la cual prohíbe el comercio de productos ilegales de madera y papel en 
los Estados Unidos, imponiendo obligaciones a los compradores de ese país para que realicen la 
"debida diligencia" para asegurar la legal procedencia de los productos forestales que importan.  RESPONSE: The Lacey Act is an important tool  in U.S. efforts to combat illegal logging 
and wildlife trafficking. General information regarding the Lacey Act is available on the 
website of the U.S. Department of Agricu lture's Animal and Pl ant Health Inspection 
Service: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/porta l/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth?1 
dmy&urile=wcm%3apath%3a%2Faphis_conte nt_library%2Fsa_our_focus%2Fsa_plant
_health%2Fsa_import%2Fsa_l acey_act%2Fct_lacey_act . 
 
Information regarding investigations and pros ecutions under the Lacey Act is available 
on the websites of the Department of Justice ( http://www.justice.gov/ 
enrd/News.html ) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( http://www.fws.gov/news/ ).  
 
5 Trade-related Capacity Building Init iatives, párrafo 5.17 (Pág. 25)  
63: ¿Cuál es el presupuesto anual de Standards Alliance? 
 
RESPONSE: U.S. government funding for the Standards Alliance come s from the budget 
of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Information on USAID's budget can be found online: http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/progress-
data/agency-financial-report . 
 
6 TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT, párrafo 6.1 (Pág. 26)  64: ¿Cuáles han sido los resultados en materia de combate a la tala ilegal y el comercio asociado, 
en el marco del TLCAN para el caso México? 
 RESPONSE:  See the response to #59. 
 
6 TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT, párrafo 6.3 (Pág. 26)  65: ¿Cuáles han sido los mecanismos de cooperación y ayuda con otros países para combatir la 
pesca INDNR y la forma de acceder a éstos? ¿Cuáles han sido los avances en el desarrollo de los 
programas integrados para combatir la pesca INDNR contemplados por el Memorándum y sus principales lineamientos?  
RESPONSE: The Task Force is providing its recommendations to the President in 
December 2014. The recommendations will be published in the Federal Register  with an 
opportunity for public comment. Upon receiv ing guidance from the President on the 
recommendations, the Task Force will begin its implementation of the recommendations 
and, within one year, will report to the Pr esident on its progress. Capacity building 
activities and opportunities are one of th e elements for possible inclusion in the 
recommendations that the Task Force is co nsidering. Through the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act an d other authorities, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service engages in international co operation and assistance, with particular 
emphasis on efforts to combat IUU fishing, mitigate bycatch of pr otected living marine 
resources, and conserve sharks. One purpose is to assist nations that are identified 
under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, so that they may better address the activities for which they were id entified, including IUU fishing. Information 
regarding IUU measures is available online at:  
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/i a/iuu/iuu_overview.html . 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 357 - 
 
  NEW ZEALAND 
  REPORT BY THE WTO SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
2 TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES  
(II) The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
WT/TPR/S/307, section 2.4. 3.1, page 39, para 2.54 
 Section 2.4.3.1, paragraph 2.54 states that "In addition to receiving a gradual increase in notices, 
CFIUS investigations increase from 35 in 2010, to 40 in 2011, and 45 in 2012. A record number of 
notices (20) were withdrawn after an investigation was launched in 2012".   
Question 1 
Given overall FDI inflows have decreased overall in the United States, what has accounted for the 
gradual increase in the number of CFIUS notices,  including a significant number of withdrawals? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has an open in vestment policy. We recognize that it is 
vital to economic growth, to job creation, and to productivity.  
 
The United States consistently ranks at the to p of most major indicators for its attractive 
business and investment climate. The United St ates ranks: #1 in A.T. Kearney's Foreign 
Direct Investment Confidence Index; and #4 in the World Bank's "Ease of Doing 
Business" rankings. These rankings are refl ected by investment statistics: from 2007 
through 2013, the United States received more FDI than any other country. The FDI flow into the United States in 2013 – US$187.5 billion – was 34% higher than the flow into 
any other country.  
 The number of filings over time and per co untry is available in CFIUS's 2012 Annual 
Report.  http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center /international/foreign-investment/ 
Documents/2013%20CFIUS%20Annual%20Report%20PUBLIC.pdf. There was a 
significant decline in the number of notices of covered transactions from 2008 to 2009 
and then increases in the number of notices ea ch year since then. This trend indicates a 
general correlation between the number of notices and macroeconomic conditions. As 
we state in our annual report, parties may seek to withdraw for commercial reasons 
unrelated to CFIUS review, to obtain additional  time to respond to CFIUS questions, or in 
light of CFIUS's national security concerns with the transaction.  
 3 TRADE POLICY AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
(III) Animal Health and Plan t Health Inspection Service 
 WT/TPR/S/307, section 3.1.9.3, page 70, paras 3.92/3.93 
 
Section 3.1.9.3, paragraph 3.93 notes that on 29 May 2013, the OIE upgraded the U.S. risk 
classification for bovine spongiform. On 4 March 2014, a new APHIS regulation (BSE Comprehensive Rule) entered into force bringi ng U.S. import requirements generally into line 
with the OIE's criteria for classifying regions fo r BSE risk status (negligible, controlled, and 
undetermined risk).  Question 2 
Could the United States please clarify why under the BSE Comprehensive Rule APHIS now requires a paper certificate to accompany all consignments of beef exported to the U.S. (irrespective of the BSE status of the exporting country) when the Food  Safety and Inspection Service, has recently 
implemented a final rule that no longer requires exporting countries to provide paper certificates 
(with all certification provided by the exporting country electronically)?  
RESPONSE: APHIS currently requires a paper certificate (animal health certificate) 
endorsed by the Veterinary Authorities of an exporting country to ensure full compliance with U.S. animal health import requirements as codified in its regulations to prevent the 
introduction of BSE into the United Stat es. APHIS is undergoing a review of the 
possibility of accepting electronic certifications. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 358 - 
 
  (III) The National Export In itiative (NEI) and NEI/NEXT 
 WT/TPR/S/307, section 3.2.4.2, page 76, para 3.117  Section 3.2.4.2, para 3.117, notes that while exports have grown significantly since 2009, the NEI 
programme will not meet its stated goal of doubling exports in five years. 
 Question 3 
What are the factors that have prevented the NEI from meeting this goal, and what lessons learned and amendments have been made to the successor programme NEI/NEXT to make further improvements to the U.S. export environment?  
RESPONSE: We did not reach the President's goal of doubling exports under the NEI – in 
part because of unexpectedly strong glob al economic headwinds and macroeconomic 
factors outside our control.  
 
Feedback from customer surveys on the NEI and focus groups across the country – 
reaching more than 6,000 clients and partne rs – showed that U.S. companies are well-
positioned to capitalize on growing opportunities around the world and offered 
suggestions on how to improve upon th e NEI. NEI/NEXT is a new customer 
service-driven strategy with improved info rmation resources that will help American 
businesses capitalize on existing and new opportunities to sell Made-in-America goods 
and services abroad. NEI/NEXT is focused on improving data useful to exporters, 
providing information on specific export opportunities, working more closely with 
financing organizations and service providers to expand access to export-related 
resources, and partnering with states and communities to empower local export efforts 
and make it easier for small businesse s to understand where to go for help. 
 
(III) Subsidies and other government assistance 
 WT/TPR/S/307, section 3.3.2, page 80, para 3.140 and table 3.15  
 Section 3.3.2, para 3.140, notes that the agriculture and energy sectors remain the largest 
recipients of subsidies in the form of grants, tax concessions, loan guarantees and direct payments 
with section 3.3.2 para 3.139 adding that the magnitude of government assistance has generally decreased since the previous review. New Zealand welcomes U.S. efforts to champion fossil fuel 
subsidy reform internationally in the G20, APEC and other fora. 
 Question 4 
Could the United States clarify to what extent has domestic fossil fuel subsides contributed to the overall reduction of energy and fuel subsidies?   RESPONSE:  The bulk of the reduction in reported energy and fuel subsidies is due to the 
expiration of the Alcohol Fuels Credit and the Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel 
Credit. Both credits expired on December 31, 2011. The tax incentive under the Alcohol 
Fuels Credit fell from US$7,020 million in fisc al year 2011 to US$3,680 million in fiscal 
year 2012. The tax incentive under the Biodie sel and Renewable Diesel Credit fell from 
US$780 million in fiscal year 2011 to  US$90 million in fiscal year 2012.   
 
Question 5 
Could the U.S. provide an update on the Administration's plans to further reduce and reform its 
programme of domestic fossil fuel subsidies?   
RESPONSE: In its 2014 submission to the G-20,  the United States identified eleven tax 
provisions that constitute inefficient foss il fuel subsidies. The President has proposed 
eliminating these tax provisions annually in his budget since 2009. However, Congress 
must act to eliminate these tax provisions, and has so far has taken no action. Also, the 
United States and China are currently undertaking a peer review within the 
G-20 framework to identify their inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 359 - 
 
  (III) Government procurement 
 WT/TPR/S/307, section 3.3.5, page 85, para 3.167 
 Section 3.3.5, para 3.167, notes that the U.S. "passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a 
federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for goods and services. When the law 
g o e s  i n t o  e f f e c t ,  a n  a m o u n t  o f  2 %  i s  a p p l i e d  t o  foreign entities not party to an international 
procurement agreement". 
 
Question 6 
Could the U.S. please clarify the present status of the new measure, and why it discriminates against foreign, as distinct from domestic, procurement? 
 
RESPONSE: The effective date of the st atute was the date of its enactment, 
January 2, 2011. The U.S. Internal Revenue Se rvice and the Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations.  
 Question 7 
Could the U.S. please clarify whether it is only th e final supplier that the new excise tax applies to? 
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. The Unit ed States is unable to provide details about 
the administration or interpretation of the legislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations.  
Question 8 
Could the U.S. please clarify what constitutes a "foreign entity" is and what an "international 
procurement agreement" is? 
 
RESPONSE: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. The Unit ed States is unable to provide details about 
the administration or interpretation of the legislation prior to the publication of these 
regulations. 
 (IV) Trade policies by sector 
 
WT/TPR/S/307, section 3.3.2, pages 80-81, Table 3.15  
Section 3.3.2, pages 80-81, Table 3.15, notes that the US' latest subsidies notification on federal 
and sub-federal programmes was submitted in May 2014. The Secretariat's report notes that the magnitude of government assistances has decreased since the previous review. Table 3.15 shows that the U.S. reported federal subs idies for fisheries of US$65.9 million. 
 
New Zealand appreciates the reporting of the United States' programmes affecting fisheries under the SCM Agreement in the context of the 2012  Rio+20 commitment to further improve the 
transparency and reporting of existing fisheries subsidies programmes through the WTO. We view 
this as an important contribution to the Doha mandate "to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  
 
Question 9 
In terms of the Fisheries Finance Programme notified in G/SCM/N/253/USA, can the United States:  
a) Identify the fisheries affected by the programme , by geographical area (e.g. territorial sea, 
EEZ, high seas), and the species affected by the programme (e.g. both target and bycatch species). 
 
RESPONSE:  The Fisheries Finance Program benefits  the EEZ geographic area generally. 
In 2014, this was limited to the U.S. main land and Alaska (no loans were made for 
Hawaii or Western Pacific borrowers).  
 
b) Clarify the current status of the programme, how long it is anticipated that the programme 
will be in place, and how the budget will change over the life of the programme? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 360 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  The current status of the program is "ongoing." This is a stable program 
which increased in funding by US$41 million in  2014. It is anticipated that the program 
will not increase further in the next year. We  note that the US$41 million increase in the 
program represents the additional amount of loans that can be provided under the 
program. The lending rate under this progra m is generally above the government's cost 
of funds. The program has histor ically been self-financing.  
 
c) Comment on the extent to which the progra mme provides support for the reduction of 
overcapacity and overfishing. 
 RESPONSE:  The program provides economic stabilit y to fishers and fishing communities, 
but will not provide loans in fisheries that are deemed overfished or subject to 
overfishing. By requiring adherence to sust ainable fishing requirements and facilitating 
quota share programs, the fisheries finance program supports the reduction of 
overcapacity and overfishing.  
 (IV) Trade Policies by Sector 
 WT/TPR/S/307, section 4.1.1.2.6, p109, paras 4.29-4.30 
 Section 4.1.1.2.6, paras 4.29-4.30 notes that impl ementation of the Margin Protection Program 
(MPP) for Dairy Producers began on 2 September 2014 and understand the enrolment period for 
the last four months of 2014 and for the 2015 year has been extended to 5 December 2014. The 
annual cost of the programme is estimate d to be between US$30 to US$190 million. 
 
Question 10 
a) Can the United States provide the percentage of dairy farmers who have enrolled in MPP to 
date? 
 
RESPONSE: As of November 26, 2014 about 14% of dairy farmers had enrolled in MPP for calendar year 2015. Enrollment is open until December 19, 2014. 
 
b) Of those enrolled farmers, what percentage have enrolled at the different margin coverage 
levels (US$4/cwt through to US$8/cwt)?  
RESPONSE: About 44% of enrolled producers have elected coverage above US$4/cwt for 
2015 so far, but no data is available ye t on individual coverage levels.  
 
c) A farmer can choose the percentage of their milk production history level they want covered. 
What is the average percentage of production history covered?  RESPONSE: No data is available on select ed coverage percentage at this time. 
 
d) Has the United States considered and can it comment on whether MPP provides a disincentive for a dairy farmer to increase produc tion, due to MPP not covering growth above that 
of the national average? 
 RESPONSE: MPP is viewed as a risk-reduction tool for dairy farmers. The program 
provides payments on a percentage of the hi storical production of a producer and any 
increase in an individual producer's prod uction will not affect the level of payment 
received. Therefore, United States does not see a basis for the suggestion that MPP 
would provide incentives or disincentives with respect to changes in individual 
producers' production.  
 e) Can the United States comment on how it will categorise payments under MPP, e.g. Amber 
or Green box, and what is the rationale for this categorisation? 
 RESPONSE: The United States has not made any official determination of 
WTO classification of any programs establishe d in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States 
will notify the classification of this program as part of its official domestic support notification.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 361 - 
 
  NIGERIA 
  
A. Measures affecting trade and investment 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary requirements 
1. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): page 70, paragraph 3.92 and 3.93 of 
Secretariat Report. 
On the 29th May 2013, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) or World Organization for 
Animal Health (OIE) upgraded the U.S. risk classification, while on the 4th March, 2014, a 
new APHIS regulation came into force allowing the U.S. to conduct its own risk assessment.  
Questions 
a) Over the years, Nigeria has been exportin g snails (HS code 0307.6000.00) into US, 
however, in 2014; these snails were confiscated and destroyed upon entry into the U.S. Could the U.S. explain in detail, the APHIS and Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS) import requirement for live plants, grain, oilseed and horticultural products; live 
animals (including embryos, semen, ova), animal product as well as its decision to ban Nigerian snail, which Nigeria was previously allowed to import into the United States? 
 
RESPONSE: FSIS is the U.S. public health agency responsible for the food safety 
regulatory oversight of domestically and imported meat, poultry, and processed egg 
products to ensure they are safe, wholes ome and accurately labeled. FSIS has no 
regulatory oversight relative to the import of Nigerian-origin live snails. 
 APHIS regulates giant African snails (GAS) as a plant pest and imports are 
prohibited. Import requirements for live plants , grain, oilseed and horticultural products 
can be 7 CFR 300-399; live animals and animal products can be found in 9 CFR subchapter D parts 91-99.  
 
Information regarding GAS regulations can be found at the following web address: 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphi s/ourfocus/planthealth/sa_domestic_pest
s_and_diseases/sa_pests_and_diseases/! ut/p/a1/vVPJdoIwFP2WLrrERGaWOFRw6Hg8
CpucBCLEIkESPdWvb-C4a0W7aTbJG27evS8v IAZrEJf4yDIsGS9x0dixjaYvgd4fQD2cTMYD 
GD4_zV-d2VSHC0slRB0JM-s-_HDiB6YzhxCarg7D0SAYOd4CwtC-hV-BGMRJKSuZgwhXOR 
Mo4aWkpUQFIzWuT49QYMQPNdrw5CBaqyqwiu cUFzJvHSnfUSFZgiq1CYTLFKVMUCzoBfD
D3ZStEpaCyKNWQiyCNZJCVzMJ0TXP9XSN4L7rOVg3jdS-yIRXlg_vknmj0W1CVyfbhA4OkS 
LpXC0xtsHHH1VP73h9vV4MF5m6FstcY-WGg3 X3g7Tx39wgYtv9PvbVPDQT8CXB-j8HQon 
NCk7Up1nNQOycg6_VW0PKL4nhKoE13dCa1r2cC8XsIFKFwnWS95pjL-NHUO2Wy51rnLT 
PdxcaVrE9GedQ-A_fw0GWsA!!/?1dmy&urile =wcm%3apath%3a%2Faphis_content_lib 
rary%2Fsa_our_focus%2Fsa_plant_health% 2Fsa_domestic_pests_and_diseases%2Fsa
_pests_and_diseases%2Fsa_mollusks%2Fct_giant_african_snail_home . 
 
 
b) Did the U.S. consult with its trading part ners on the new FSIS and APHIS import 
requirements? 
 
RESPONSE: The BSE comprehensive rule was proposed, finalized and implemented by 
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Se rvice (APHIS). The public (including all 
trading partners) was given an opportunity  to comment on the proposed rule. The 
comment period opened on March 16, 2012 and closed on June 14, 2012. APHIS also 
notified the proposed rule on BSE to the WTO on 30 March 2012 in document G/SPS/N/USA/2340. APHIS subsequently reviewed and considered all comments and 
published a final rule on December 4, 2013. This final rule became effective on 
March 4, 2014. The contents of the final rule  can be found at 78 FR 72979 -73008. This 
rule brings U.S. import requirements into alignment with World Organization for Animal 
Health (OIE) guidelines with respect to BSE.  
   
FSIS did not have regulatory jurisdiction ov er the development of this APHIS rule or 
consultations with foreign countries about its content.  
 
c) Was there a grace period set aside in the new regulation that allows United States trading 
partners to adjust to this regulation? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 362 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Trading partners had a three-mo nth period (December 4, 2013 – March 4, 
2014) prior to the entry into force of the final rule. Additionally, APHIS granted a 60 day transitional period after March 4, 2014  to allow trading partners to amend their 
current export certificates for bovine products so as to not disrupt trade. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 363 - 
 
  NORWAY 
  Questions related to the Report by the Secretariat 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
 
3.3.5 Government procurement The Buy American Act of 1933 favours United States' producers by requiring U.S. produced components to exceed 50% in all manufactured good s in U.S. federal contracts. In recent years, 
there has been an expansion of Buy American policies at the state levels, where at least 64 Buy 
American bills were introduced in 24 states over  the past two years. Although the various bills 
have different requirements and specificities, their shared purpose and effect is to distort trade by 
giving United States' producers an advantage at the expense of foreign producers and 
U.S. taxpayers. How will the U.S. Federal Govern ment ensure compliance to its commitments to 
public procurement agreements when separate Buy American policies are proliferating at state 
level? 
 QUESTION 1: Are there any Federal initiatives or processes to reconcile regulations at the state level with those of the U.S. Federal Government  and its commitments to the WTO GPA and other 
public procurement regimes? 
 RESPONSE: The United States acts consistently  with all of its GPA obligations. It takes 
seriously any allegations of it failing to m eet certain obligations. The United States 
welcomes an open and constructive dialogue  with its trading partners about specific 
concerns. Consistent with its obligations, the United States waives requirements 
attached to the Buy American Act for all fe deral procurements covered under the GPA.  
 With respect to State-level measures, each U.S. state maintains its own procurement 
system independent of the Federal Gove rnment procurement system. For those 
U.S. states subject to government procurement commitments under U.S. international 
obligations, the Office of the U.S. Trade Re presentative engages with appropriate State 
officials regarding specific issues raised by our trading partners. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  4.2 Services 
 
4.2.5.3 Policy Actions (regarding exports of American LNG and maritime transportation) The report by the Secretariat lists various policy actions that support the maritime transport sector in the United States (4.2.5.3 Policy Actions - pg.144). It is stated that the United States gives 
certain preferences for using domestically flagged vessels transporting goods. In light of the 
increased shale gas production, the United States may become a major exporter of LNG. We are aware of voices in the U.S. Congress for new bills that would provide preference to LNG exports on 
U.S. flagged vessels. We are quite concerned ab out this approach on international maritime 
transport.  QUESTION 2: If the United States should adopt such a policy on LNG export, would you consider 
this to be in line with U.S. commitments in th e WTO, in particular the standstill commitment 
contained in Decision on Maritime Transport Serv ices adopted by the Council for Trade in Services 
on 28 June 1996 (S/L/24)?  
RESPONSE: The United States cannot speculat e on the trade implications of legislation 
that has yet to be drafted.  
Fisheries subsidies 
The United States has played a vital role in the international campaign against harmful fisheries subsidies for over a decade. Norway, the United States and a number of other countries have 
worked collectively in the WTO as the 'Friends of Fish' group towards improving disciplines on 
fisheries subsidies, including through prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. In Ju ne this year, the United States Department of 
Commerce published an Advance Notice for comments on a proposed change to its Fisheries WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 364 - 
 
  Finance Programme (FFP). If adopted, the FFP woul d be able to financially support fishing vessel 
constructions and refurbishment that may lead to increased fishing capacity.   QUESTION 3: How does this proposal match up with past U.S. declared policy? We would 
appreciate information from the United States on further developments on this programme.  
 RESPONSE: The United States has long been  committed to disciplining harmful fisheries 
subsidies and our policy with respect to th is issue has not changed. The National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NO A A )  a t  t h e  D e p a r t m e n t  o f  C o m m e r c e  i s  
considering modifications to the FFP with this policy in mind. NOAA solicited public 
comment on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule making it issued in June 2014, and will 
again solicit public comment in connection with any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
regarding the FFP. Information regarding the rulemaking is available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docu mentDetail;D=NOAA -NMFS-2014-0062-0006 . We 
look forward to continuing to work with Norw ay and other Friends of Fish in the WTO to 
discipline harmful fisheries subsidies that co ntribute to overfish ing and overcapacity. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 365 - 
 
  PAKISTAN 
  1. Could U.S. please indicate that in the Cotto n Stacked Income Insurance program, how much of 
the premium of the insurance will be paid by the government?  
 RESPONSE: The premium subsidy for Stacke d Income Protection (STAX) is 80%.  
 
2. Is this correct that U.S. food stamp scheme does not distinguish between the locally produced 
food and the imported food?  
 
RESPONSE: That is correct. 
 3. How does the U.S. relate its new Fa rm Bill with the disciplines in Rev-4?  
 
RESPONSE: Rev. 4 has no legal standing. It has no relationship to U.S. farm programs or U.S. WTO obligations.  
 
The United States initially proposed that it would liberalize its agricultural policies as 
part of a broader reform in a Doha context.  If and when WTO members are prepared to 
negotiate seriously about meaningful reforms,  in particular market access opening that 
has proven so difficult, the United States  will be prepared to do its part.  
 4. When would U.S. GSP scheme be renewed? Would there be any change in the product 
coverage?  
 RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U.S.  Congress at the earliest opportunity.  
 The GSP Annual Review process provides an  opportunity for interested parties to 
request the addition of specific, non-prohib ited products to eligibility for duty-free 
treatment under GSP. In view of the July 31,  2013 expiration of GSP's authorization, the 
2013 Annual Review, launched shortly prio r to GSP's expiration, was suspended. 
Congressional action would be required in order to add to GSP any products, such as 
most apparel products, that are currently pr ohibited by law from duty-free treatment 
under GSP. 
 
5. Is it true that the U.S. is considering amending its current fisheries policy to introduce the U.S. Fisheries  Financing Program that has a subsidy component? U.S. is requested to offer 
comments and to provide details of this program. 
 
RESPONSE: The Fisheries Finance Program ( FFP) is still under review. The National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the Department of Commerce 
solicited public comment on the Advance Noti ce of Proposed Rulemaking it issued in 
June 2014, and will again solicit public comment in connection with any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the FFP. Information regarding the rulemaking is 
available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-
2014-0062-0006 . NOAA anticipates that the program will apply only in fisheries where 
total allowable catch is controlled through fish eries quotas. Loans will not be provided in 
fisheries that are deemed overfished or subject to overfishing. The US$41 million 
increase in the program represents the additi onal amount of loans that can be provided 
under the program. The lending rate under this program is generally above the government's cost of funds. The program has historically been self-financing.  
 
6. The Secretariat Report notes that U.S. financial firms in general have strengthened their position over the last few years. Nonetheless, more  progress is needed in some areas, including on 
"too big to fail" banks, which receive an implicit  subsidy of about US$70 billion. Can the U.S. 
outline in what manner it is removing this "implicit subsidy" and in what time frame? 
 RESPONSE: See the 2011 FSOC Study & Recommendations Regarding Concentration 
Limits on Large Financial Companies, wh ich notes that Dodd-Frank "establishes a WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 366 - 
 
  financial sector concentration limit that ge nerally prohibits a financial company from 
merging or consolidating with, or acquiring,  another company if the resulting company's 
consolidated liabilities would exceed 10% of th e aggregate consolidated liabilities of all 
financial companies…The financial sector's co ncentration limit should help reduce the 
prospects for any increase in implicit subsidy for the nation's largest financial firms." 
Additional details are available at:  
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Doc uments/Study%20on%20Concentration%20Li
mits%20on%20Large%20Firms%2001-17-11.pdf . 
 
7. The Secretariat Report also points out that there has been some reporting of "in-sourcing", 
i.e. the homecoming of U.S. manufacturing, a dding that "However, the authorities expressed 
doubts regarding a genuine in-sourcing move in the United States as capital stock in 
manufacturing has not increased in a decade." Does  the U.S. Mission share this assessment, and if 
so, how will the scale of "homecoming of  U.S. manufacturing" be enhanced?  
 
RESPONSE: It is still too early to determine whether in-sourcing has occurred to a large extent.  The United States is an attractive dest ination for investment. It has a highly 
competitive workforce, an innovative environm ent, strong and transparent rule of law, 
and a growing energy sector. U.S. manufacturi ng production has benefited as companies 
look to make production closer to the customer.  
8. Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) has been scaled back in recent years, from pilot operations in 
six foreign ports to only one foreign port current ly, in Pakistan. Which are the other five foreign 
ports, and on what criteria SFI is continued? 
 
RESPONSE: The other five ports in which CBP has run SFI pilot operations were Puerto Cortes, Honduras; Southampton, United Kingdom; Busan, Korea; Hong Kong; and 
Salalah, Oman. These ports have reverted back to CSI risk-based targeting operations 
and the only location in which there is comple te scanning now is in Qasim, Pakistan. The 
decision to cease scanning at the other ports was based on the balance between the 
benefits that such scanning conferred and the costs to administer the program.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 367 - 
 
  PARAGUAY 
  Preguntas en relación con el inform e de la Secretaria (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
Pregunta 1 2.3.2.2.2 Sistema Generalizado de Preferencias (SGP) Pag 36 
El SGP de los Estados Unidos, su principal programa mundial de preferencias para los países en 
desarrollo y los PMA, quedó sin efecto el 31 de julio de 2013. Desde entonces, importantes sectores de la economía paraguaya han quedado sin posibilidades de exportar a ese país, lo cual ha afectado considerablemente el crecimiento del sector, con directas implicancias en la 
producción nacional y el empleo. 
 Por lo tanto, se consulta sobre las posibilidades de una próxima re-implementación del SGP; y si 
las mismas contarían con retroactivo, o serían ampliados a otros productos? 
 RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U.S.  Congress at the earliest opportunity.  
 In the past, when Congress acted to extend the program, it did so retroactively to the 
expiration of the program, thereby allowing importers to seek refunds of duties paid. 
However, it is not known whether Congress will make any future reauthorization of GSP 
retroactive. 
 
The GSP Annual Review process provides an  opportunity for interested parties to 
request the addition of specific, non-prohib ited products to eligibility for duty-free 
treatment under GSP. In view of the July 31,  2013 expiration of GSP's authorization, the 
2013 Annual  Review, launched shortly prior to GSP's expi ration, was suspended. Congressional action 
would be required in order to add to GSP an y products, such as most apparel products, 
that are currently prohibited by law from duty-free treatment under GSP. 
  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 368 - 
 
  PERU 
  
Documento WT/TPR/S/307 
 
Sobre la base de lo señalado en el documento WT/TPR/G/307 del 11 de noviembre de 2014, el Perú tiene las siguientes preguntas: 
 
Pregunta 1: 
 3. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas 
3.1. Medidas que afectan dire ctamente a las importaciones 
3.1.1. Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros 3.1.1.3 Zonas Francas 
 
Párrafo 3.23 Con relación a la aprobación de nuevos reglamentos para zonas francas en 2012, podría 
Estados Unidos indicar: 
 
- De qué manera se simplificó el procedimiento de solicitud (cuáles eran los 
requisitos/procedimientos antes de dichos reglamentos y cuáles son los nuevos 
requisitos/procedimientos. 
- En cuánto se redujo el tiempo necesario para establecer una zona franca. 
- Qué impacto ha tenido la medida en el establecimiento de zonas francas (en términos de 
incremento del número de zonas francas o actividades manufactureras en ellas) 
 RESPONSE: The primary change in the 2012 re gulations decreased the time required to 
review a company's request for production authority within a FTZ. In the prior 
regulations this type of application requir ed a 12-month review, which has been reduced 
to a 120-day process for most requests. In addition, through both the regulations and previous changes adopted by the FTZ Boar d, the processing time needed for a 
company's site to receive FTZ designatio n has been significantly reduced from 10 
months to as little as 30 days. The proces sing time reductions were accomplished 
through a full reassessment of the procedures needed and information required for each 
type of request, with previous requirements  eliminated or reduced wherever possible. 
Essentially, the reductions in processing time  for production within a FTZ resulted in a 
vastly simplified review for the majority of cases, while still allowing for a more detailed 
review where warranted by the circumstances.  
 The FTZ Board's reassessment of its procedures  in 2012 was intended in part to better 
meet the needs of business in the United St ates. Statistics from 2012 and 2013, with 
record numbers of cases reviewed by the FT Z Board, indicate that there was a demand 
from the business community for simplified a ccess to the FTZ program. However, due to 
the range of factors that enter into companies' location decisions, it is not practicable to 
try to assess the degree to which access to FT Zs contributes to individual companies' 
location decisions.  
Pregunta 2: 
 
3. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas 3.1. Medidas que afectan dire ctamente a las importaciones 
3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de salvaguardia 
3.1.7.1 Medidas antidumping y compensatorias Párrafo 3.64: 
 
¿Podría Estados Unidos explicar qué implica que el Departamento de Comercio dejará de considerar a las economías no de mercado en el marco de los procedimientos antidumping como 
exportadoras condicionalmente? ¿Cuáles son dichas economías de no mercado en el marco de los 
procedimientos antidumping? 
 RESPONSE: This change in practice involves the discontinuation of the conditional 
review of the nonmarket economy entity in antidumping nonmarket economy cases. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 369 - 
 
  Now, if an interested party wants Commerce to conduct such a review, it must request a 
review of the entity in accordance with  Commerce's regulations. More detailed 
information regarding these change s in practice can be found at:  
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-11-04/html /2013-26266.htm.   
 
The U.S. Department of Commerce considers the following countries to be non-market 
economy countries: Armenia, the Republic of Az erbaijan, Belarus, the People's Republic 
of China, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Mold ova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, 
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.   3. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas 
3.1. Medidas que afectan dire ctamente a las importaciones 
3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de salvaguardia 3.1.7.1 Salvaguardias 
 
Párrafo 3.73:  
Pregunta 3: 
 
¿Estados Unidos ha abierto alguna investigación co n arreglo a las disposiciones de salvaguardia de 
sus acuerdos de libre comercio (incluyendo salvag uardia textil)? ¿Alguna de dichas investigaciones 
ha concluido con la imposición de medidas? 
 RESPONSE: During the period under review, the United States has not initiated any 
safeguard investigations under an FTA-prov ided transitional safeguard mechanism.  
  
Documento WT/TPR/G/307 
 Sobre la base de lo señalado en el documento WT/TPR/G/307 del 11 de noviembre de 2014, el Perú tiene los siguientes comentarios: 
 
4. EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2012 4.3) Acuerdos e iniciativa s comerciales bilaterales 
4.3.11) Acuerdo de Promoción Comercial entre los Estados Unidos y el Perú 
 Párrafo 4.77:  
 
Comentario 1: 
 
"El Acuerdo también estableció el Subcomité del Sector Forestal Estados Unidos-Perú y el 
Consejo de Asuntos Ambientales (CAA). El Subcomité sirve de foro para que las Partes 
intercambien opiniones y compartan información sobre cualquier asunto que surja en relación con el Anexo sobre el manejo del sect or forestal del Acuerdo y, por conducto del 
Consejo, los Estados Unidos y el Perú han mantenido un diálogo fluido sobre la aplicación 
de las obligaciones ambientales en virtud del capítulo del Acuerdo relativo al medio ambiente y del Anexo sobre el manejo del sector forestal (…)". 
 
Complementando el párrafo 4.77, el Perú desea resaltar que en el Capítulo de Medio Ambiente del APC Perú-EEUU (específicamente en el numeral 16 del Anexo 18.3.4 Anexo sobre el manejo del sector forestal) se establece la creación de un Subcomité de Manejo del Sector Forestal, que tiene 
como propósito proporcionar un foro para que las Partes intercambien opiniones e información 
sobre cualquier asunto derivado del citado Anexo. El Subcomité de Manejo del Sector Forestal está supeditado tanto al Comité de Comercio de Merc ancías como al Consejo de Asuntos Ambientales. 
 
Asimismo, de acuerdo al art. 18.6 del APC Perú-EEUU, por medio del cual se estableció el Consejo de Asuntos Ambientales (Consejo), se establece que dicho Consejo tiene como parte de sus 
funciones: considerar y discutir la implementación  del Capítulo de Medio Ambiente del APC Perú-
EEUU.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 370 - 
 
  Comentario 2: 
 
" (…) En enero de 2013, las Partes convinieron en un plan de acción de cinco puntos para fortalecer la aplicación del Anexo sobre el manejo del sector forestal y promover las 
actividades de reforma del sector forestal emprendidas por el Perú. En el plan de acción se 
establece un conjunto específico de medidas que debe adoptar el Perú para hacer frente a problemas concretos de su sector forestal, entre ellas la aplicación de medidas de lucha 
contra la corrupción, la mejora de los sistemas para rastrear y verificar la cadena de 
custodia de las exportaciones de madera, garantizar procedimientos penales y administrativos oportunos para los delitos e infracciones relacionados con el sector forestal y fortalecer la elaboración de planes anuales precisos de operaciones para los productores 
de madera". 
 Para mayor precisión, el Perú considera conveniente agregar que en enero de 2013, las Partes 
emitieron un Comunicado Conjunto de las reuniones sostenidas respecto a la Gestión del Sector 
Forestal. En dicho comunicado conjunto el Gobierno de los EE.UU. destacó con reconocimiento las mejoras significativas mostradas por Perú en el fortalecimiento del manejo del sector forestal 
desde la entrada en vigencia del APC. Ambos Gobiernos identificaron un conjunto de acciones 
objetivo que el Perú emprendería para abordar retos específicos con un compromiso de parte de EE.UU. de apoyar los esfuerzos del Perú para emprender tales acciones a través de programas de cooperación y fortalecimiento de capacidades. 
 
Las acciones que se indican en el Comunicado Conjunto Perú-EEUU (enero 2013), para abordar retos específicos que subsisten en el sector forestal peruano están referidas a: 1) fortalecer las 
inspecciones físicas de caoba de hoja ancha y cedro español contenida en los POAs antes de su 
aprobación, 2) fortalecer el desarrollo e implementación precisa de los POAs, 3) asegurar procedimientos criminales y administrativos oportunos para sancionar la infracción a la legislación 
forestal y de fauna silvestre, 4) mejorar los si stemas para rastrear y verificar la cadena de 
custodia de las exportaciones de madera de caoba de hoja ancha y cedro español; y 5) fortalecer la implementación del plan nacional anticorrupción del sector forestal y de fauna silvestre.  
El Comunicado Conjunto de enero de 2013 se encuentra disponible en la página web: 
 http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.go b.pe/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=
blog&id=56&Itemid=79 
 4. EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DESDE 2012 
4.3) Acuerdos e iniciativa s comerciales bilaterales 
4.3.11) Acuerdo de Promoción Comercial entre los Estados Unidos y el Perú 
 Párrafo 4.78:  
 
"En abril de 2013 se reunieron en Lima (Perú) el Subcomité del Sector Forestal y la Comisión de Cooperación Ambiental. La Comisión se ocupa de examinar la aplicación del 
Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental entre los Estados Unidos y el Perú, cuyo objetivo es la 
mejora de la cooperación ambiental y la creación de capacidad entre los Estados Unidos y el Perú. El Subcomité del Sector Forestal exam inó los progresos realizados en el marco del 
Anexo sobre el manejo del sector forestal, incluido el desarrollo de un prototipo de sistema 
de información que rastreará y verificará la cadena de custodia de la madera obtenida en los bosques del Perú. En junio de 2013, el Consejo de Cooperación Ambiental se reunió para examinar los progresos realizados en la aplicación de los compromisos en el marco 
del capítulo relativo al medio ambiente y la Comisión de Cooperación Ambiental examinó la 
ejecución de actividades de cooperación ambiental. Las Partes celebraron una sesión pública en relación con esas reuniones (…)". 
 
Comentario 3: 
 
A fin de utilizar los términos establecidos en el APC Perú-Estados Unidos y asegurar la consistencia 
de las afirmaciones, el Perú desea precisar que el Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental (ACA) Perú-EEUU, en su artículo III establece la creación de una Comisión de Cooperación Ambiental, que tiene entre sus funciones fijar las prioridades para las actividades cooperativas; así como 
examinar y evaluar las actividades cooperativas. Asimismo, en el artículo I del citado Acuerdo, se WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 371 - 
 
  establece que el objetivo del ACA, es establecer un marco para incrementar la cooperación 
ambiental bilateral y/o regional entre las Partes, con el fin de proteger, mejorar y preservar el medio ambiente, incluida la conservación y el uso sostenible de sus recursos naturales.   
Comentario 4: 
 
Para mayor precisión sobre el desarrollo de las reuniones de abril y junio de 2013, se puede 
acceder a los Comunicados Conjuntos disponibles en la página web: 
http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/ind ex.php?option=com_content&view=catego
ry&layout=blog&id=56&Itemid=79 . 
 
Comentario 5: 
 
"…En agosto de 2014, funcionarios del USTR, la Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente 
y el Departamento de Estado viajaron al Perú para dialogar con funcionarios del Gobierno 
peruano y grupos de la sociedad civil sobre las modificaciones de la legislación peruana promulgadas recientemente…" 
 
Perú considera que no se debería hacer referencia a las actividades de agosto de 2014 en este p á r r a f o  y a  q u e  l a  r e u n i ó n  a  l a  q u e  s e  r e f i e r e  e l  m i s m o ,  c o n s t i t u y e  u n a  r e u n i ó n  i n f o r m a l  n o  enmarcada en los mecanismos establecidos en el Capítulo de Medio Ambiente, ni el Capítulo 
Laboral del APC Perú-EEUU, al igual que otras reuniones sostenidas anteriormente. Asimismo, la 
reunión sostenida por funcionarios de EEUU en agosto  de 2014 con grupos de la sociedad civil, no 
corresponde al marco de los mecanismos establecidos en el capítulo de Medio Ambiente, ni el 
Capítulo Laboral del APC Perú-EEUU. 
 Comentario 6: 
 
"…Los Estados Unidos siguen colaborando estrechamente con el Perú para analizar los cambios y vigilarán su aplicación a la luz de los compromisos ambientales y laborales contraídos por el Perú en el Acuerdo de Promoción Comercial." 
 
Para mayor precisión, de acuerdo los artículos 17.5 y 18.6 del APC Perú-EEUU, las Partes a través del Consejo de Asuntos Ambientales y el Consejo de  Asuntos Laborales considerarán y discutirán la 
implementación del Capítulo de Medio Ambiente  y del Capítulo Laboral de APC Perú-EEUU; 
incluyendo los mecanismos de cooperación orientados a apoyar la implementación de dichos Capítulos.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 372 - 
 
  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
  Part 1: Questions on the U.S. Government Report WT/TPR/G/307 
3 Openness and accountability: building support for trade  
Tier II: The Policy Advisory Committees 3.12, page 10 
 
Members of the five policy advisory committees ar e appointed by USTR or in conjunction with 
other Cabinet officers. The Intergovernmental Po licy Advisory Committee on Trade (IGPAC), the 
Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), and the Trade Advisory Committee on 
Africa (TACA) are appointed and managed by USTR. The Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for 
Trade (APAC) is managed jointly with the Department of Agriculture and the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy (LAC) is managed jointly with the Department 
of Labor. Each committee provides advice based up on the perspective of its specific area and its 
members are chosen to represent the diversity of interests in those areas.  
Question 1: 
Please, provide further information on the activities of the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade (APAC), the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy (LAC), the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Commi ttee on Trade (IGPAC) and the Trade and 
Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC). We would appreciate more info on their 
competence, functions, and other related information. Please, specify the websites of the said Committees? 
 
RESPONSE; This information is available online at the following sites:   
APAC charter: http://www.fas.usda.gov/sit es/development/files/2013-
08/2011_apac_charter.pdf  
APAC website: http://www.fas.usda.gov/agricultura l-policy-advisory-committee-apac.  
 
LAC charter: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/defa ult/files/LACCharter2012.pdf  
LAC website: https://ustr.gov/about-us/advi sory-committees/labor-advisory-
committee-lac   
 
IGPAC charter: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/fil es/040414%20IGPAC%20Charter%20MF% 
20signed.pdf   
IGPAC website: https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisor y-committees/intergovernmental-
policy-advisory-committee-igpac   
 
TEPAC charter: 
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/ 1979%20TEPAC%20Charter%20for% 202013.pdf   
TEPAC website:  https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/trade-and-
environment-policy-advisory-committee-tepac  
 
Part 2: Questions on the WTO Secretariat Report WT/TPR/S/307 
 
Summary, page 10   It is mentioned that the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, a major reform of legislation on food 
safety and the safety of animal feed, entered into  force in 2011, and the FDA is in the process of 
developing the regulations to implement some of the key elements of this new law.  
Question 2: 
Please, clarify in which areas the U.S. expects to develop implementation the regulations for FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. What changes are expected in the activity and functions of the 
FDA? 
 RESPONSE: Key elements of FSMA can be divi ded into five key areas: (1) preventive 
controls, (2) inspection and compliance, (3) im ported food safety, (4) response to food 
safety issues, and (5) enhanced partnerships. FDA is developing policies in each of these WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 373 - 
 
  areas to implement the law. FDA has issued se veral proposed rules as part of this effort, 
including: Preventive Controls for Human Fo od, Preventive Controls for Animal Food, 
Produce Safety Standards, Foreign Supplier Verification Program, Accreditation of Third Party Auditors, Sanitary Transport of Food and Feed, and Intentional 
Contamination. FDA is currently working on fi nalizing these proposals as well as drafting 
other proposed rules, as directed by FSMA. FD A will be undertaking new activities in the 
areas covered by the new FSMA rules to implement and operationalize those rules and 
as appropriate, making them public. 
 Summary, page 10   
The Summary of the WTO Secretariat Report indicates that "[t]he recent boom in shale oil 
and gas production in the United States ha s affected various aspects of the economy". 
 
Question 3: 
Please, describe the system of government support of  the sector of shale oil and gas production in 
the United States. In particular, what subsidies affecting shale oil and gas production have been 
granted by the United States? Please, describe thes e subsidies, if any, in  detail, including their 
mechanisms of submission, recipients and volumes. Please indicate all tax policy support measures directly or indirectly related to the development of the shale oil and gas production in the United States.  
 
RESPONSE: There is no "system of government  support" for shale oil and gas production 
in the United States. There are programs that support the oil and gas sector more 
generally. These programs have been notified (see, G/SCM/N/253/USA).  
 2.1.3 New developments 
2.1.3.1 Interagency Trade Enforcement Center 
Page 28 
"2.9. In early 2012 the United States established the Interagency Trade Enforcement 
Center (ITEC) to advance U.S. foreign policy and protect the national and economic security of the 
United States through strengthened enforcement of U.S. trade rights. 
The mission of ITEC is: (a) to be the primary forum for federal agencies to coordinate enforcement of U.S. rights;  
(b) to assist in the exchange of information related to potential violations; and (c) to conduct 
outreach for greater participation in the identifi cation and elimination of foreign trade barriers. 
ITEC is established within USTR and involves c oordination among the Departments of State, the 
Treasury, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland  Security, and the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence."  Question 4: 
Please provide further information on the activities of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center 
(ITEC), its functions, structure, and other related information on the ITEC. Is the ITEC engaged in 
enforcement of the obligations of the U.S. under  international trade and investment agreements, 
including the WTO, within the U.S. territory  and the territory of particular States?  
 RESPONSE: Consistent with Executive Orde r 13601, ITEC has assembled staff from 
numerous government agencies with vari ed expertise. ITEC monitors trade 
developments and our trading partners' adhe rence to international trade obligations, 
investigates and develops issues for potent ial trade cases; supports enforcement-related 
negotiations and ongoing disputes; and ev aluates post-dispute compliance actions. 
 
As directed by the Executive Order, ITEC's  mission is to strengthen and coordinate 
enforcement of U.S. trade rights under inte rnational trade agreements. ITEC seeks to 
help ensure that our trading partners play by WTO rules and abide by their obligations, 
including commitments to maintain open mark ets on a non-discriminatory basis and to 
follow rules-based procedures in a transp arent way. Personnel from contributing 
agencies form a team of experts who help to increase engagement with foreign trade 
partners at the WTO and in other internatio nal fora. ITEC seeks to expand interagency 
collaboration and the sharing of information and expertise as it relates to enforcement 
of international trade agreements. Per the Executive Order, ITEC's mission does not 
extend to consideration of the obligations of  the United States under international trade WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 374 - 
 
  or investment agreements. However, other fu nctions within USTR and other government 
agencies review U.S. policies for consiste ncy with international trade obligations. 
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 2.3.2.2.2 Generalized System of Preferences, page 35  
 
"The United States GSP, its main global programme for preferences for developing and 
least developed countries, expired on 31 July 2013. Therefore, imports that benefited from 
GSP provisions are subject to MFN tariffs as of 1 August 2013. However, GSP-eligible imports from 
AGOA beneficiary countries continue to re ceive eligible GSP du ty-free treatment." 
 
Question5: 
The United States has many programs like AGOA, CBERA, ATPA granting tariff preferences to 
developing and least developed countries. However, the United States' GSP programme expired on 31 July 2013. Does the United States have an intention to elaborate a new GSP programme for 
developing and least developed countries? Where the comprehensive and exhaustive information 
on preferential treatment accorded to developi ng and least developed countries can be found?  
 
RESPONSE:  With respect to GSP, the first priority is reauthorization of the program. 
Once that has been accomplished, the Admini stration looks forward to consulting with 
Congress on possible reforms to the GSP progra m to take into account evolving global 
trade relations, including the growing co mpetitiveness of many emerging market 
GSP beneficiaries. 
 The USTR Annual Report provides information and updates on all U.S. trade preference 
programs. The most recent report can be found here: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-
offices/press-office/rep orts-and-publications/2014 . Additional program-specific 
information about these programs can be found on the USTR web site: 
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trad e-development/preference-programs. 
 3.1.4.1 Nomenclature Paragraph 3.33, page 49  
 
"The HTSUS follows the WCO's Harmonized Sy stem nomenclature for Chapters 1 to 97. 
Two additional chapters, 98 and 99, contain special provisions on classification, temporary 
legislation, temporary modifications, or additional import restrictions." 
 Question 6: 
Shall the goods be classified under Chapters 98 or 99 in addition to the chapters 1 – 97, or they 
are to be classified under these two chapters on ly? What are the criteria to classify the goods 
under these two additional Chapters?  
RESPONSE: Because the United States uses th e Harmonized System as the basis of its 
tariff schedule, goods are classified in the pr ovisions of chapters 1 through 97. Chapters 
98 and 99 provide specific duty treatment or qu antitative limits for particular goods, but 
do not reclassify the goods in question . The treatment under these two chapters 
involves, for example, certain named products  covered by statutes (such as temporary 
tariff remissions or the African Growth and Opportunity Act) or by free trade agreement 
commitments, or those entered by particular importers (such as nonprofit institutions 
under the Florence Agreement). Importers re port both the classification number from 
chapters 1-97 and the chapter 98 or 99 number  to claim the tariff treatment set forth in 
these two chapters. 
 
Paragraph 3.35, page 50  
"The United States implemented other nomenclature changes to the HTSUS in 2011 
relating to footwear; these have still not been notified to the WTO for modification of the WTO 
schedule."  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 375 - 
 
  3.1.4.3 Bindings 
Paragraph 3.40, page 52  
"U.S. WTO tariff commitments, as contained in Schedule XX, were last updated in 2011 
after approval of the HS2002 nomenclature change s. However, a number of changes to the HTSUS 
have not yet been notified to the WTO as a chan ge to Schedule XX. These include the third and 
fourth revisions to the pharmaceutical coverage, Chapter notes, and Article XXVIII tobacco renegotiations." 
 
Question 7:  
The WTO Secretariat Report (paragraphs 3.35 and 3.40) points that the United States has not yet notified some applied tariff nomenclature changes. When does the United States intend to notify 
these changes to the WTO? 
 RESPONSE: The United States will be noti fying the Committee on Market Access of 
modifications to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect changes to the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon  as possible. For further reference, the 
footwear nomenclature changes from late 2011 will be included in the certification of 
2012 nomenclature changes. The footwear chan ges are shown in the U.S. International 
Trade Commission website section on HTS modifications: http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/modifications_hts.htm . 
 
Specifically, the full text of the Presiden tial Proclamation regarding the footwear 
changes is published in the Federal Regist er, available at the following website: 
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/hts_documents/PP8742.pdf .  
 
3 Trade policies and practices by measure 3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g and safeguards measures 
 
Paragraphs 3.64 and 3.65, page 61  
Paragraphs 3.64 and 3.65 refer to some changes of the U.S. approach towards the 
so-called "non-market economy" methodologies in  anti-dumping investigations. In 2002, the 
United States acknowledged "market economy" stat us of the Russian Federation. But, despite this 
fact the United States currently applies six long lasting prohibitive anti-dumping measures on 
imports from the Russian Federation of certain steel, chemical and uranium products which were 
calculated on the basis of the "non-market economy" methodology and, consequently, by no means relate to the current import prices. The U.S.  anti-dumping legislation provides for extension 
of anti-dumping measures without recalculation of  the dumping margin during the sunset review. 
In result, the anti-dumping measures introduc ed before 2002 and which are going soon to 
celebrate their twentieth or even thirtieth anniversar ies are still in place, time after time extended 
following the sunset reviews. Administrative reviews give little use to make these prohibitive anti-
dumping measures less restrictive and more adequate to the current conditions because these 
extremely burdensome proceedings should be carried out on the yearly basis. Given all that, it seems that the U.S. anti-dumping legislation and practice are primarily aimed at endless 
continuation of the measures that were once imposed and do not reflect anymore the real 
economic conditions.  
Question 8:  
Could the United States explain how the dumping margins determined dozens of years ago on the basis of the so-called "non-market economy" me thodology may be relevant to offset alleged 
current dumping? Could the United States prov ide the rationale why the dumping margin once 
calculated on the basis of the "non-market economy" methodology is presumed to be relevant for 
all the period of application of the measure irresp ective of changed economic and legal conditions, 
where the exporters which actually do not sell on dumped prices should prove every year that the 
actual dumping margin is less than the applied duty? 
 RESPONSE: The United States disagrees wi th Russia's characterization of the 
U.S. administrative review process and U.S.  legislation and practice. The antidumping 
duty margins raised in the question were the last time that any interested party had requested a review of the antidumping du ties in effect. Under the Antidumping 
Agreement and U.S. law, interested parties are given an opportunity to request an 
administrative review of an antidumping duty  measure. If an interested party has an WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 376 - 
 
  interest in having a margin of dumping re-examined by the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, it should ask Commerce to do so in  accordance with Commerce's regulations.  
 Paragraph 3.66, page 61 
 
1. Paragraph 3.66 states that in 2010-2014 there was a tendency where "remedies with respect to 
developed countries decreased". Nevertheless, some steps by the United States lead to the 
opposite. The United States applies an anti-dumping measure on Russian ammonium nitrate and 
products thereof which are basically fertilizers commercially used by agricultural producers. Recently the U.S. authority in its product scope determination stated that ammonium sulfate nitrate was also subject to the measure because the Russian product was an "ammonium nitrate 
product". The crucial question is that Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement explicitly states that 
the anti-dumping measure shall be applied only pursuant to investigations conducted in accordance with the Agreement. However, it appears that the United States has never made an 
appropriate investigation of imports of ammonium sulfate nitrate, thus imposing an anti-dumping 
duty in the volume of 254% on th e product that has never been investigated. It is clear from the 
text of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the anti -dumping measure should be applied to imports 
of the "product" which was "under consideration" during the investigation. In addition, throughout 
the whole investigation the "product under consideration" should remain consistent, or in other words, the same. Its changes affect anti-dumping determinations, especially normal value calculation and injury assessment." 
 
Question 9:  
Could the United States inform whether the imports of products comprising predominantly double 
salts of ammonia, such as ammonium sulfate nitrate, have ever been the "product under 
consideration" during the relevant anti-dumpi ng proceedings? Please specify whether the 
United States considers ammonium sulfate nitrate to be "like" ammonium nitrate and products 
thereof? Is the United States of the view that  the said product scope determination is without 
prejudice to or should not have affected the norm al value, injury and other determinations during 
the relevant proceedings? If the answer is positive, please explain, why?  
RESPONSE: On August 6, 2013, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) found 
that a fertilizer product know n as NS 30:7 is covered by the scope of the antidumping 
duty order on solid fertilizer grade ammonia nitrate from the Russian Federation. This 
product is comprised of a combination of ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and 
double salts of ammonium sulfate nitrate. That said, Commerce's NS 30:7 scope finding 
does not address the question of whether prod ucts other than NS 30:7 that may contain 
ammonium sulfate nitrate are also within th e scope of this antidumping duty order. 
Finally, under U.S. law, the U.S. Internatio nal Trade Commission exercises the authority 
to make "like product" findings within the context of injury determinations.  
 
2. We refer to the same paragraph 3.66, which states that in 2010-2014 there was a tendency 
where "remedies with respect to developed countries decreased". Nevertheless, it seems that the number of trade remedy measures of the United States against Russian goods remains constant 
and may even increase. 
 Question 10:  
Could the United States explain the reasons for such tendency in remedies with respect to 
developed countries? What kind of actions should the Russian Federation or Russian exporters undertake in order to facilitate the decrease and to prevent the increase of the anti-dumping duties on Russian products? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with applicable WTO agreements. Antidumping duty investigations are in itiated in response 
to petitions filed by a U.S. industry. The de cision to impose an antidumping measure is 
based on a factual determination of whet her dumping exists and whether dumped 
imports have caused, or threaten to cause, ma terial injury to a domestic industry. Where 
dumped imports, and material injury caused by such imports have been found, the 
United States will impose an antidumping duty measure.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 377 - 
 
  Interested parties are welcome to submit data, comments, or other information in 
accordance with U.S. Department of Commerce's or U.S. International Trade Commission's submission requirements for a particular investigation or review. 
 
Paragraphs 3.67 and 3.68, pages 62-63 
 
Paragraphs 3.67 and 3.68 state that in 2013 th ere was a significant increase in anti-
dumping investigations: 39 new investigations were initiated. In terms of product groups 35 
investigations were launched in the metals sector, 33 of them relating to steel products. This increase looks to be of a systemic nature.  
Question 11:  
Could the United States explain what the basic economic reasons of such tendency are? Which 
economic factors and indices considered by the inve stigating authority in these investigations have 
been determinative when the material injury to the domestic industry has been found? 
 RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with 
applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to a petition filed by a U.S. industry. Consequently, when the 
number of petitions satisfying  the criteria for initiation increases, the number of 
initiations will increase.  
 
In making its injury determination, the U. S. International Trade Commission's analysis 
is consistent with the requirements of th e Antidumping Agreement or the Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures Agreement, as applic able, and U.S. laws. No one factor taken 
into consideration is considered more de terminative than another, but rather the 
evidence in the administrative record is viewed as a whole. 
 
 3.1.9 Sanitary and Phytosanitary requirements Paragraph 3.87, page 69  
  "The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (F SMA), a major reform of legislation on food 
safety and the safety of animal feed under the responsibility of the FDA, entered into force on 
4 January 2011." 
 
Question 12: In accordance with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2014 exporters must renew their 
registration. How does the U.S. ensure that the FSMA does not impose unnecessary burden on an 
exporter of food products through re-registration every two years?  RESPONSE: The owner, operator, or agent in ch arge of a domestic or foreign facility that 
is engaged in the manufacturing/processi ng, packing, or holding of food for 
consumption in the United States, unless th e facility qualifies for an exemption, is 
responsible for complying with FDA's food facility registration requirements. If an 
individual is only an exporter, he or she is not required to register with FDA. FDA's food 
facility registration requirements apply to dome stic facilities as well as foreign facilities. 
FDA has information on its website, accessi ble worldwide, to assist facilities in 
complying with FDA's food facili ty registration requirements: http://www.fda.gov/ 
Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFa cilityRegistration/default.htm . 
 
3.1.9.2 Food Safety and Inspection Service  
3.91. page 69 
 
"The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA is responsible, inter alia, for 
ensuring the safety and accurate labelling of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, including 
imports. The FSIS is also responsible for recogn izing foreign regulatory systems as providing a 
level of protection for these commodities equivale nt to that provided in the United States. The 
United States has recognized 35 countries with meat, poultry, and/or egg inspection systems 
equivalent to its own. According to the authorities, these are not equivalence agreements but rather recognitions by the FSIS. In December 2012, the FDA reached its first such arrangement with the Ministry for Primary Industries of New Zealand, whereby the participants recognize their 
food safety systems as comparable to each other. This Food Safety Systems Recognition WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 378 - 
 
  Arrangement does not grant New Zealand and the United States any additional access to each 
other's markets. There are no major new developments regarding FSIS import requirements since the last Review of the United States."  
Question 13: 
Could you please clarify the criteria for recognit ion of foreign regulatory systems as equivalent 
systems in the United States for meat, poultry and processed egg products? What is the procedure 
for recognition for equivalency?  
 RESPONSE: FSIS may recognize the inspection system of another country provided that 
the information obtained from a questionna ire, a technical review of the country's 
inspection system, and an on-site audit reve al that the country's inspection system 
satisfies FSIS regulatory objectives. FSIS has made an equivalence determination for the meat, poultry and processed egg products  inspection systems of many countries. 
FSIS recognition of a trading partner with re spect to its inspection system for such 
products enables that country to certify estab lishments that are eligible to export that 
product to the United States. 
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade Paragraph 3.3.1, page 79  
"The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 signed into law in January 2013 further 
extended the 50% first-year bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired and placed in 
service from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013. It also provided one-year extensions for 
several tax credits, including: credit for altern ative-fuel vehicle refuelling property; alternative 
fuels excise tax credits; extension and modification of cellulosic biofuel producer credit; incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel; and special allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property." 
 
Question 14:  
It is our understanding that there are the federal and sub-federal programs providing incentives such as capital subsidies, tax credits, etc.  to alternative fuels, renewable energy and 
energy-efficient equipment suppliers. Could the U.S. please specify how these programs comply 
with Article 3 of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures (ASCM)?  
RESPONSE: WTO Members are permitted to pr ovide subsidies so long as they are not 
"prohibited" or cause "adverse effects" to  the trade interests of other Members, as 
defined under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. U.S. incentive 
programs are consistent with the WTO obligations of the United States.  
  3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance 
 
Paragraphs 3.139, 3.140, page 80  
We refer to the following programs of state support provided in the United States to the renewable 
energy products: 
1) Michigan: Renewable Energy Credits under the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy 
Act (Public Act 295) 
2) California: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) - Solar Photovoltaic 
Incentive Program 3) California : Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) 
4) Texas: Austin Energy 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 379 - 
 
  Question 15:  
These subsidy programs have not been notified by the United States in accordance with the provisions of the ASCM. Is the United States in a position that these support programs do not constitute "subsidies" within the meaning of this te rm as provided for in the ASCM? If yes, why? If 
not, does the United States intend to comply wi th the transparency commitments and notify these 
programs, inter alia providing the amounts of these subsidies? It appears that in accordance with the legal acts establishing these support programs some of the incentives are conditioned upon 
local content requirements. Does the United States intend to bring these programs into compliance 
with its commitments under the ASCM. If yes, what is intended to be done and when? If no, why? 
 RESPONSE: India submitted requests for information from the United States in the 
TRIMS and Subsidies Committees with respec t to the aforementioned programs (see, 
G/TRIMS/W/117; G/SCM/Q2/USA/59). The Unit ed States replied to these questions 
(see, G/TRIMS/W/129/Rev.1; G/SCM/Q2/USA/61). 
 
Paragraph 3.3.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises  Point 3.165, page 84 
 
It is mentioned that the United States has two main formal structures in which the federal 
government is involved, for public policy reasons,  in generally private sector activities; these are 
government corporations and government-sponsored  enterprises (GSEs). In addition, the Federal 
Government has established a number of financial institutions for public policy purposes. These 
"quasi-governmental entities" referred to as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are private corporations with nationwide lending power; they  are structured and regulated by the government 
in order to enhance their ability to borrow money. Their securities are not backed by the full faith 
or credit of the U.S. Government, but they receiv e certain special privileges or, as in the case of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, receive federal assistance as a result of the financial crisis. 
 
Question 16: To what extent are they sponsored and regulate d by the Government? What specific budgetary 
allocations form the fund of «quasi-governmental entities»? What subsidies and privileges do they 
receive? What functions does the Agricultural Mo rtgage Corporation execute? What agricultural 
directions do the mortgage funds fulfill? How does this assistance relate to the government support measures? 
 
RESPONSE: Government corporations (e.g., Overse as Private Investment Corporation) 
are revenue generating enterprises that are le gally distinct but operated by the federal 
government.  
 
In comparison, government sponsored enterprises (e.g., Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation – Freddie Mac) are privately held  corporations with pu blic purposes created 
by the U.S. Congress. 
 
The laws and regulations that are applicable  t o  e i t h e r  g o v e r n m e n t  c o r p o r a t i o n s  o r  
government sponsored enterprises vary depe nding on the entity. The funding provided 
for each of these entities, to the extent app licable, varies from enti ty to entity. Further 
information regarding the budget for these entities can be found at: 
http://www.omb.gov.  
Further information regarding the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac) can be found at: https://www.farmermac.com .  
 
 
Paragraph 3.3.6 Intellectual property rights Point 3.195., page 92 
 
"Fastest growth in downloads reportedly came from the United States, Brazil, the 
Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, and India, while growth in revenues was greatest for 
Japan, the United States, the Republic of Korea, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with growth in 
Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey also noteworthy."   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 380 - 
 
  Question 17: 
Could the United States provide more precise information on the statistics and its source for the mentioned growth in downloads reportedly came from Russia?  
RESPONSE: The Secretariat's Report does not provide a citation for this sentence. The 
Secretariat will be in the best position to pr ovide the citation on which it relied for this 
statement. 
 
Paragraph 3.3.6.3 The patent system Point 3.200., page 94  
"The overall strategic goal of the Department of Commerce Strategic Plan for 2014-18 is to 
expand the U.S. economy and fostering U.S. job growth through increased exports and inward foreign investment. It identified a role for the USPT O in helping build the capacity of U.S. regional 
economies to accelerate the production of va lue-added goods and services, strengthening the 
digital economy, and accelerating the growth of innovation-intensive economic sectors by building public and private capacity to invent, improve, and commercialize new products and services, as 
well as promoting enhanced IP protection abroad. The USPTO's own strategic plan for 2014-18 
sets out three goals for this period: optimize patent quality and timeliness; optimize trademark quality and timeliness; and provide domestic and global leadership to improve IP policy, protection, and enforcement." 
 
Question 18: The patent law in the U.S. requires disclosing to the USPTO all relevant prior art known to the 
applicants by means of an Information Disclosure St atement. For each document to be disclosed in 
an IDS that is not in the English language, a translation into the English language must be submitted. Another concern which causes inconven ience and additional expense in a U.S. design 
application is the requirement for drawings to be black and white (excluding gray scale and 
colored). Does the U.S. plan to reduce these burdens for non-U.S. applicants?  RESPONSE: The duty of disclosure under U.S. law helps to ensure that effective 
examination of patent application is performe d by requiring known relevant prior art be 
submitted and thereby placed before the examiner that is making a determination as to whether the application should be allowe d to issue as a patent. Further, this 
requirement also ensures that inventors and those otherwise involved in prosecution do 
not "hide" relevant prior art that may be mate rial to the patentability of the application. 
 
The USPTO has drawing requirements that he lp ensure the subject matter sought for 
protection as an industrial design is clea rly conveyed and what the design is will be 
clearly understood. While line drawings are an encouraged manner of depicting the design in an application, applicants can f ile photographs or computer generated images 
assuming these images satisf y the requirements for patent ability. However, because of 
the nature of these figures, these types of filings (compared to those with black and white line drawings) more frequently have degradations in drawing quality or other 
similar issues that result in these figu res not satisfying the written description 
requirement which as a result can pr event rights from being granted. 
 
Paragraph 3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
Point 3.204., page 95  
"During the review period, the Administration announced a series of initiatives to build on 
the AIA reforms with a view to improving the pa tent system foster innovation and to protect 
innovators from what was termed "frivolous litigation"."  
Question 19: 
Please elaborate on the mentioned initiatives to use crowd sourcing techniques and resources for identifying prior art relevant to determining the novelty of claimed inventions. 
 
RESPONSE: The USPTO held a roundtable on crowdsourcing on April 10, 2014 in Alexandria, VA and December 2, 2014 in New Yo rk City, NY to solicit public opinions 
regarding the use of crowdsourcing and third- party preissuance subm issions to identify 
relevant prior art and enhance the quality of examination as well as the quality of issued WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 381 - 
 
  patents. Members of the public were invited to participate. For more information about 
both events, please see http://www.uspto.gov/pate nts/init_events/crowd 
sourcing_roundtable_04-2014.jsp  and 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_event s/crowd sourcing_roundtable_20141202.jsp. 
For more information about third party preissuance submissi ons, please see 
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementati on/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp . 
 
Paragraph 3.213, page 97  
"The Copyright Office is also engaged in additional work on issues related to copyright 
registration, a review of the copyright recordatio n system, an inquiry into technological updates, 
and associated regulatory rulemakings." 
 
Question 20: The U.S. Copyright Office is engaged in additional work on issues related to copyright registration. 
As we know, according to the U.S. legislation, the U.S. Copyright office provides registration of 
copyright for works. What kind of advantages th e registration (deposit) of works in the U.S. 
provides for foreign authors? Could you please clarify whether the mandatory registration for the 
works of foreign authors is required in the U.S. with the aim to protect its property rights and 
personal non-property rights. How the works of foreign authors which have not been registered in The U.S. Copyright office are protected in US?  
RESPONSE: Copyright registration with the U.S.  Copyright Office is not a requirement for 
protection, but there are several advantages to  registration, including creating a public 
record of the copyright claim. Section 410 of  the 1976 Copyright Act establishes that if 
ma de bef o r e o r w i t hi n f iv e ye ars of publication, registrati on will establish prima facie 
evidence in court of the validity of th e copyright and the facts stated in the 
certificate. Further, accordin g to Section 412, a timely regi stration will make statutory 
damages and attorney's fees available to the owner in court actions. Registration also 
allows the owner to record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection 
against the importation of infringing copies into the United States.  
Although Section 410 of the Act makes copyri ght registration a prerequisite for civil 
infringement actions, this only  applies to United States works. Accordingly there is no 
mandatory registration requirement for th e works of foreign authors, and their 
copyrights are protected in the United States  to the same extent as domestic authors' 
rights.   
Paragraph 3.3.6.7 IP enforcement, page 100 
"The Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets for 2013 identified specific 
markets around the world that were assessed as causing particular economic harm to U.S. businesses and workers, through IP infringement." 
 
Question 21:  
If available, could the U.S. provide certain es timates of the particular economic harm to 
U.S. businesses and workers by each notorious market?  
RESPONSE: The United States developed the Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of 
Notorious Markets for 2013 under the auspices  of the annual Special 301 process, taking 
into account public comments solicited by USTR through the Federal Register and the 
input of other Federal agencies. The List id entifies marketplaces that have been the 
subject of enforcement actions or that may merit further investigation for possible IPR 
infringements. These markets have been se lected for inclusion both because they 
exemplify concerns about trademark counterfe iting and copyright piracy on a global 
basis and because the scale and popularity of these marketplaces can cause economic 
harm to U.S. and other IPR holders. They may also pose health and safety risks to 
consumers as well as provide inadequate safeguards for co nsumer privacy and security. 
The submissions provided in response to th e request for comments solicited through the 
Federal Register are available at www.regulations.gov , which provides a search 
function. Such submissions may incl ude data regarding economic harm. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 382 - 
 
  Paragraph 3.3.6.7 IP enforcement 3.221., page 100 
"Separately, in 2013 the IPEC launched an interagency review of the exclusion orders 
pertaining to intellectual property issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the ITC under Section 337, including a request for submissions from the public. The review was announced as 
"directed at strengthening the procedures and practices used during enforcement of exclusion 
orders pertaining to intellectual property." An interagency working group would review procedures used "to evaluate the scope of exclusion orders and work to ensure the process and criteria utilized 
during exclusion order enforcement activities are transparent, effective, and efficient." 
 Question 22: The U.S. Government Accountability Office in its report on enforcement of exclusion orders 
pertaining to intellectual property by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published on 
November 19, 2014 recommended CBP inter alia to routinely identify any orders whose changed conditions merit a CBP request that ITC rescind th em. According to CBP, it is not mandated to 
identify potentially outdated orders and request that U.S. International Trade Commission rescind 
them. Does the U.S. consider a possibility to authorize CBP to identify potentially outdated 
exclusion orders to strengthen their efficiency? 
 
RESPONSE: Once an exclusion order becomes fi nal, 19 U.S.C. §1337(k)(1) provides that 
it shall remain in effect until the ITC determ ines, and notifies CBP, that the conditions 
which led to the exclusion no longer exist. 
 
Pursuant to ITC regulations, "any person" ma y notify the ITC of changed conditions of 
law or fact that would warrant rescission  of an exclusion order. See 19 C.F.R. 
§210.76(a)(1). The term "any person" would include CBP, therefore no additional 
authority in this regard would be needed for CBP to notify the ITC of changed circumstances. 
 
4 Trade policies by sector 4.1 Agriculture 4.1.1 Agricultural Act of 2014 
Overview, page 101 
 
"As it is mentioned in the Secretariat's report the United States will spend around 80% of 
outlays on nutrition programs. We see also in the USA notifications for last years that almost 90% 
of all green box measures are spent on to the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program and Child Nutrition Programs and these amounts are steadily increased within last years. If we take the 
U.S. notification of the year 2011 we will see, that the Domestic Food Aid measures count for 27% 
share of the total value of agricultural pr oduction (US$103151 million for food aid versus 
US$380780 million of the total value of production)."  
Question 23: 
We do know that green box measures have no trade-distorting impact, are not limited and are not to be reduced. But still we have doubts that such a considerable amount of budgetary outlays on 
two programs has no distorting impact on trade. Could you please comment on this? 
 RESPONSE: Both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Child 
Nutrition Programs (CNP) provide support to low-income and/or vulnerable populations 
by providing assistance for food purchases at  the retail level. Both programs meet the 
eligibility and administrative requirements for exempt domestic food assistance.  
 
Para 4.9-4.1.1.2 of the Secretariat Report. Giving  details on the 2014 Farm Bill and analizing of 
the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and The Agriculture Risk Coverage, the Secretariat speaks about potential increase in trade and production distortions of certain new measures. How would you 
asses and treat this types programs? In what part of the domestic support tables you are placing 
them?  
RESPONSE: The PLC and ARC programs are pa id on historical production without 
reference to current production, removing the incentives that lead to surplus production. 
Because producers cannot increase their paym ents as a result of current planting 
decisions, plantings would be based on market incentives. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 383 - 
 
  The United States has made no official de termination of WTO classification of any 
programs established in the 2014 Farm B ill. The United States will notify the 
classification of these programs as part of  its official domestic support notification. 
 
The USTR Annual Report provides information and updates on all U.S. trade preference 
programs. The most recent report can be found here: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-
offices/press-office/rep orts-and-publications/2014 . Additional program-specific 
information about these programs can be found  on the USTR web site: http://www.ustr. 
gov/trade-topics/trade-development/preference-programs. 
 
3.1.6.3 Sanctions, controls, or special procedures 
Page 60 
3.59. The United States maintains a number of sanctions against certain countries, for various reasons, some of which impose trade restrictions . While the majority of sanctions do not have 
trade provisions, some have direct provisions on goods or services. A variety of trade sanctions 
remain in place for Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.  
Questions :  
 As it mentioned in the Secretariat's report the United States maintains a number of sanctions against certain countries. The questions below relate to the following legal acts adopted by the 
United States: 
Executives orders of the President of the U.S.  of 6th, 17th and 20th March 2014 (hereafter 
Executives orders).  
Act "Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine 
Act of 2014" of 3 April 2014;  
Rule of Department of commerce Bureau of  Industry and Security of 16 April 2014;  
Rule of Department of commerce Bureau of Industry and Security of 1 May 2014;  
Rule of Department of commerce Bureau of Industry and Security of 1 May 2014;  Rule of Department of the treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control of 8 May 2014;  Notice of Department of the treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control of 30 May 2014; 
Rule of Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security of 22 July 2014;  
Rule of Department of commerce Bureau of Industry and Security of 6 August 2014;  
Notice of Department of the treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control of 7 August 2014;  
Guidance of Department of the treasury Offi ce of Foreign Assets Control of 14 August 
2014; 
and other related acts of the United States.  
 
Question 24 
1. In accordance with the said Executive orders  all property and interests in property that 
are in the United States, that thereafter come wi thin the United States, or that are or hereafter 
come within the possession or control of any United States person (including foreign branch) of the 
persons determined by the Treasury of th e United States, including persons of the 
Russian Federation, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or 
otherwise dealt in.  
Please explain the nature of this measure and rational behind it.  
RESPONSE: The nature of Executive Orders 13660 (March 6, 2014), 13661 
(March 19, 2014) and 13662 (March 24, 2014) ar e explained in those documents. These 
measures were imposed in response to the actions and policies of the 
Russian government with respect to Ukrain e that undermine democratic processes and 
institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial 
integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets. 
 
Please explain the criteria used for the inclusion of certain Russian natural and legal 
persons on the List of persons to which this measure is applied.  
 
RESPONSE: The criteria for inclusion of certain natural and legal persons, regardless of 
nationality, are set forth in Executiv e Orders 13660 (March 6, 2014), 13661 
(March 19, 2014) and 13662 (March 24, 2014).  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 384 - 
 
  This measure is applied only in respect of Russi an services suppliers, to this extent, please 
explain, how this measure complies with the requirements of GATS Article II. 
 
RESPONSE: The factual predicate for this question is incorrect. The measures apply to 
persons, irrespective of nationality, th at engage in activities that undermine 
Ukraine's democracy and threaten its peac e, security, stability, sovereignty, and 
territorial integrity. The measure does not apply only to Russian service suppliers. For 
example, we have also designated  a number of Ukrainian persons. 
 The measure prohibits the commercial presence of Russian services suppliers included on 
the List within the territory of the U.S. to supp ly services in the sectors in which the U.S. has 
undertaken specific commitments, to this extent, please explain, how this measure complies with 
the requirements of GATS Articles XVI and XVII. 
Please indicate the provision of the WTO Agreement that justifies this measure.  
 
RESPONSE: With respect to these questions, the United States carefully considered its WTO obligations before adopting these meas ures. These measures comply with those 
obligations.  
 
Question 25:   
2. The Executive order of 20
th March contains an illustrative list of sectors of the economy of the 
Russian Federation, the operators of which are subjected to the mentioned restrictions. Among 
others they contain: financial services, energy, mining and engineering.  
Please explain the nature of this measure and rational behind it. 
 
RESPONSE: The nature of Executive Orders 13660 (March 6, 2014), 13661 
(March 19, 2014) and 13662 (March 24, 2014) ar e explained in those documents. These 
measures were imposed in response to the actions and policies of the Russian 
government with respect to Ukraine that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial 
integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets. 
 
Please explain the criteria used for listing these particular services sectors to be subject to 
the restrictions. 
 
RESPONSE: The sectors identified in Execut ive Order No. 13662 ar e key sectors of the 
Russian economy that are implicated in Ru ssia's actions with respect to Ukraine.  
 Taking into account that the U.S. has undertaken specific commitments in these sectors, 
please explain, how this measure complies with the GATS Articles XVI and XVII.  
Please indicate the provision of the WTO Agreement that justifies this measure.  
 RESPONSE: With respect to these questions, the United States carefully considered its 
WTO obligations before adopting these meas ures. These measures comply with those 
obligations.  
 
Question 26:   
3. Acts mentioned in paragraph 1 prohibit business dealings with certain natural and legal 
persons, including those of the Russian Federation; prohibit correspondent relations with certain Russian financial institutions; prohibits transactions connected with debentures with subjects of 
Russian financial sector; prohibit holding shares in capital subject of such restrictions. By applying 
any of these measures, the U.S. fails not to impose restrictions on international transfers and payments for current transactions relating to their specific commitments. 
Please explain the nature of this measure and rational behind it. 
 RESPONSE: The nature of Executive Orders 13660 (March 6, 2014), 13661 
(March 19, 2014) and 13662 (March 24, 2014) ar e explained in those documents. These 
measures were imposed in response to the actions and policies of the Russian 
government with respect to Ukraine that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial 
integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 385 - 
 
  Taking into account that the USA has undertaken specific commitments in a number of 
sectors, please explain, how this measure complies with the GATS Articles XI, XVI and XVII when applied to the services sector where the U.S. has undertaken specific commitments? 
Please indicate the provision of the WTO Agreement that justifies this measure.  
 
RESPONSE: With respect to these questions, the United States carefully considered its WTO obligations before adopting these meas ures. These measures comply with those 
obligations.  
 
Question 27:   
4. The USA imposes certain measures affecting also trade in goods between the 
Russian Federation and the USA, in particular, thou gh not exclusively, the restrictions on exports 
of certain goods to the Russian Federation, as well as transit of such goods through the territory of 
the U.S. when destined to the territory of the Russian Federation.  
 
Please explain the nature of this measure and rational behind it.  
RESPONSE: The nature of Executive Orders 13660 (March 6, 2014), 13661 
(March 19, 2014) and 13662 (March 24, 2014) ar e explained in those documents. These 
measures were imposed in response to the actions and policies of the Russian 
government with respect to Ukraine that undermine democratic processes and 
institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial 
integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets. 
 
This measure is applied only in respect of  goods destined to the territory of the 
Russian Federation, please explain how this measure complies with GATT Article I. 
This measure is a restriction on transit of certain goods from the territory of the U.S. when 
they are destined to the territory of the Russian Federation; please explain how this measure 
complies with GATT Article V. 
This measure is a restriction on exports of certain goods from the territory of the U.S., 
please explain how this measure complies with GATT Article XI. 
Please indicate the provision of the WTO Agreement that justifies this measure.  
 RESPONSE: With respect to these questions, the United States carefully considered its 
WTO obligations before adopting these meas ures. These measures comply with those 
obligations.   
Question 28:   
In respect of all measures mentioned above: Does the U.S. apply measures that are similar to any of the measures described above in 
respect of any other WTO Member? If yes, please explain the reasons for applying such measures 
to other WTO Members and indicate legal acts according to which such measures are applied?  
 RESPONSE: The United States carefully consid ered its WTO obligations before adopting 
any similar measures against other WTO Memb ers. These measures comply with those 
obligations.  
 
Were all of the mentioned measures of the USA referred to above notified to the WTO? If 
no, please explain, why?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States considers that none of the notification obligations under 
the WTO Agreement require notification of these measures.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 386 - 
 
  SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF 
  Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/307) 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(4.2) SERVICES (4.2.1) Financial Services 
 
Paragraph 73 states:   "Bank consolidation and asset concentration are long-term industry trends and have become 
particularly acute among top-tier U.S. banks in th e aftermath of the financial crisis. The assets of 
the U.S. banking system are dominated by the eight largest banks (designated as global systemically-important financial institutions, or "G-SIFIs"), followed by a tier of large regional 
banks with over US$250 billion in assets. JP Morgan Chase is the largest commercial bank in terms 
of worldwide assets (about US$2.5 trillion as of 1Q2014) 80, followed by Bank of America 
(US$2.1 trillion), Citigroup (US$1.9 trillion), and Wells Fargo (US$1.5 trillion)".  
 
Q. Is there any explicit action for "Too-Big-To-Fail" banks that can help avoid a systemic risk to global financial system?  
RESPONSE: Please see Secretary Lew's speech of December 2013, available at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/press-cent er/press-releases/Pages/jl2232.aspx . 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 387 - 
 
  SINGAPORE 
  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
III TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
QUESTIONS: 
 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
Page 42 (Para 3.2) 
 Question 1. We note that the U.S. Department of  Homeland Security is responsible for facilitating 
trade and enforcement, both security and trade rela ted, at U.S. ports of entry. We would like to 
understand how its federal agencies collaborate and coordinate trade enforcement activities. What are the types of trade enforcement activities ca rried out by the Border Interagency Executive 
Council (BIEC) and through the International Trade Data System (ITDS)? 
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Government agencies that have authorities over imports have memorandums of understanding that allow for the sharing of data. This sharing will be 
facilitated by the ITDS system, and will enable  the agencies to receive data in a timely 
manner and conduct risk analysis. In additi on, these agencies have joined together 
logistically in the Commercial Targeting an d Analysis center (CTAC). In the CTAC, the 
agencies work together to form national op erations and identify specific targets for 
enforcement.  
Page 43 (Para 3.5) 
 Question 2. We note that all import and export cargo manifest data will have to be submitted through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as of 1 May 2015. Will the Importer 
Security Filing be done through ACE as well, and will there be any costs associated for traders to 
adopt the ACE system?  
RESPONSE: Combined transmission of ISF and cargo release data will be allowed for 
filers participating in the ACE Cargo Releas e test. There may be one-time programming 
costs to adopt the new ACE formats. 
 
Page 43 (Para 3.8)  Question 3. We note that one of the BIEC's objectives is to encourage other countries to develop 
single-window systems to facilitate the sharing of da ta. What type of data does the U.S. envisage 
will be shared (declarations data, risk analysis results, etc.)? We also note that the BIEC has been tasked to identify opportunities to streamline federal government systems as a means of 
improving supply chain management processes. Has the BIEC identified any such opportunity, and 
if so, could the BIEC provide some examples of the initiatives undertaken thus far?   
RESPONSE: An increasing number of countries  have either implemented or are working 
towards implementing their own single wind ow systems. In order to facilitate the 
sharing of relevant data across government systems, and ease the reporting burden on 
traders who must comply with the requirements  of each national single window system, 
the United States is encouraging trading pa rties to move towards full use of the World 
Customs Organization (WCO) Data Model. The current U.S. data model uses the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) standard , which is compliant with the WCO data 
model; however, the U.S. does not use the WCO data model at this time. Analysis is 
underway to determine the best fit methodolog y and timing for converting U.S. to the 
WCO data model. 
 
Further, the United States has undertaken spec ific trade data harmonization efforts with 
Canada and Mexico. As part of the Beyond th e Border Action Plan, the United States and 
Canada have agreed to harmonized, common advance data elements, and have 
conducted a comparison of entry, release, an d PGA data requirements. The United States WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 388 - 
 
  and Canada also committed to developing se parate, national single-window systems; 
Canada continues to make progress on its Single Window Initiative, and the 
United States is working towards a December 2016 completion date for ITDS. With the full implementation of single window system s in both countries, Canada and the United 
States will consider additional opportunities  to utilize electronic data and automated 
capabilities to facilitate tr ade while enhancing security.  
 
As part of the 21st Century Border initiative  with Mexico, Mexico and the United States 
are working to harmonize rail manifest data elements to create a single message set 
compatible with the filing requirements of both countries. Other advanced data 
requirements will be considered once the work to harmonize rail manifest data is 
complete.  
 Page 44 (Para 3.9) 
 
Question 4. We note that one of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP)'s trade facilitating 
measures concerns advance rulings. An importer may request an advance ruling or similar legal 
decision to have assurance of how the product will be treated by customs upon importation. 
Rulings may be requested by importers, exporters, or anyone having a demonstrable interest. Are the advance rulings binding on the applicant?  
RESPONSE: Yes. The rulings are binding on both the applicant as well as CBP to the 
extent that the stated facts in the ruling are met by the applicant at the time of entry of the product into the United States. 
 
Page 44 (Para 3.11)  
Question 5. We note that one of the objectives of the Simplified Entry Pilot project to expedite 
treatment of imports arriving by air transport is to enhance security. With the reduction in data elements required, how has the U.S. achieved this objective? Is the pilot open to all companies or 
only selected traders? What would such a selection process entail?  
 
RESPONSE: The ACE Cargo Release (formerl y known as "Simplified Entry") Pilot 
provides importers with the opportunity to file a streamlined set of data early in the 
import process. Entry filers can also update  the entry information until the point that the 
conveyance arrives. Using such informatio n, CBP can efficiently target shipment 
information much earlier in the supply chain ensuring that the goods are not held for 
issues that could have been resolved pr e-loading. CBP can send a release message 
earlier in the process when appropriate and if  additional data is required, filers can 
resolve issues before the plane departs for the United States, or during transit, resulting 
in fewer goods potentially being held at a rrival into the United States. Cargo Release 
also streamlines the electronic transmission  for the filer, and assists importers in 
finalizing cargo logistics.  The ACE Cargo Release Pilot is open to all importers and brokers who meet the eligibility 
criteria for participation. To be eligible fo r participation, the applicant must: (1) be a 
self-filing importer who has the ability to f ile ACE entry summaries certified for cargo 
release or a broker who has the ability to f ile ACE entry summaries certified for cargo 
release or (2) have demonstrated the inte nt to file entry summaries in ACE.  
 Page 45 (Para 3.15 & 3.16)  
Question 6. We note that the Importer Self-Asse ssment Programme (ISA) is similar to the C-TPAT, 
which is a voluntary programme that allows importers to assume a higher level of responsibility for monitoring their own compliance. How different th e  I S A  i s  f r o m  C - T P A T  i n  t e r m s  o f  s c o p e  a n d  
benefits? Does the ISA also include customs compliance components? What are the additional 
criteria (on top of C-TPAT criteria) that companie s need to fulfil to qualify for the ISA? We also 
note from 3.16 that product safety and brokering are two areas where the private sector is being 
tasked with greater responsibility. Are there plans for the inclusion of other areas? 
 RESPONSE: The C-TPAT and ISA programs are different in their scope and orientation. ISA limits membership eligibilit y strictly to importers, wh ereas C-TPAT candidates may 
be importers, freight forwarders, manufacture rs, customs brokers, and others within the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 389 - 
 
  trade industry. ISA focuses on trade comp liance/customs compliance considerations. 
This differs from C-TPAT, which focuses on ca rgo security. ISA also provides additional 
incentives over C-TPAT. These incentives focus on post impo rtation activities, such as 
exemption from focused assessment audit, as signment of a national account manager, 
and prior disclosure considerations. 
 In order to qualify for ISA, in addition to the standard C-TPAT requirements, an 
applicant must be a U.S. or Canadian resident  importer with at least 2 years of import 
history.   Page 46 (Para 3.18) 
 
Question 7. Besides the U.S. Consumer Produc t Safety Commission (CPSC) and U.S. Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA), are there plans for any other agency to come on-board the Trusted 
Trader Program? Does the U.S. envisage that part icipants in the Trusted Trade Program have to be 
existing participants in the C-TPAT and ISA programme s to qualify? As the ultimate goal is to unify 
and replace the C-TPAT and ISA programmes, will there then be different "tiers" for companies 
wishing to only participate in one of these programmes?  
 RESPONSE: There are  plans for additional agencies to participate in the Trusted Trader 
Program to further achieve interagency participation . At this time, Trusted Trader 
Program participants must be C-TPAT certified. 
 The Trusted Trader will not replace the C-TPAT  program as there are entities in C-TPAT 
that would continue to benefit from its Tr ade Compliance incentives. The Trusted Trade 
Program will however continue to require C- TPAT as a pre-requisite to Trusted Trader . 
 
Page 47 (Para 3.22 & 3.23) 
 Question 8. We note that the Foreign Trade Zone s (FTZs) Board, which supervises and oversees 
the U.S. FTZ system, has established new regula tions for FTZs. What were the key regulations 
introduced in 2012 that pertain to FTZ controls and documentation? Could the U.S. also elaborate 
on what it means by "less information is required for the paperwork"? We also note that "[m]anufacturing accounts for over 75% of zone activity". Besides manufacturing, what are the 
other activities allowed in the FTZs? What are th e control measures imposed on manufacturers and 
users of FTZs by FTZ authorities?  
RESPONSE: In 2012, the FTZ Board revised it s regulations. The primary change in the 
2012 regulations decreased the time required to review a company's request for production authority within a FTZ. In the prior regulations this type of application 
required a 12-month review, which has been reduced to a 120-day process for most 
requests. In addition, through both the 2012 regulations and previous changes adopted 
by the FTZ Board, the processing time needed for a company's site to receive FTZ designation has been significantly reduced fr om 10 months to as little as 30 days. The 
processing time reductions were accompli shed through a full reassessment of the 
procedures needed and information required for each type of request, with previous requirements eliminated or reduced wherever  possible. Essentially, the reductions in 
processing time for production within a FT Z resulted in a vast simplification for the 
majority of cases that present no issues wh ile still allowing for a more detailed review 
where warranted by the circumstances.  
In addition to manufacturing activity, gene ral warehouse and distribution activity is 
permitted within U.S. FTZs. Specifically , the FTZ Act (19 USC 81(c)) states that 
merchandise may "be brought into a zone and may be stored, sold, ex hibited, broken up, 
repacked, assembled, distributed, sorted, graded, cleaned, mixed with foreign or 
domestic merchandise, or otherwise manipulated, or be manufactured." 
 
A U.S. FTZ is a physical location that must be designated by the FTZ Board. If a company 
intends to conduct manufacturing or processi ng activity within the zone, specific FTZ 
Board approval for that activity is also requ ired. After FTZ Board approval, FTZ activity 
takes place under the direct oversight of U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
Prior to allowing the use of FTZ procedures , CBP reviews the physical security of a WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 390 - 
 
  company's facility and its inventory control procedures. All merchandise brought into a 
zone must be approved by CBP and the facilit y remains open to inspection at all times. 
Merchandise leaving a zone is subject to standard CBP entry, export or in-bond 
procedures. 
 
 Page 70 (Para 3.96) 
 
Question 9. We note that the CBP requires export data to be filed electronically via the Automated 
Export System (AES) prior to the departure of the cargo. We understand that participants in the post-departure filing programme may file their el ectronic submissions of the Electronic Export 
Information in AES up to five calendar days af ter the departure of the conveyance. How can an 
exporter qualify for the "post-departure filing programme"?  
RESPONSE: The post-departure filing program is no longer accepting new 
applicants. CBP anticipates replacing the program with a new system that will mandate submission of limited data prio r to departure, and submission  of the remaining data post 
departure. 
 Page 74 (Para 3.108 to 3.111)  
Question 10. We understand that the Export Control Review (ECR) Initiative has been 
ongoing since 2009. What is the timeline for the completion of the ECR? Also, which are the designated "single export control" and "primary enforcement coordination" agencies in the new 
export control system?  
 RESPONSE: Commerce expects to complete th e revision of the control categories in 
2015.  
 Page 69-70 (Para 3.91)  
Question 11. Could the U.S. provide more information on its arrangement with the Ministry 
for Primary Industries of New Zealand, whereby the participants recognize their food safety systems as comparable to each other? 
 
RESPONSE: The Food Safety Systems Reco gnition Arrangement is between the New 
Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (M PI) and the United States Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) to safeguard public heal th and to ensure the safety and integrity 
of foods traded between the United States  and New Zealand. A systems recognition 
assessment was undertaken with respect to the operation of the food control systems in 
e f f e c t  i n  e a c h  c o u n t r y  a s  w e l l  a s  m o r e  i n - d epth reviews of the regulatory systems in 
place for commodities of higher regulatory in terest such as dairy products, and seafood 
(including shellfish). For more info rmation on systems recognition see 
http://www.fda.gov/food/internationa linteragencycoordination/ucm367400.htm . 
 
Page 77 (Para 3.120)  
Question 12. We understand that the U.S. Tr ade and Development Agency (USTDA) provides 
grant funding for early project planning activities  such as feasibility studies, pilot projects, and 
technical assistance to introduce foreign grantees to U.S. technologies. We would like to request for further details of the "grant funding for early project planning activities" by the USTDA, 
specifically:  
 (i) Who is eligible to apply for such funding; 
 
RESPONSE: Foreign project sponsors, from both  the public and privat e sectors, in USTDA 
eligible countries (developing and middle- income economies based on World Bank 
standard) are able to apply for grant fundin g. Additionally, U.S. companies that have 
identified a foreign project sponsor in a US TDA eligible country to partner with may 
submit a joint sole-source proposal.   WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 391 - 
 
  (ii) What is the qualifying criteria;  
 RESPONSE: When evaluating project proposals , USTDA uses the following basic criteria: 
• The project must be a development priori ty of the Project Sponsor and country 
where the project is located and have the endorsement of the U.S. Embassy in 
that nation; 
• The project must be likely to rece ive implementation financing; and 
• The project must represent an opportunity  for sales of U.S. goods and services. 
 (iii) What activities/costs are covered by such funding;  
RESPONSE: USTDA funding covers the cost of labor and other expenses related to the 
costs of conducting a project planning study.   
(iv) Whether the export of U.S. goods and services for pilot projects are covered by such 
funding;  
RESPONSE: USTDA funding does not cover the cost of U.S. exports.  
 (v) How much funding is awarded to each grantee? If it differs for each grantee, how does the USTDA determine the amount of funding awarded and is there a cap on the amount of funding 
provided to each grantee?  
 RESPONSE: The amount of funding awarded to  each grantee varies depending on the 
project and level of effort required to co mplete the work. The funding amount awarded 
is based upon a thorough analysis of the proposal submitted to USTDA. The activities 
that USTDA has funded are listed in the Agency's Annual Report 
(http://www.ustda.gov/pubs/annualreport/2013/ ), which provides a range of funding 
per project.  
 Page 80 (Para 3.134) 
 
Question 13. We understand that there are state-level legislatures focused on providing investment incentives to businesses through gran ts, tax credits, loans, and corporate income tax 
abatement with the aim of promoting, inter a lia, job creation (New Jersey, Oregon), clean 
technology (New Mexico, Wyoming), and developmen t activities (Colorado). Could the U.S. provide 
more information on the impact of these state-level investment incentives, in particular those on 
job creation in the U.S. (in the case of New Je rsey, Oregon)? Are these investment incentives 
granted to companies contingent upon job creation conditions? If so, could the U.S. provide further 
details of the job creation conditions that are tied to these investment incentives?  
RESPONSE: Please see the latest subsid y notification of the United States 
(G/SCM/N/253/USA).  
 
Page 85 (Para 3.167) 
 Question 14. We understand that the U.S. passed new legislation in late 2010 to create a 
federal excise tax on foreign entities receiving payments for purchases of goods and services. 
What was the policy intent behind the 2% federal ex cise tax on foreign entities receiving payments 
for the U.S. federal government's purchases of  goods and services? We also note that the 
regulatory changes to implement the law have not yet been finalised, and would like to know when 
is this law expected be in effect.  
 RESPONSE: The legislation was passed by the U.S. Congress and the legislative history 
does not indicate the policy intent behind the 2% federal excise tax. 
 The effective date of the statute was the da te of its enactment, January 2, 2011. The 
U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in the process of 
drafting regulations and cannot yet specify when these regulations will be finalized. 
  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 392 - 
 
  SOUTH AFRICA 
  REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/307)  
 
3.1.1.1 Trade facilitation measures 3.1.1.1.1 Single window (pg. 43) 
 
Question 1: South Africa (SA) takes note that the USA has been working toward establishing a 
single-window for a number of years. If work on the International Trade Data System (ITDS) is expected to be completed by December 2016, will the USA be in a position to make a commitment 
to establish a single window, as is set out in the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) that was 
agreed upon in Bali in 2013?  
RESPONSE : As a developed country, once the United  States has notified the WTO of its 
intention to implement the Agreement, the Un ited States will be bound by all of the 
commitments of the Agreement contained ther ein. As noted in the report, the United 
States has already begun extensive work  on our single window system, the 
International Trade Data System (ITDS), which we expect to be operational in December 
2016.   
3.1.1.1.3. Advance rulings (pg. 44) 
 Question 2: Can the USA explain what would constitute 'a demonstrable interest'? 
 
RESPONSE:  The term a "demonstrable interest" allows any party with an interest in a 
question or transaction to apply for an advance ruling. The term is meant to allow more 
than principals such as an importer, export er, or producer to apply for advance rulings. 
For example, sureties, carriers, freight fo rwarders, brokers, and manufacturers may 
apply.   
The use of that term a "demonstrable interest " is meant to act as a catch-all allowing 
any parties with an interest in a question or  transaction to apply for an advance ruling. 
The term is meant to allow more than principl e parties such as an importer, exporter, or 
producer to apply for advance rulings for exam ple, sureties, carriers, freight forwarders, 
brokers, and manufacturers.   
Question 3: Are advance rulings publishable under the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)? 
 RESPONSE:  Yes, advance rulings are published on  the Customs Rulings On-line Search 
Systems (CROSS) found on the CBP website at http://rulings.cbp.gov/ .  
 
Question 4: SA takes note of how rulings are submitted in the USA (by letter if it's a ruling on valuation and electronically if its classification or tariff). Going forward does the USA foresee that 
the submission of advance rulings will continue to be submitted differently or will the USA be 
working toward submitting all advance rulings in the same manner?  
RESPONSE: While a new Erulin gs template has become available for a number of 
different advance rulings subject matters, alre ady beyond just tariff classification, all 
advance rulings may be submitted in writing.  The premise behind Erulings is that some 
advance rulings do not require samples therefore the requests may be posed 
electronically. CBP is constantly evalua ting ways to allow more electronic 
communication and generate greater efficiency.  
3.1.1.1.5.4. Trusted Trader Program Test (pg. 46) 
 Question 5: With respect to the Trusted Trader Pr ogram Test that the USA introduced in June this 
year, with the aim to unify and replace the C-TPAT and the ISA programmes, how does the 
Trusted Trader Program differ from the Authorised  Operators provided for under the TFA concluded 
in Bali in 2013?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 393 - 
 
  RESPONSE:  CBP programs and its operations are fu lly compliant, and deliver the benefits 
and outcomes contained in the WTO TFA co mmitments on Authorized Operators.  
 Question 6: Is the eligibility criterion for the Trusted Trader Program informed by international 
standards such as those applicable to the WCO's Authorised Operators? 
 RESPONSE:  The United States is very involved in helping to create, utilize, and work in 
compliance with WCO instruments especi ally the WCO SAFE FRAMEWORK package 
including the WCO AEO program reco mmendations and best practices .  
 Question 7: Does the USA have or envisage having a plan that introduces an expedited release of 
goods especially in regard to goods entering by way of air cargo? 
 RESPONSE:  The United States already allows fo r the electronic submission of all 
manifests and entry materials, and has achiev ed release of goods through all modes of 
transportation in an efficient and expedited ma nner. In most cases release occurs in just 
moments.   
 
3.1.6. Import prohibitions, rest rictions and licensing (pg.56) 
3.1.6.1. Prohibitions and restrictions  
Question 8: Can the USA explain what the reasons for restricting or prohibiting imports other than 
on the ground of the National Strategy  for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking? 
 
RESPONSE: To address declining elephant populations and combat illegal trade in 
African elephant ivory, the Af rican Elephant Conservation Act provides for prohibitions 
on certain imports of ivory and ivory products . Under the Lacey Act it is also unlawful to 
import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire,  or purchase wildlife, fish, or plants that 
are taken, possessed, transported,  or sold in violation of rele vant U.S. or foreign laws.  
 Question 9: Can the USA share with us a list of products affected by the imports restrictions or 
prohibitions on the period under review?  
 RESPONSE: We refer Members to Table 3.6 and the website listed in footnote 48 of the 
Secretariat report ( http://www.cbp.gov/travel/interna tional-visitors/kbyg/prohibited-
restricted ). Additional information is avai lable in the United States' 2014 WTO 
Notification on Quantitative Re strictions (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2). 
 
4.2 Services  Financial services Part 4 Trade Policies by Sector: 4.2.1 Fina ncial services: paragraph 4.79, page 122 
 
The Secretariat Report notes that the 'Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provided budgetary authorization of up to US$700 billion to respond to the financial crisis'. It 
highlights that foreign institutions, 'established and regulated in the United States were, in 
principle, eligible for relief'.   
Question 10: Would the United States clarify whether foreign institutions were in fact eligible 
for the relief?   RESPONSE: Yes, after initially limiting covered in stitutions to financial institutions in the 
U.S., the language was widened to include an y financial institution "having significant 
operations" in the United States. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-
110publ343/html/PLAW-110publ343.htm . The term "financial institution'' means any 
institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, 
security broker or dealer, or insurance co mpany, established and regulated under the 
laws of the United States or any State, terri tory, or possession of the United States, the 
District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puer to Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United Stat es, but excluding any central bank of, or 
institution owned by, a foreign government. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 394 - 
 
  Question 11: Would the United States clarify whether any foreign institutions received relief 
under this Act?  RESPONSE: Please refer to: U.S. Department of the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief 
Program Monthly Report to  Congress, available at: 
http://www.treasury.gov/initi atives/financial-stability/r eports/Documents/October%  
202014%20Monthly%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf ; U.S. Department of the 
Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Progra m: Two Year Retrospective, available 
at: http://www.treasury.gov/ini tiatives/financial-stabili ty/reports/Documents/TARP%  
20Two%20Year%20Retrospective_10%20 05%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf 
 
Question 12: Would the U.S. clarify whether there were any differences in the application of 
the terms and conditions for such relief between domestic and foreign institutions?  
RESPONSE: Please see the response to Question 10.   
  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 395 - 
 
  SWITZERLAND 
 
 Report by the Secretariat 
 
1.  ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.2 Recent Economic Developments 
 
Question 1: In para. 1.6 , the Secretariat's report refers to private consumption being invigorated 
by rising house prices, among other factors. Also, para 1.7  refers to private consumption growth 
being below pre-crisis levels, but also mentions a recent, noticeable revival of consumer debt. We 
are not sure whether the report considers rising consumer debt as a desirable development (to 
foster private consumption and thereby GDP growth) or as a potential risk to the sustainability of 
the financial system and economic stability in the medium to long-run. We would be therefore be 
interested in the views of the United States on this point.  
 RESPONSE: Since the end of the recession, ho useholds have continued deleveraging and 
increasing savings. The personal savings rate  was just under 5% in 2013, up from the 
2.5% reached in 2005. Total liabilities as a share of disposable income have fallen back 
to their 2003 level. Also, thanks to lower le vels of debt and low interest rates, the 
household debt service ratio has trended down  from a high of 13.2% (pre-recession) to 
historically low levels through the 2nd quarter of 2014. With hous ehold liabilities lower, 
there is potential for higher consumer spen ding and for some consumers to utilize the 
credit market again.  
 
Question 2 In para. 1.8 , the Secretariat's report notes that regarding the labor market, the reduction in 
unemployment has been impressive, with the unemp loyment rate falling below pre-crisis levels 
(6%) for the first time in September 2014. Nevertheless, labor force participation remains low at 63%, clearly below pre-crisis levels (66%). This is certainly of concern and needs to be taken into account when evaluating unemployment figures. The U.S. Government report refers for its part, in 
para 2.11 , to reduced labor force participation but does not elaborate. We would be interested in 
the U.S. Government's opinion regarding the ec onomic implications of reduced labor force 
participation and possible policy responses this may require.  
 
RESPONSE: The bulk of the decline in labor fo rce participation from its peak is due to 
long-forecast trends attributable to the reti rement of the baby boomers. A substantial 
component is due to typical cyclical fact ors, in which participation declines in 
downturns. The aging of the population will continue to push the rate downward, however, the recovering economy will tend to  push in the other direction. White House 
CEA analysis finds that an important residu al remains after accounting for aging trends 
and cyclical factors. The evolution of this  residual, some of which is due to greater 
educational attainment depressing participat ion for young workers, will also contribute 
to participation rates going forward. While the unemployment rate, at 5.8 percent, is 
very close to what many consider to be its structural value of 5.4 percent, and the short 
term unemployment rate is be low its pre-recession average, other indicators such as 
those working part time for economic reason s, and those marginally attached to the 
labor force, remain elevated and point to sl ack in the economy. For a discussion of the 
causes and implications of the U.S. labor forc e participation rate, as well as a discussion 
of potential policy responses, please see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fil es/docs/labor_force_participation_report
.pdf 
 
2.  TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK 
2.1  General Framework 
2.1.1  Trade promotion authority, paragraph 2.6. :  
Question 3:  
Para. 2.6  of the Secretariat's report highlights the importance of obtaining the Trade promotion 
authority (TPA) to take current free trade agreement negotiations further. It also notes that a proposal to reauthorize TPA was introduced in Congress in 2014, but to date no legislation has yet WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 396 - 
 
  been approved. Could the United States provide some information about a possible calendar for 
Congress to pass TPA? Is there any possibility of moving TPA before the next Congress convenes? 
RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 2.3.2 Regional and preferential agreements 
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal trade agreements  
 Question 4 Para. 2.21  of the Secretariat's report refers to the negotiations between the U.S. and the 
European Union (TTIP), just mentioning that they have not been concluded at this time. Could the 
United States provide some information about the current status of the negotiations for a TTIP? What are the biggest challenges and what were the most difficult areas and issues so far? Also, 
officially, the two parties announced their intentio n to conclude their negotiations by the end of 
2015. Is this calendar still relevant? The negotiations take place between the United States and the European Union. How do the United States see the possibility for third countries to join the 
TTIP once negotiations will be concluded? 
 RESPONSE : The United States and the European Union have had seven rounds of 
negotiations since the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was launched in 
July 2013. Both sides are committed to ac hieving significant progress in 2015.  
 We have been keeping interested trading pa rtners apprised of the general progress of 
the negotiations. However, we have no plans to involve third countries at this time.  
 Question 5 
In para. 2.24 , the Secretariat's report notes that three factual presentations involving the 
United States have not yet been considered under the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements due to the lack of comments from on e or both of the parties concerned. To our 
knowledge, one remains pending, namely the draft factual presentation concerning the 
US-Colombia FTA, sent in 2012, due to the lack of comments from the United States. Could the 
United States explain why it has so far not been in a position to react to the draft Factual Presentation concerning the US-Colombia FTA? When does the United States expect to be able to 
provide its comments so that the factual presentation for this FTA can be examined in the CRTA?   
 RESPONSE: We are concluding our review of the U.S.-Colombia draft Factual 
Presentation and expect to provide comment s to Colombia and the Secretariat soon. The 
United States looks forward to the transpar ency reviews of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, the 
Dominican Republic-Central America-Un ited States FTA (CAFTA-DR) and the 
U.S.-Bahrain FTA as soon as mutually possible for our FTA partners in 2015.  
 
2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential regimes  
Question 6 
In para. 2.25 , the Secretariat's report indicates that the United States continued to provide 
unilateral preferences to a number of countries or territories during the review period, although 
some programs are in decline, have expired, or are undergoing review. Chart 2.4  of the 
Secretariat's report shows a steep erosion of unilateral preferences: either taken altogether or within each category, imports with unilateral pr eferences have fallen by 50% since 2008. And the 
trend has been pursued since then, with the ex piration of the GSP and the ATPA/ATPDEA on 
31 July 2013. Could the United States indicate the reasons for this to happen and what the 
consequences were on import sourcing in the United States?   
RESPONSE: The decrease in total U.S. import s under unilateral preference programs in 
recent years is attributable to  a number of factors, but above all to the decrease in the 
U.S. demand for, and the international pric e of, petroleum products. This factor alone 
accounted for about 85% of the decrease. Th e second most significant factor was the 
removal of a number of beneficiary countri es from eligibility for U.S. unilateral 
preference programs following the entry into force of their respective free trade agreements with the United States, for example, Colombia and Peru, which previously 
received benefits under both GSP and ATPA, and Panama and Costa Rica, which received WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 397 - 
 
  benefits under both GSP and CBERA/CBTPA, in stead received preferential market access 
in line with the negotiated FTAs. Taken toge ther, these two factors more than accounted 
for the overall decline in U.S. imports under AGOA, GSP, ATPA, and CBERA/CBTPA 
between 2008 and 2012 (the last full ye ar in which GSP and ATPA/ATPDEA were 
authorized).   
 Also, could the U.S. Government indicate whether it intends to revitalize the GSP and if so, by 
when?  
 RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U.S.  Congress at the earliest opportunity.  
 Furthermore, what are the views of the U.S. Government regarding longer GSP application 
periods, as is now the case in the EU and Switzerland? Long, clear horizons are beneficial for 
producers and exporters in making their investment and business decisions. On the contrary, import regimes in need of frequent and sometimes erratic political confirmations are of a lesser 
use.  
 RESPONSE: The U.S. Congress sets the term le ngth for GSP authorization and, over the 
last 20 years, has generally renewed the prog ram for periods of one to five years. The 
most recent legislation to renew GSP, introduced in July 2013, would have extended the 
program through September 2015. Any prospective longer term or permanent renewal of GSP would have to take into account implications on the federal budget because 
U.S. law requires that foregone tariff reve nue under GSP be offset by corresponding 
revenue increases or spending reductions.  
Question 7 
With respect to the AGOA ( paras. 2.27-2.31 ), which provides a very important scheme for 
exporters from the poorest continent, could the U.S. Government indicate whether it has reflected on the possibility of granting special preferences to imports from LDCs on the continent, in order to 
counterbalance the advantages offered to (relatively rich) oil exporters. Also and somewhat 
urgently, what are the U.S. Government's plans fo r the future of this scheme, due to expire in 
September 2015? 
 
RESPONSE: The AGOA program provides duty-free treatment for goods from AGOA beneficiary countries, including the LDCs, in order to encourage their exports under the 
program. The Administration is currently working with the United States Congress on 
renewal of the AGOA program and possible modifications to the program that will 
improve its implementation and utilization.   
2.4 Investment Flows and Regime 
 Question 8  
In para. 2.49 , the Secretariat's report states that the SelectUSA program supports states and 
cities to attract and compete for job-creating investment. Para. 2.50  describes that the first 
investment summit brought together foreign invest ors, government official s, U.S. companies and 
economic development organizations. Foreign investors who want to do greenfield investments 
might be interested in meeting representatives of the federal states. Could the United States explain how the SelectUSA program coordinates between the states when they offer certain possibilities to investors and how does the progra m ensure that the attracted investment will be 
job-creating?  
  
RESPONSE: SelectUSA coordinates with states in  a variety of ways in performing its role 
of facilitating business investment in the Un ited States. This includes partnering with 
state and local governments to provide inve stors with a single point of entry for 
information to and serve as ombudsman and national advocate for investment in the 
United States; assisting state and local go vernments, at their request, to address 
regulatory barriers for domestic and foreign fi rms wanting to invest in the United States; 
and coordinating across federal agencies to  provide services that supplement state, 
regional and local resources to attract, reta in and expand business investment in the 
United States. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 398 - 
 
  Question 9 
In para. 2.54 , the Secretariat's report explains that  20 notices were withdrawn after CFIUS 
launched an investigation in 2012 and that subsequently some were re-filed while others were abandoned. Could the United States explain ho w many cases were re-filed and how many cases 
were withdrawn to put them in relation to the 114 cases submitted? 
 RESPONSE: The CFIUS annual report, statut es, executive orders, regulations, are 
available at www.treasury.gov/cfius .  
 
As we state in our annual report, "In 20 12, CFIUS approved the withdrawal of 
22 notices. The parties withdrew two noti ces during the 30-day review period and 
20 notices after the commencement of the 45- day investigation period. In 10 cases, 
parties re-filed in 2012, and CFIUS concluded action in those cases. In two cases, the 
parties re-filed in 2013. In the remaining ca ses, the parties abandoned the transaction 
for commercial reasons or in light of CFIUS's national security concerns." 
 Question10 
In para. 2.56 , and in table 2.4 , the Secretariat's report informs that few formal barriers to FDI 
are in place in the United States and cite the so urce (CRS publications RL33103, 17 June). Could 
the United States indicate where an overview of the restrictions on the sub-federal level can be found and how those restrictions relate to the restrictions on the federal level?  
 
RESPONSE: U.S. state and local governments maintain laws and regulations that may 
affect the operations of investments located in their territories. State laws outside the 
areas of real estate, banking, and insu rance (in which Congress has specifically 
delegated regulatory authority to the stat es) generally apply equally to all persons 
residing in a state and to all companies or other entities doing business in its territory. 
Most differences in the treatment of domestic  and foreign investors at the state or local 
level are minor and can frequently be elimin ated through incorporation in a particular 
state or locality. A few U.S. states restrict  foreign ownership of land. The U.S. GATS 
schedule provides detail on such measures.  
 
3.  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
3.1.1.2 Import security initiatives 3.1.1.2.2 Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) 
 
Question 11 The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) aims at scanning 100% of maritime cargo containers destined to the United States. Para 3.20  of the Secretariat's report lists a number of obstacles to 
implement the SFI, such as a negative impact on tr ade capacity and the flow of cargo. In a letter 
to members of the U.S. Congress from May 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) noted "that DHS's ability to fully  comply with this unfunded mandate of 100% 
scanning, even in long term, is highly improbable, hugely expensive, and in our judgment, not the 
best use of taxpayer resources to meet this count ry's port security and homeland security needs." 
Will the U.S. government maintain its goal of sca nning 100% of U.S.-bound maritime cargo in light 
of the above? 
 RESPONSE: The deadline has been extended until at least May 5, 2016, and further 
legislation is not needed to extend it again.  The Secretary of Homeland Security has the 
authority to extend the deadline again at that  time under the conditions outlined in the 
statute.  
3.1.4  Tariffs 
3.1.4.1 Nomenclature   
Question 12 
According to para. 3.32  of the Secretariat's report, "the USITC launched an investigation in late 
2012 to propose certain modifications, including on Chapter 37." Could the United States indicate what has been the result of the investigation and which modifications have been made? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 399 - 
 
  RESPONSE: Pursuant to section 1205 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, the U.S. International Trade Commissio n conducted an investigation and sought 
public comment on the proposed changes. No requests for changes to the Commission's recommendation were received. The required Congressional layover period has been 
completed. The omitted HTS provisions are ex pected to be proclaimed by the President 
by the end of 2014, and it is expected that the effective date of these modifications will 
be February 3, 2012, the date on which the other 2012 changes to the Harmonized 
System were reflected in the HTS by Presiden tial Proclamation 8771. No change in duty 
treatment would result upon the implementation of the omitted provisions.  Question 13 
According to para. 3.35  of the Secretariat's report, "the United States implemented other 
nomenclature changes to the HTSUS in 2011 relating to footwear
25; these have still not been 
notified to the WTO for modification of the WTO schedule." Could the United States indicate when 
it intends to notify those changes to the WTO? 
 RESPONSE: The United States will be noti fying the Committee on Market Access of 
modifications to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect changes to the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon  as possible. For further reference, the 
footwear nomenclature changes from late 2011 will be included in the certification of 
2012 nomenclature changes. The footwear chan ges are shown in the U.S. International 
Trade Commission website section on HTS modifications: http://www.usitc.gov/ 
tariff_affairs/modifications_hts.htm , specifically: 
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/do cuments/proclamation8742october31-2011-
implement1205-8.pdf  is the full text of the Presidential Proclamation regarding the 
footwear changes, as publishe d in the Federal Register.  
 
3.1.4.3 Bindings  
 Question 14 According to para. 3.40  of the Secretariat's report, a number of changes to the HTSUS, in 
particular the third and fourth pharmaceutical revisi on have not yet been notified to the WTO. This 
is important in order to keep the Schedule as up to date as possible. Could the United States indicate whether it intends to comply with this  notification requirement in the coming months? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States will be noti fying the Committee on Market Access of 
modifications to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect changes to the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon  as possible. For further reference, the 
changes are shown in the U.S. Internatio nal Trade Commission website section on 
HTS modifications: http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/modifications_hts.htm . 
 
Specifically, the full text of the Presiden tial Proclamation regarding the footwear 
changes, as published in the Federal Register  can be viewed at the following website:  
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/do cuments/proclamation8742october31-2011-
implement1205-8.pdf  
 
3.1.5  Other charges affecting imports  
3.1.5.2 Excise taxes  
 Question 15 According to para. 3.51  of the Secretariat's report, "Excise tax rates on air transportation were 
revised during the review period". Could the United States provide more details on the nature of 
the revision and what has been modified?   
                                               
25 Proclamation 8742 of 31 October 2011. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 400 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The nominal amount of the tax on the use of international travel facilities is 
adjusted annually with inflation, although in  real terms the tax burden is static. For 
further information, refer to the following online sites: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
prior/p510--2012.pdf;  
http://www.faa.gov/about/off ice_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/14.1.17E
xciseTaxStructureCalendar2014.pdf  
 
3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing duties  Question 16 
In para. 3.66 , the Secretariat's report notes that the United States had 294 anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures in place at the end of 2 013, an increase of 18% since 2010. Also, in 
para. 3.72 , the Secretariat's report indicates that th ere has been a significant trend with fewer 
orders being revoked. While in 2007-2008, approx imately half of all orders were revoked, in 
2013-14, about 90% of reviews resulted in the continuation of the remedy. Could the United 
States indicate the reasons why such an overwhelming number of reviews conducted recently 
resulted in the continuation of remedies, which, as a consequence, caused a rapid increase in the 
number of remedies in place? Also, does the United States consider that maintaining trade remedies on such a large scale and sometimes for decades is an appropriate policy to facilitate the structural adjustment of the U.S. economy in th e face of the new challenges brought about by 
globalization? Furthermore, are the needs of glob al value chains specifically taken into account 
when decisions are made to impose trade remedies on imports they may require, and how is this being done? Finally, how does the United States reconcile the objectives of the strong competition 
policy that it advocates with an increasing use of anti-dumping or countervailing duties which is 
reducing competition on the domestic market?  
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with 
WTO rules. Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are initiated in response 
to petitions filed by a U.S. industry. The de cision to impose an antidumping measure is 
based on a factual determination of whethe r dumping exists and whether those dumped 
imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. The 
decision to impose a countervailing duty meas ure is based on a factual determination of 
whether countervailable subsidies exists an d whether such subsidized imports have 
caused, or threaten to cause, material  injury to a domestic industry. Where 
dumped/subsidized imports, and material in j u r y  c a u s e d  b y  s u c h  i m p o r t s  h a v e  b e e n  
found, the United States will impose an anti dumping or countervailing duty measure, as 
applicable. The decision whether to continue  or revoke such a measure is based on 
whether dumping/subsidization and material in jury would be likely to continue or recur 
if the measure is removed. No other fact ors are taken into consideration before 
imposing an antidumping/countervailing duty measure. 
 
3.1.6  Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 3.1.6.1 Prohibitions and restrictions 
 
Question 17 According to table 3.6  of the Secretariat's report, imports of dairy products are subject to 
requirements of the Food and Drug Administration  and the Department of Agriculture. Could the 
United States elaborate on the nature of said requirements? What is the procedure to ensure compliance?  
RESPONSE: The FDA is the federal agency re sponsible for the safety of dairy foods 
imported into the United States. Dairy products  entering the United States are subject to 
the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Public Health Service Act and 
FDA regulations. Imported milk and cream must also meet the requirements of the 
Federal Import Milk Act (FIMA). FIMA requir es a permit for milk and cream (including 
sweetened condensed milk) imported into th e United States. For information please 
visit:  
• FIMA: 
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceMan uals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManu
al/ucm074571.htm  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 401 - 
 
  • Milk Safety: 
http://www.fda.gov/forfedera lstateandlocalofficials/pa rtnershipscontracts/ucm
303972.htm  
• Pasteurized Milk Ordinance: 
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulat ion/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinf
ormation/milk/ucm2007968.htm  
 
USDA manages the dairy import licensing pr ogram. Imports under most U.S. WTO dairy 
tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) require licenses issued under a program administered by the 
USDA FAS Import Programs and Export Repo rting Division. Among the requirements to 
be eligible for licenses are to meet certain im port quantity requirements in the previous 
year and submit an application by  the deadline. There are also other 
requirements. Procedures to ensure complia nce with the regulation can be found at: 
• Dairy Import Licensing, 7 CFR Part 6:  http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=c99afdff57912b84164627d9e5a1 0343&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr6_
main_02.tpl  
 
3.1.6.2 Import licensing 
 Question 18 In relation to para. 3.58 : When the trade policy of the United States was last reviewed in 2012, 
Switzerland asked about low quota fill rates for several types of cheese. On this occasion, the 
U.S. stated that "the dairy import licensing regulations contains several mechanisms that provide incentives to fill the quotas" and that "any import er who does not fill at least 85% of any license 
amount becomes ineligible for that same license (type of cheese and country) the following year". 
 However the incentives mentioned do not seem to be working. The United States' most recent 
notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (G/AG/N/USA/94) shows no significant 
improvement in quota fill rates. In which specific  ways do the United States intend to improve 
upon this situation, especially in light of the Bali Understanding on tariff rate quota administration? When can substantive increases in quota fill rates be expected? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has no current plans to unilaterally change its tariff-rate 
quotas. To further liberalize markets and bo lster transparency, the United States is 
committed to and encourages the implementati on of the Bali Ministerial Understanding 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration.  
Question 19 
The Secretariat's report mentions in para. 3.58  that since February 2013 a review of the Dairy 
Import Licensing Program is underway, including the methodology for issuing licenses. Could the United States give an update on this process? Do  the United States expect fill rates to increase 
with the adaptation of the legal basis? Through which specific mechanisms? 
 RESPONSE: Any notice related to the dairy im port licensing rule-making process will be 
published in the Federal Register.  
 3.1.9  Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
3.1.9.1 Food and Drug Administration 
 Question 20  
With respect to what is said in para. 3.88  of the Secretariat's report, we would have the following 
comments and questions: We seek clarification about the additional requirements for monitoring, 
data storage and notification practices for recognized accreditation bodies and accredited auditors. In particular, we are concerned about the U.S. FD A's intention to access records of such bodies. 
We would like the United States to clarify why the notification of conditions that pose serious risks 
to public health, together with all relevant info rmation, is not sufficient. In our view, permanent 
full access to records for the U.S. FDA questions the value of accreditation bodies and accredited 
auditors' accreditation to the U.S. FDA. Could the United States indicate to which CODEX or OIE 
standard this requirement corresponds, as in our opinion neither CAC/GL 19-1995 nor CAC/GL 
25-1997 envisage such access?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 402 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The U.S. Food and Drug Administ ration (FDA) is working on a draft model 
accreditation standards guidance document, which will clarify the qualifications for 
auditors to become accredited under FDA' s program for Accreditation of Third Party 
Auditors/Certification Bodies. FDA will make this document available for public comment 
before it is finalized. This document may help  to inform trading partners' understandings 
and views of the practical functioning of requirements for third party auditors and 
certification bodies. 
 
Question 21 With regard to the revisions, could the United States  clarify to what extent 'flexibility provisions' as 
envisaged in certain revisions can be applied? For example, can trading partners with a positive 
record profit from such provisions? In particular, can such provisions reduce the amount of 'on-
site-visits', and what are the conditions to reduce  such inspections? Will the United States apply 
system audits, as foreseen in the relevant international standards, i.e. Codex Alimentarius? Could 
the United States indicate by how much the numbe r of inspections may decline as a result of the 
accreditations of accreditation bodies and accredited auditors?  
RESPONSE: Under the Foreign Supplier Verification Program proposed rule, the 
importation of food from a fo reign supplier in, and under th e regulatory oversight of, a 
country whose food safety system FDA has offici ally recognized as comparable to that of 
the United States or that FDA has determined  t o  b e  e q u i v a l e n t  t o  t h a t  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  
States would be subject to modified requir ements (assuming the food is within the 
scope of the relevant official recognition or equivalency determination). The modified 
requirements are that the importer would be required to determine and document 
whether the foreign supplier of the food is in good compliance standing with the food 
safety authority of the country in wh ich the foreign supplier is located.  
 
Question 22 
With respect to para. 3.90  of the Secretariat's report, could the United States indicate whether a 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) was performe d on the effect of the additional fees on 
international trade? If this is the case, could the United States share the RIA with WTO members 
and clarify what results the RIA produced includin g a rationale for introducing new fees compared 
with less trade restrictive measures?  
RESPONSE: The RIAs completed by FDA purs uant to its authority under FSMA are 
publicly available at www.fda.gov/fsma . As to the re-inspection fees in particular, we 
note that FDA has not collected any reinspection  fees to date and that FDA's authority to 
collect re-inspection fees applies equally to  domestic (U.S.) and foreign facilities.  
 3.1.9.2 Food Safety and Inspection Service  
Question 23 
With respect to para. 3.93 , the Secretariat's report notes that the United States brought its 
import requirements into line with the OIE's crit eria for BSE risk status. However, APHIS reserves 
the right to conduct its own risk assessment. If  an exporting country has the OIE risk status 
'negligible', could the United States indicate whether APHIS would still conduct a risk assessment or whether it does accept the OIE status and consequentially allow imports of bovine products 
from that country? Could the United States indicate what are the conditions for a country with 
OIE risk status 'negligible' to be exempted from such additional requirements?  RESPONSE: The BSE Comprehensive Rule went in to effect in March 2014. This rule laid 
out the process by which either APHIS could concur with OIE designations of BSE risk 
status or conduct a separate risk assessmen t if requested by a country. To date, no 
country has requested a separate risk assessment, therefore none have been 
completed. APHIS has concurred with all of the OIE designations as adopted during the 
May 2013 General Session, and is evaluating the OIE designations adopted during the 
May 2014 General Session. 
 
Question 24 More generally speaking, the United States participates in the OIE consensus-based decision process for the official recognition of a disease status. In this process, OIE Member Countries are 
offered a 60 day period to comment on the OIE Scientific Commission's proposal for an upgraded WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 403 - 
 
  risk status of an OIE Member Country. Moreover, questions can first be referred to the applicant 
Member Country concerned, which is requested to  provide clarification to the Member Country 
soliciting information, with copy to the OIE Headquarters. Given this inclusive, transparent, and comprehensive assessment, could the United States indicate why it does not endorse the OIE risk 
status and adjust its import requirements accordingly? In particular, could the United States 
indicate what the rationale is behind the conduct of additional risk assessments?  
RESPONSE: The United States would note th at the BSE Comprehensive Rule went into 
effect in March 2014. This rule laid out th e process by which either APHIS could concur 
with OIE designations of BSE risk status or conduct a separate risk assessment if 
requested by a country. To date, no country has requested a separate risk assessment, 
therefore none have been completed. APHIS has concurred with all of the OIE 
designations as adopted during the May 2013 General Session, and is  evaluating the OIE 
designations adopted during the May 2014 General Session. 
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 3.3.3  Competition policy 
 
Question 25 According to para. 3.154  of the Secretariat's report, the main changes in the competition policy 
framework are made through agency guidance, court, and administrative proceedings. Could the 
United States please name a few of important and recent changes, if any? 
 RESPONSE. The U.S. competition agencies' Hori zontal Merger Guidelines are an excellent 
example of important guidance. These gu idelines, discussed in detail in the 
2013 U.S. Trade Policy Review Record of Meeting,
26 recently updated the agencies' 1992 
guidelines and provide clarity with regard to merger review analysis to better assist the 
business community and, in particular, pa rties to mergers and acquisitions. More 
recently, in 2013, the United States comp etition authorities made certain changes, 
inter alia , to the Premerger Notification Rules, and to the Justice Department Antitrust 
Division's "carve-out" practice regarding co rporate plea agreements. These changes are 
detailed in the 2013 Annual Report of the Un ited States to the OECD Competition 
Committee.27 The 2013 Annual Report also describe s major investigatory and litigation 
developments in the competition ("anti trust") area, including two important 
U.S. Supreme Court decisions on antitrust is sues: FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, 
Inc28 (in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state action immunity 
doctrine did not immunize the parties, one of which was owned by a local government 
authority, from the federal antitrust laws), and FTC v. Actavis29 ( h o l d i n g  t h a t  a n  
agreement to settle patent-related litigation was not immune from antitrust liability and 
that antitrust challenges to such agreements  should be decided using a "rule of reason" 
analysis).  
 
In 2014 , the agencies issued a statement on sharing of cyber-security information,30 and 
the Antitrust Division announced a new proced ure for modifying or terminating old case 
settlements.31 More complete information on the agencies' enforcement and competition 
advocacy work, which play a critical role in  the U.S. competition policy framework, is 
available at www.ftc.gov  and www.usdoj.gov .  
 
3.3.5 Government procurement  Question 26 
In para. 3.168, the Secretariat's report refers to the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 allowing the 
President to waive the discriminatory purchasing requirements of the Buy America Act (BAA) with 
respect to procurements covered by the GPA and FT As. Could the United States indicate what is 
the motivation of the authority given to the Presid ent to issue such a waiver since the entities at 
                                               
26 See WT/TPR/M/275/Add.1, Record of Meeting Addendum, 15 March 2013.   
27 See http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publ icdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/AR 
(2014)24&docLanguage=En.  
28 133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013) . See the 2013 U.S. Annual Report supra , at p. 6.  
29 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013) . See the 2013 U.S. Annual Report supra , at p. 5.  
30 See press release at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/305029.pdf . 
31 See press release at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2014/304744.htm . WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 404 - 
 
  federal and local levels have, according the U.S. commitments under the GPA, the legal obligation 
to grant, at least to Members of the GPA, non-discriminatory treatment for acquisitions covered by the GPA ? Are there conditions which have to be fulfilled by a Member of the GPA or by a supplier 
located in a country of the GPA in order to benefit from the President's waiver? If yes, what are 
these conditions? 
 RESPONSE: Under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Congress granted the President 
authority to waive discriminatory purchasing  requirements for elig ible products from 
designated countries (19 USC § 2511(a)). GPA members are designated countries under 
the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 2511(b), 2518). The President delegated this waiver authority to the U.S. Trade Representative (Executive Order No. 12,260, 
Dec. 31, 1980, as amended). The U.S. Tr ade Representative has waived the Buy 
American Act requirements consistent with U.S. obligations under the GPA for eligible 
products from GPA member economies. No a dditional waiver is required for eligible 
products from GPA member economies.  
 Question 27 
In para. 3.168 and para. 3.169 , the Secretariat's report informs that the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) remains the primary regulatory tool for the handling of government procurement at federal level but also that many agencies and departments may issue or maintain specific procurement regulations. Also, according to th e Secretariat's report, the legal procurement 
framework has not changed substantially since 2012. Could the United States share their 
experience regarding the way the text related commitments of the revised GPA - which foresee a number of new mandatory commitments – are being implemented in the national legislation of the 
U.S. at the federal as well as at the local leve ls? Which were the U.S. procurement regulation(s) 
which had to be revised at the federal and the local levels in the light of the new commitments of the revised GPA of March 31, 2014.  
 
RESPONSE: The United States formally implemented the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement (revised GPA) through the publication of a notice in the Federal Register Notice on Monday, March 17 2014 (78 Fed. Reg. 14,776, 
available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-17/pdf/2014-05719.pdf ). No 
additional implementation actions were necessary. 
 
Question 28 
Regarding para. 3.183  of the Secretariat's report, how can the United States ensure that entities 
at the local and federal levels implement the GPA commitments on covered procurement and do 
not simply follow the Buy American Act provisions?  
 RESPONSE: The Buy American Act applies only  to Federal procurements of goods. As 
noted in the response to Question 26 above,  the U.S. Trade Representative has waived 
the Buy American Act requirements consistent  with U.S. obligations under the GPA for 
eligible products from GPA me mber economies. This obligat ion is reflected in Federal 
Acquisition Regulation § 25.402. 
 
With respect to the states, each U.S. st ate maintains its own procurement system 
independent of the Federal Government pr ocurement system. For those U.S. states 
subject to government procurement commitments under U.S. international obligations, 
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative  engages with appropriate State officials 
regarding specific issues raised by our trading partners.  
4  TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1  Agriculture 4.1.1  Agricultural Act of 2014 
4.1.1.1 Overview 
 Question 29 
In para 4.9  of the Secretariat's report it is stated that "the move from decoupled direct payments 
to deficiency-payment type instruments linked to cu rrent prices could potentially cause an increase 
in trade and production distortions". What is the United States' assessment on this matter? Are there measures being taken to prevent such an outcome? If agricultural commodity prices WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 405 - 
 
  decreased to lower levels, what would be the highest amount of government spending the 
US-Government expects? Is a capping of the payments envisaged in such a case? 
 RESPONSE: A number of program changes occu rred in the 2014 Farm Bill. As was the 
case under the 2008 Farm Bill, these new prog rams are paid on historical base acres 
without reference to current production to re move the incentives that lead to surplus 
production. Because producers cannot increase  their payments as a result of current 
planting decisions, plantings would be based on market incentives.  
 The 2014 Farm Bill does not place any specif ic limits on expenditures. However, the 
United States expects the 2014 Farm Bill to  remain within the United States' WTO 
commitments. Moreover, the 2014 Farm Bill, like previous Farm Bills, contains a "circuit 
breaker" that gives the Secretary of Agricu lture the authority to ensure the United 
States does not exceed its commitments.  
 
4.1.1.2 Title I (Commodities) 4.1.1.2.6 Dairy 
 
Question 30 With regard to the new Dairy Product Donation Program, the Secretariat's Report states in para. 4.31 that the suspension of purchases conducted under this program is triggered by levels 
in dairy production margin, as well as domestic and world market prices for cheddar cheese and 
SMP. Could the United States indicate the specific trigger levels that would lead to suspension of 
purchases conducted under the Dairy Product Dona tion Program? Is the suspension triggered 
immediately after such levels are reached? 
 RESPONSE: USDA will calculate the actual da iry production margin using the national 
"all-milk price" minus the nati onal "average feed cost." Th e term "all-milk price" is 
defined in the 2014 Farm Bill to mean the av erage price received, per cwt of milk, by 
dairy operations for all milk sold to plants and dealers in the United States, as determined by USDA. The term "average feed cost" is defined to mean the average cost 
of feed used by a dairy operation to produce a cwt of milk using the sum of: 
 
• 1.0728 times the price of corn per bushel; 
• 0.00735 times the price of soybean meal per ton; and 
• 0.0137 times the price of  alfalfa hay per ton. 
 
U.S. Price and World Market Price Different ial - The price differential determination 
(which requires a comparison of U.S. pr ices and world prices) will use foreign and 
domestic price data, published by the Agri cultural Marketing Service (AMS). The 2014 
Farm Bill specifies that USDA is required to calculate the differential between U.S. prices 
and world prices for cheddar cheese and nonfat dry milk (NDM).  
 Purchases will cease at the end of the mo nth in which it is determined that:  
• The actual dairy production margin for the previous month is above US$4 per cwt; 
• Purchases have taken place fo r three consecutive months; 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds world pric es by 5% if the actual dairy production 
margin is at or below US$4 but above US$3;  
• or U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds world prices by 7%, if the margin is US$3 or 
less. 
 
4.1.1.4 Title III (Trade) 
4.1.1.4.1 Food Aid  
Question 31 
According to para. 4.44  of the Secretariat's Report a minimum of 15% of non-emergency food aid 
is required to be monetized by U.S. law. Could the U.S. explain the reason for this requirement? 
How is commercial displacement in local markets through monetization prevented? Are there any 
changes in this regard envisaged in the future? Na mely is the U.S. considering shifting away from 
in-kind food aid as others have done in the past?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 406 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The 15% minimum for monetization applies only to the Office of Food for 
Peace's non-emergency development food aid programs. In Fiscal Year 2014, USAID's 
Office of Food for Peace utilized monetization  in just one country, Bangladesh. Prior to 
making any new non-emergency contribution  that may involve monetization, USAID 
conducts a Bellmon Estimation Studies for Ti tle II (USAID-BEST) analysis to assess the 
impact of potential food aid program on the country's local economy. The Bellmon 
Amendment requires that donations of U.S. food assistance avoid harming local markets 
in recipient countries. 
 In 2010, the Emergency Food Assistance Program through the International Disaster 
Assistance account was created and provides cash for food assistance. Changes in the 
Agricultural Act of 2014 allowed a portion of Title II resources to be used for food 
vouchers, cash transfers and loca l and regional procurement.  
 
4.1.1.4.2 Export credit guarantees 
 Question  32 
Para. 4.47  of the Secretariat's Report states that the 2014 Farm Bill reduced the maximum loan 
guarantee term under GSM-102 from three to two years. Keeping in mind the Bali Ministerial declaration on export competition, what further steps are envisaged to reduce the trade distorting effects of GSM-102? 
 
RESPONSE: We are not aware of any data showing that the GSM-102 program is trade-distorting.  
 
4.1.2 Agricultural tariffs and tariff rate quotas  
Question 33 
In para. 4.66,  the Secretariat's Report indicates that "price-based safeguards are invoked 
automatically on a shipment-by-shipment basis". Co uld the U.S. provide an explanation as to why 
it applies price-based SSGs to very small quanti ties? What is the rationale behind applying 
price-based SSGs in the case of products with already low in-quota trade (as is the case for 
various types of cheese)?  
RESPONSE: The United States automatically  applies price-based special safeguards 
(SSGs) on all products that  were subject to tariffication in the Uruguay Round. The 
safeguard rates and trigger prices are pu blished in the tariff schedule of the 
United States, so that there is transparency  as to when the safeguard duty will be 
applied. The safeguard is applied in this ma nner for ease of administration and is fully 
consistent with the provisions of Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The 
quantity-based SSG is not automatically applied and requires a decision by the 
U.S. Government to apply when the trigger is met. 
  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 407 - 
 
  THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
  PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/307) 
 
1 ECONOMIC ENRIRONMENT 1.1 Main features of the economy 
 
Page 14 (Para 1.9) After a decade of sluggish performance, the manuf acturing sector has become an important aspect 
of U.S. economic recovery. Over 700,000 jobs have been created in the sector since 2010. 
However, these still represent a small proportion of overall job growth. Several factors contributed 
to that favourable economic context, and there has been some reporting of "in-sourcing", i.e. the homecoming of U.S. manufacturing.  Soaring transportation costs, induced by rising oil prices have 
made production-close-to-customer more advantageous. The recent shale oil and gas development 
and low energy prices have also contributed to lowering production costs in the manufacturing sector. Other factors, such as increasing labour costs in some developing countries, the 
depreciating U.S. dollar, and the highly competitive workforce in the United States, have also 
played a crucial role in the recent recovery in  manufacturing. However, the authorities expressed 
doubts regarding a genuine in-sourcing move in the United States as capital stock in manufacturing has not increased in a decade. 
 
Question 1: In recent years, the Obama administration has been making efforts to revitalize American 
manufacturing and bring jobs back to the US. Could the U.S. please elaborate further on the 
policies, incentives and measures implemented, th eir outcomes so far, and the implications for 
U.S. trading partners and regional supply chains? 
 
RESPONSE: The administration has been work ing with industry and academia to help 
revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector fo cusing on both education and investment 
initiatives (enabling innovation, securing th e talent pipeline, and improving the business 
climate).  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-p ress-office/2014/10/27/fact-sheet-
president-obama-announces-new-actions-further-strengthen-us-m .  
 
In addition the Administration's trade policy aims to advance and defend the interests of 
American manufacturers and their workers by  expanding export opportunities through 
increased market access and strengthen ing enforcement of trade rules. The 
United States remains open to trade in manufactured goods with trading partners and 
global supply chains.  2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 General framework 
2.1.1 Trade Promotion Authority  
Page 25 (Para 2.6) 
Recently, the President highlighted the importan ce of obtaining TPA authority in 2013 and 2014, 
given the two major regional negotiations which the United States intends to conclude or make 
significant progress on. A proposal to reauthoriz e TPA was introduced in the Congress in 2014, but 
to date no legislation has been approved.  Question 2: Please elaborate further on the Administration's plans for pushing through the 
legislation to grant trade promotion authority (TPA). Has there been any progress in reviewing the 
proposed TPA bill? Will the U.S. government be re-introducing a TPA bill in the 114th Congress?  
 
RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to 
pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 
Question 3: What are the prospects for a TPA bill being passed in the first half of 2015? 
 RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 408 - 
 
  Question 4. If Congress does not grant the Executiv e Branch TPA, what would be the effect on the 
US' progress on negotiating and signing free trade agreements?  RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to 
pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (T PA) legislation. As the Administration 
works with Congress on TPA, we will conti nue to advance bilateral, plurilateral and 
multilateral negotiations.  
 
2.1.2 Role of the private se ctor and other stakeholders 
 Page 26 (Para 2.8) 
While the trade committees have remained relatively  static in recent times, USTR has authority, 
pursuant to Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, to establish policy advisory committees. In February 2014, USTR proposed a new trade advisory committee covering public interest issues. 
This proposal, including its scope and purpose, is  currently under consideration pending review and 
evaluation of public comments.  
Question 5. Could the U.S. please describe the rationale and objectives for establishing the new 
trade advisory committee covering public interest issues?  RESPONSE: The purpose, scope, composition  and creation of a new advisory committee 
is still under review.  
 Question 6. What public interest issues will be addressed by this Committee?  
 
RESPONSE: The purpose, scope, composition  and creation of a new advisory committee 
is still under review.  
 
Question 7. Which public interest issues drew the most attention and discussion during the comment period from February to March 2014?  
RESPONSE: Public comments received can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 
#!documentDetail;D=USTR-2014-0005-0001 .  
 
2.2 Trade policy objectives 
 Page 29 (Para 2.14) 
A number of trade priorities identified for 2013-14 included initiatives at the national, multilateral, 
bilateral, and regional levels: to continue progress towards the National Export Initiative (NEI) goals; to advance and conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement; launch and advance the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pa rtnership (T-TIP) agreemen t; lead creative and 
effective efforts at the WTO to open markets, enforce rules, and combat protectionism; advance 
negotiations including with respect to services, environmental goods, and information technology products; etc. ... 
 
Question 8. Please elaborate further on the results of the National Export Initiative (NEI), and the 
future prospects for the NEI. 
 
RESPONSE: We did not reach the President's goal of doubling exports under the NEI – in part because of unexpectedly strong glob al economic headwinds and macroeconomic 
factors outside our control. Despite that, we remain committed to the objectives of the 
NEI/NEXT initiative. 
 Feedback from customer surveys on the NEI and focus groups across the country – 
reaching more than 6,000 clients and partne rs – showed that U.S. companies are well-
positioned to capitalize on growing opportunities around the world and offered suggestions on how to improve upon the NE I. NEI/NEXT is a new customer service-
driven strategy with improved information resources that will help  American businesses 
capitalize on existing and new opportunities  to sell Made-in-America goods and services 
abroad. NEI/NEXT is focused on improvin g data of use to exporters, providing 
information on specific expo rt opportunities, working more closely with financing 
organizations and service prov iders to expand access to export-related resources, and WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 409 - 
 
  partnering with states and communities to empower local export efforts and make it 
easier for small businesses to understand where to go for help.  Question 9. The TPP negotiations are not expected  to be concluded by the end of this year. How 
does the U.S. view the future prospects for these negotiations? 
 RESPONSE: TPP leaders met in November 2014, noted the significant progress that 
ministers and negotiators had made in rece nt months in narrowing gaps on the TPP 
agreement, and stated that the end of the negotiation was coming into focus. All TPP 
parties are working to conclude the negotiation as soon as possible, so that each country can start to enjoy the agreement's benefits.  
 
Question 10. The U.S. is putting considerable emphasis on the TPP and TTIP negotiations, but some U.S. domestic groups appear quite concerned about issues such as agriculture market 
access, IPR, labour and the environment in the TPP,  as well as the issue of investor-state dispute 
settlement (ISDS) in the TTIP. How has the U.S. government been communicating with the stakeholders on these contentious issues? Given the resource-intensive nature of engagement in 
these two major agreements, will negotiating both agreements simultaneously result in less 
progress being made on each than would be achieved if they were negotiated separately?  RESPONSE: Stakeholder input is critical to th e shaping of U.S. trade policy and positions. 
For TPP and T-TIP, U.S. negotiators consult re gularly with stakeholders on our positions 
both through our established advisory system as well as on an ad hoc basis. Negotiators 
also meet with stakeholders before, du ring, and after the negotiating rounds. 
Recognizing the resource-intensive nature of negotiations, we have separate teams 
tasked to TPP and T-TIP, and sufficient resources to conduct both negotiations concurrently.  
 
2.4 Investment Flows and Regime  Page 37 (Para 2.44) 
During the review period, the United States remained the world's largest single recipient of foreign 
direct investment, however, inflows have declin ed since 2012 reflecting the general trend of 
historically low FDI inflows to developed countries . Investment inflows fluctuated broadly year to 
year, often in relation to economic growth. After recovering from the economic downturn in 2009, 
investment inflows climbed in 2010 and 2011, but fell in 2012 and 2013. Sources of FDI are generally highly concentrated among highly in dustrialised countries, the United Kingdom and 
Switzerland are the largest contributors. Investment inflows from emerging economies remain 
relatively small. In terms of sectors, manufacturi ng has the largest share with 45%, followed by 
wholesale trade (11%), mining (11%), and non-bank holding companies (11%).  
Question 11. What are the promotion efforts, aside from those mentioned in para. 2.4.2 of the 
Report, that the U.S. is making to encourage a gr eater volume of investment inflows, specifically 
from emerging economies? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States is building up on past successes in attracting inward 
investment by continuing to develop and promote the SelectUSA program, the United 
States' first coordinated effort to actively recruit businesses to br ing investment to the 
U.S. In 2013, President Obama expanded an d enhanced this program by, among other 
things, enhancing coordination with region al, state, and local economic development 
organizations; expanding outreach to prosp ective investors from  economies with the 
largest potential for investment into th e United States; and creating a single 
point-of-contact for investors ready to inve st in the United States. Information about 
these enhancements to the Se lectUSA program is available 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/31/president-obama-
announce-first-ever-federal-e ffort-attract-job-creating- , and information about the 
program itself is available at http://selectusa.commerce.gov .  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 410 - 
 
  2.4.1 Investment agreements 
 Page 37 (Para 2.47) Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) have typically been at the core of U.S. reciprocal binding 
agreements on investment. The U.S. has negotiated BITs on a model framework, and in 2012, the 
Administration released a new model BIT, whic h contains key provisions on national and 
MFN treatment, the minimum standard of treatmen t, expropriation, transfers, and performance 
requirements, as well as provisions protecting the right of investors to engage senior managers of 
their choosing, and two sections on dispute settlement.  Question 12. How does the U.S. launch negotiations for signing BITs with other countries? Please 
provide details of the internal review and approval  process? What are the main factors taken into 
consideration?  
RESPONSE: The aims of the U.S. BIT program are to protect investment abroad in 
countries where investor rights are not already protected through existing agreements; encourage the adoption of market-oriented po licies that treat private investment in an 
open, transparent, and non-discriminatory  manner; and support the development of 
international law standards consistent with these objectives. The United States selects 
BIT negotiating partners based on a variety of  factors relating to these and other policy 
objectives. 
 
Question 13. Does the U.S. require the review an d approval of Congress in order to sign a BIT? 
What are the statutory grounds for BITs being passed through Congress? Is it purely because of 
the US's federal structure, or are there other reasons? 
 RESPONSE: The requirements for review and approval of U.S. international agreements 
vary depending upon the nature of the specif ic agreement. U.S. treaties, for example, 
are made with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, expressed through an 
affirmative vote of two-thirds of Senators present.   
Q u e s t i o n  1 4 .  T h e  U . S .  g o v e r n m e n t  r e c e n t l y  a n nounced its intention to continue to pursue 
BIT negotiations with mainland China. In addition, the two parties are committed to report periodically to their respective leaders on the status of the negotiations, with a first report 
following the exchange of proposed "negative lists" early in 2015. How does the U.S. government 
evaluate the future prospects for concluding negotiations on a BIT with mainland China? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States is commi tted to pursuing a high-standard and 
comprehensive BIT with China that embodies  the principles of non-discrimination, 
fairness, openness, and transparency, and we are actively working to advance the 
negotiations to ensure they are achieving these objectives. 
 
Page 37 (Para 2.48) No new BITs were negotiated or entered into fo rce during the review period. The United States 
does not have BITs with many of the emerging economies, which continue to be growing in 
importance as concerns investment flows. Neve rtheless, the United States has concluded an 
increasing number of FTAs during the last ten years with investment chapters that generally have 
the same provisions as BITs. 
 Question 15. Could the U.S. please elaborate further on its future trade policy regarding BIAs and FTAs? Will the U.S. have a preference for negotiat ing investment chapters within FTAs with its 
trading partners, or will it favour the double-track route of negotiating both BITs and FTAs? 
 RESPONSE: The United States continues to negotiate both free trade agreements with 
investment chapters and stand-alon e bilateral investment treaties. 
 Page 38 (Table 2.2 The Investment Agreements Framework) 
 
Question 16. Is Table 2.2 intended to be a complete list of the U.S. TIFA counterparts up to the year 2012? If so, it seems we have been inadvertently omitted from the list. On 19 September, 1994, we signed a TIFA agreement with the U.S. named the Agreement Between AIT and CCNAA WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 411 - 
 
  Concerning a Framework of Principles and Procedures for Consultations Regarding Trade and 
Investment.  RESPONSE: We note, as pointed out by Chin ese Taipei, that Table 2.2 drafted by the 
WTO Secretariat does not include the Agre ement Between the American Institute in 
Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cult ural Representative Office in the United 
States (TECRO) Concerning a Framework of Principles and Procedures for Consultations 
Regarding Trade and Investment whic h established a Council on Trade and 
Investment. Under this agreement, which wa s signed on 19 September 1994, officials 
from the Office of the United States Trade Representative serve as AIT's advisors and negotiators. We suggest that the Secretariat amend Table 2.2 to reflect this fact. 
 
2.4.3 Investment regulations and restrictions 2.4.3.1 The Committee on Foreign Invest ment in the United States (CFIUS) 
 
Page 39 (Para 2.52) CFIUS continues to review "covered" foreign inve stment transactions to determine whether the 
transaction threatens national security. A covered foreign investment transaction is one where a 
merger, acquisition, or takeover results in foreign control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. CFIUS considers whether the foreign entity is controlled by a foreign government or if the investment would gi ve control of critical infrastructure. If CFIUS 
perceives a potential national security risk, the Pr esident can prohibit the transaction. There have 
been no changes to the law or regulations since the last amendments in 2008.  
Question 17. Has the U.S. enacted any new reforms in its review of merger and acquisition 
transactions involving foreign investment?  Question 18. What is the definition of "national security" under the Foreign Investment and 
National Security Act (FINSA)? 
 RESPONSE TO 17 & 18: CFIUS's approach to determining whether a transaction raises national security concerns, and a general desc ription of the types of transactions that 
CFIUS has reviewed and that have presente d national security considerations is 
available in the official guidance that Trea sury published on December 8, 2008, in the 
Federal Register  (and available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-inves tment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in statutes, execut ive orders, regulations, and in the guidance 
document noted above, all of which are available at www.treasury.gov/cfius .  
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
3.1.1.1 Trade facilitation measures 
3.1.1.1.5 Trusted Trader Program 3.1.1.1.5.4 Trusted Trader Program Test 
 
Page 46 (Para 3.18 Box 3.1) • CBP will exempt (Trusted Trader Program) test participants from random non-intrusive 
inspections. 
Question 19. Would the U.S. consider exempting test participants from random physical examinations? If not, could it please elaborate further on the reasons?  
RESPONSE: At this time, CBP is not consid ering exempting participants from random 
physical examinations. Trusted Trad er participants receive reduced 
targeting/examination risk scores which incl ude a reduced examination rate and 'front 
of the line' benefits for cargo that is subject to exams. 
 3.1.7 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
3.1.7.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
 Page 62 (Para 3.67) U.S. anti-dumping investigations have generally b een below historic levels in recent years, with 
the exception of 2013, when there was a significant increase in investigations. Some WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 412 - 
 
  39 investigations were initiated in 2013, compared  to an average in the other 4 years of 2010-14 
of 9 per year.  Page 65 (Para 3.69) 
The trend for countervailing duty investigations during 2010-14 was similar to that of 
anti-dumping investigations. They remained relatively low with the exception of 2013 when 19 investigations were initiated. Asian countries, in particular China, were the most affected with 
countervailing duty investigations. 
 Question 20. Once anti-dumping and countervailing du ty investigations are initiated, there is an 
immediate impact on industry. We are concerned that if the determination to initiate an 
investigation and the determination of the causal link between injury and dumping or subsidy are 
too loosely connected, the trade remedy measures w ill distort normal trade. Could the U.S. please 
explain the reasons for the surge in the num ber of anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
investigations initiated in 2013? What is the ratio between the number of investigations initiated 
and the number of final determinations resulting in the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States administers its trade remedy laws in accordance with applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping or a countervailing duty investigation is 
initiated in response to a peti tion filed by a U.S. industry. The decision to impose an 
antidumping measure is based on a factual determination of whether dumping exists 
and whether those dumped imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to 
a domestic industry. The decision to impose a countervailing duty measure is based on a 
factual determination of whether counterva ilable subsidies exist and whether such 
subsidized imports have caused, or threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic 
industry. Where dumped/subsidized imports, and material injury caused by those 
imports have been found, the United St ates will impose an antidumping or 
countervailing duty measure, as applicable.   The United States does not organize its statistics regarding antidumping duty or 
countervailing duty investigations in the fo rm Chinese Taipei is requesting. However, 
further information about the initiation of investigations and subsequent final 
determinations, if any, can be found at: http://trade.gov/enf orcement/index.asp .  
 
Question 21. We are also concerned about the long length of time some anti-dumping measures continue to be applied to certain products. Could th e U.S. please advise what percentage of sunset 
reviews during the TPR period resulted in  the termination of anti-dumping duties? 
 RESPONSE: Approximately 15% of the sunset reviews concluded during the TPR period 
(July 2012 – June 2014) resulted in the te rmination of antidumping duty orders.  
 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 3.1.9.1 Food and Drug Administration 
 
Page 69 (Para 3.88) Between January 2013 and January 2014, the FDA published for public comment seven proposed 
regulations to implement some of the key elements of the FSMA. The proposed regulations 
address produce safety, preventive food controls, foreign supplier verification programme, accreditation of third-party auditors, preventive controls in the animal feed supply, protection against intentional adulteration of food, and sa nitary transportation of food. The regulatory 
drafting process is ongoing. Prior to the issuance of the final rules, the FDA has announced that it 
will issue revisions for several of the previously  published proposed regulations and interested 
stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comments. 
 
Question 22. What is the current progress and timeframe on issuing FSMA-related regulations (especially regarding standards for the handling of  produce, and the accreditation of third-party 
auditors and foreign supplier verification programmes)? 
 RESPONSE: FDA issued supplemental proposed rules for Produce Safety and for Foreign Supplier Verification Programs on Septem ber 29, 2014. These supplemental proposals 
include revisions from the original proposed ru les. The public was invited to comment on WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 413 - 
 
  these until December 15, 2014. FDA staff ar e currently working on final rules for 
Produce Safety, Foreign Supplier Verification Programs, and Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors. FDA is under consent decree to issue these three final rules by 
October 31, 2015. 
 
3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
 
Page 70 (Para 3.92) 
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture is 
responsible for regulations to protect against the introduction of plant and animal diseases and pests. To this end, APHIS regulates imports of  live plants; grain, oilseed and horticultural 
products; live animals (including embryos, se men, ova), animal products, and research and 
exhibition animals. A number of APHIS-regulated products are also regulated by FSIS; in those 
instances imports must comply with both APHI S and FSIS requirements. For example, certain 
animal products may be subject to import restrictions by APHIS due to disease risks, and once 
those risks are mitigated, the products may be subject to FSIS requirements. 
 
Question 23. Could the U.S. please explain how its transparency obligation under the 
SPS Agreement for animal and plant quarantine meas ures is implemented, especially with regard 
to notification of the application for market access for agricultural products by trading partners, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures applied at the port of entry? 
 
RESPONSE: APHIS works with the U.S. Government's National Notification Authority, managed by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service to notify its proposed SPS regulations 
and proposed amendments to existing SPS regu lations that may have a significant effect 
on trade of other Members.  
3.3 MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights  Page 93 (Table 3.23 Summary of intellectual pr operty protection in the United States, 
May 2014) 
 Question 24. According to the above-mentioned Summa ry of IP protection in the U.S., the duration 
of patents on industrial designs is "14 years fr om date of grant". However, in the Patent Law 
Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA), effective 18 December 2013, the duration of design patents 
has been extended to 15 years. It would be appreciated if the U.S. could please explain this 
discrepancy, and confirm the exact duration of a design patent in the United States? 
 RESPONSE: The Patent Law Treaties Implemen tation Act (PLTIA) does in fact have 
p r o v i s i o n s  w h i c h  c h a n g e  t h e  t e r m  o f  a  d e s i g n  p a t e n t  i n  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  f r o m  1 4  t o  
15 years "from date of grant." The PLTIA has two titles, Title I pertaining to the Hague 
Agreement Concerning the International Registra tion of Industrial Designs, and Title II 
pertaining to the Patent Law Treaty Impl ementation. These Titles have different 
provisions with respect to when they take effect. Title II relating to the Patent Law 
Treaty (PLT) is already in effe ct, however, Title I has yet to take effect. As set forth in 
the PLTIA, the amendments made by Title I (H ague) will take effect "the date of entry 
into force of the treaty with respect to the United States." Simply stated, Title I of the 
PLTIA will take effect the same date the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement takes 
effect with respect to the United States. Until that date, the term of a patent on 
industrial designs remains 14 ye ars from the date of grant. 
 
3.3.6.4 Trade secret protection  
Page 95 (Para 3.207) 
The Administration issued a Strategy on Mitigati ng the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets in 2013.174 
The strategy lays out a series of steps to curb the theft of trade secrets, including diplomatic 
efforts to protect trade secrets overseas, voluntar y best practices by private industry, enhanced 
domestic law enforcement operations, improved domestic legislation, and public awareness and stakeholder outreach.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 414 - 
 
  Question 25. Does the U.S. trade secrets protecti on regime allow prosecutors to utilize wiretapping 
in the process of collecting evidence?  RESPONSE: Yes, federal law authorizes federa l investigators to apply for, and federal 
courts to issue, orders authorizing th e interception of wire or electronic 
communications, as part of a criminal investig ation of trade secret theft. See 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2516, which lists predicate offenses for th e investigation of which an interception 
order may be sought, and which includes chapter 90 of Title 18 (covering theft of trade 
secrets).  
 Question 26. Following on from the previous question, are wiretapping methods allowed for cases 
of trade secrets violation that take place outside U.S. borders? If so, could the U.S. please provide 
a reference to the relevant legislation?  
RESPONSE: The Economic Espionage Act author izes criminal prosecutions for violations 
that include conduct committed outside the territory of the United States under some circumstances (if the criminal act was committed by a United States person or any of the 
criminal conduct took place within the United States). See 18 U.S.C. §1837. In 
investigating such cases, U.S. law enforcem ent is authorized to seek court orders 
authorizing interceptions of wire or electr onic communications. Where a U.S. criminal 
investigation requires interception of communi cations that may only be acquired abroad, 
the Department of Justice works within the existing framework of Mutual Legal 
Assistance Treaties and other cooperation agreements to obtain the assistance of 
foreign law enforcement authoritie s in obtaining such evidence. 
 
3.3.6.5 Copyright  
Page 98 (Para 3.215) 
The challenges of copyright in the online envi ronment have led to continued litigation with 
significant implications for the publishing indu stry, including foreign holders of copyright.  
 
Question 27. To prevent cyber copyright infringe ment, the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act 
(DMCA) established several requirements. Could the U.S. please elaborate further on how Internet service providers are encouraged or required to wo rk closely with copyright holder and stakeholder 
groups in notifying P2P copyright violators? Which party is responsible for notifying the violators - 
the U.S. Patent & Trade Office (USPTO), Internet service providers, or the copyright holders?  
RESPONSE: The DMCA establishes obligations that internet servic e providers (ISPs) 
must fulfill in order to limit their liability fo r the potentially infringing actions of their 
users. The exact obligations of the ISP depend on the specific activity the ISP is engaged 
in, for example whether it is operating as a me re conduit to simply provide access to the 
internet, storing/hosting files on its service,  or linking users to online locations. Under 
Section 512(a), ISPs acting as mere conduits to provide access to the internet, including access used for illegal peer-to-pe er file sharing, are not oblig ated under the law to send 
notices to subscribers even if a rights hold er sends the ISP a noti ce of infringement. 
These ISPs are, however, obligated to adopt and reasonably implement polices 
addressing repeat infringers, including poli cies that provide for termination of the 
subscriber under appropriate circumstances. In  addition to the formal requirements of 
the DMCA, a number of major rights holders and ISPs are also working together on a voluntary basis to reduce infringing P2P file  transfers through notifications to persons 
identified as P2P violators and education.  More information about these voluntary 
programs is available at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=9128B02A-
B78B-CE14-877E-192517774C37 . 
 
Question 28. Who assumes the financial costs of the notification process - the copyright holders, 
the Internet service providers, or the USPTO?  
RESPONSE: Each party bears its own costs. 
 Question 29. Textbook piracy is also a form of online piracy. Does the U.S. have any legislation regarding this issue? Are violators subject to criminal penalties? Are police allowed to enter 
campuses to inspect and search for cases of textbook piracy?  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 415 - 
 
   
RESPONSE: U.S. laws do not specifically addr ess textbook piracy as a separate type of 
piracy. The copying and distribution of a text book without a license to do so is handled 
the same as illegal copying of any other co pyrighted work, such as movies, music and 
software. See 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq . This is true for both criminal and civil matters. 
Textbooks posted online are subject to the No tice and Takedown process set out in the 
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as are other copyrighted works. For textbooks 
shared through P2P networks, see Question 27, above. Section 106 of the 
1976 U.S. Copyright Act provides copyright ho lders with a set of six exclusive rights. 
Section 506 of the Act makes it a criminal offe nse for an individual to willfully infringe a 
copyright for the purposes of commercial ad vantage or private financial gain; to 
reproduce or distribute, including electronica lly, a copy of a work whose retail value is 
more than US$1,000 during any 180-day period; or with knowledge that a work was intended for commercial distribution, distributi ng the work by making it available on a 
computer network accessible to members of the public. Criminal penalties for such 
infringements are set out in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Law enforcement may enter physical 
locations to search for infringing materials, bu t only if the search is consistent with the 
due process rights of the party to be search ed, including presenting evidence to a judge 
and obtaining that judge's permission  Question 30. Does the U.S. have problems with  copyright infringement involving media boxes? 
What are the regulations and legislation dealing with this particular kind of copyright infringement?  
 RESPONSE: The term "media box" is used to refer to a wide range of technologies, 
including "set-top" boxes and "over-the-top" bo xes that enable users to stream content, 
including to televisions and mo bile devices. Media boxes may be used for non-infringing 
purposes or may be designed and marketed specifically to enable infringement. The 
2014 Special 301 Report recognized, for the first time, the emergence of "media box 
piracy" as a concern for U.S. rights holders in China (including Hong Kong), Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, and Vietna m. The devices reported in rights holder 
submissions to the U.S. Government are sp ecifically manufactured or advertised as 
enabling access to infringing materials. Some of the devices described by rights holders 
incorporate storage and are sold to customers with pre-loaded infringing content. Other 
devices enable  users to circumvent technological pr otection measures, for example by 
decrypting without authorization encrypted pay television programming. These devices 
may also be formatted to provide easy access  to remote online sources of unauthorized 
entertainment content or enable users to employ direct download sites to obtain 
infringing content. Rights holders have not re ported similar concerns in the U.S. market, 
and there are no specific laws or regulations in the United States dealing with this type 
of infringement. Therefore, an y infringement of copyright through a media box would be 
addressed through the civil or criminal pr ovisions for copyright infringement or 
unauthorized circumvention of technologica l protection measures under the United 
States Copyright Act, as outlined in the response to Question 29, above. 
 
Question 31. Does the U.S. government consider all media boxes to be proof of copyright 
infringement, or are they evaluated on a case-by-ca se basis, so that only those containing illegal 
piracy software are considered illegal? And, given that this kind of copyright infringement often 
takes place across multiple countries, could the U.S. please describe how it works with other 
countries to solve these issues and prosecute cross-border copyright violators?  RESPONSE: A wide range of devices are capabl e of playing or displaying digital media 
content stored locally our streamed over the Internet. Although some media devices 
may be used to commit or facilitate copyrigh t infringement, such de vices are not per se 
illegal under U.S. law, nor does possession or use of such a device demonstrate intent to 
infringe. In some cases, the use or sale of  devices designed or marketed for use in 
circumventing technological measures intend ed to protect copyrighted material may 
violate the Digital Millennium Copyri ght Act (17 U.S.C. §§1201 et seq.) 
 
The United States has a vibrant market for legitimate streaming content and the devices 
that enable such authorized streaming. Many  broadcasters, cable and satellite television 
providers, film studios, licensed online stre aming services, and other content providers 
have established specific channels that pe rmit access to their content through these WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 416 - 
 
  devices, often on a paid subscription or pay- per-view basis. To date, the United States 
Government is not aware of any U.S. ci vil or criminal cases brought against 
manufacturers or distributors of the types of  media boxes that have raised concerns in 
East Asia. However, previous U.S. courts  examining devices and technologies that 
allegedly enable copyright infringement ha ve done so based upon the facts of the 
specific case at hand. U.S. law enforcem ent officials have a number of formal and 
informal means to cooperate on cross-border intellectual property in fringement cases.  
 
With regard to prosecution of cross-border IP  crime, where United States investigators 
become aware of criminal infr ingement that involves conduct in another country, we 
generally seek to work with law enforcement officials in that country (through Mutual 
Legal Assistance Treaties or other cooper ative arrangements) to share information, 
cooperate on identifying and locating targets,  collecting evidence, in terdicting criminal 
activity, and criminally prosecuting those responsible, as appropriate. 
 
3.3.6.7 IP enforcement  
Page 99 (Para 3.220) 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given authority to destroy counterfeit or adulterated 
drugs imported in small packages, and to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report when a drug they manufacture has been found to be co unterfeited or stolen (to address the sale of 
counterfeit goods and reducing online piracy). 
 Question 32. Could the U.S. please provide further details of its legislative regime regarding patent 
linkage? Please also describe the role of the U.S. FDA in these matters? 
 RESPONSE: Under the U.S. patent linkage syst em, the originator is required to list all 
relevant patents and their expi ration dates, which in the United States are compiled in 
the Orange Book. Today the Orange Book is available on line. When a generic 
manufacturer wishes to seek marketing approv al based on the findings of safety and 
efficacy demonstrated by the or iginator's clinical trial and other data, that manufacturer 
is obligated to check the Orange Book and determine whether there are any listed 
patents covering the product.  
A generic manufacturer that wishes to market its product must certify to the 
U.S. FDA that the compound or formula for wh ich it is seeking mark eting approval either 
does not have any listed patents, that th e generic manufacturer does not intend to 
market the product until after the expiration of any listed patents, or that the product 
will not infringe the relevant patents or th e patents are invalid or unenforceable. This 
last option, the so-called "paragraph IV" cert ification, requires the generic applicant to 
inform the originator, and th e originator can choose to contest this certification by 
bringing a civil infringement suit. 
 4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTORS 
4.2 Services 
4.2.1 Financial services 4.2.1.2 Recent developments 
 
Page 121 (Para 4.76) On 18 February 2014, the Federal Reserve approved a final rule establishing a number of enhanced prudential standards, including liquidity, risk management, and capital to strengthen the 
supervision and regulation of U.S. banks with assets of at least US$50 billion, as well as 
U.S. operations of foreign banks that have more  than US$50 billion in non-agency U.S. assets.  
 
Question 33. The FED is developing a single lending limit under the framework of the final rules. 
Since foreign banks in the U.S. are subject to th e final rules, and our single lending limit rule 
exempts banks' lending to the government an d interbank lending, we wonder whether the 
U.S. rules will exempt these two kinds of lending? 
RESPONSE: Details are available in the fina l rule, available at: "Enhanced Prudential 
Standards for Bank Holding Companies and Fo reign Banking Organizations" Final Rule, 
Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR Part 252 [Regulation YY; Docket No. 1438], WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 417 - 
 
  Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations. 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2014-03-27/html /2014-05699.htm.  
 
Question 34. However, if these two kinds of lending are not exempted, we would like to suggest 
that banks with limited U.S. operations should be  exempted from the rules in order to prevent a 
negative impact on the interbank lending of these relatively small foreign banks. What is the US' 
reaction to this suggestion? 
 
RESPONSE: This rule is final.  
 4.2.2 Telecom 
4.2.2.2 Legal and institutional framework 
 Pages 124 - 125 (Para 4.90) 
Section 310 of the Communications Act, restricts granting of a common carrier wireless licence to 
foreign governments, as well as to any non-U.S. ci tizens or corporations, or any corporation with 
more than 20% foreign ownership. However, un der its statutory "forbearance" authority, the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has determined that it will not apply the 20% limit to 
the class of common carrier wireless licensees in which the foreign investment is held in the licensee through U.S.-organized entities that do not control the licensee, to the extent the FCC determines, upon the filing of a petition for declar atory ruling by the licensee, that the particular 
foreign investment is consistent with the public interest. In addition, where a common carrier 
wireless licensee is controlled by a U.S.-organized parent company, Section 310 allows foreign individuals, corporations, or governments to own and vote 25% of the U.S. parent's capital stock. 
In all cases, whether an applicant is domestic or foreign, the FCC is authorized to attach conditions 
to a licence, or to deny a licence, if it finds it is in the public interest to do so.  
US regulations also stipulate that foreign individu als, corporations or governments are permitted to 
own up to 25% of the U.S. parent's capital stoc k directly and indirectly. Furthermore, without 
violating the public interests of the U.S. and on a case-by-case basis, the FCC may relax the 
limitation to 25% and raise the proportion of foreign ownership up to 100% (ref: footnote 119 in 
the Secretariat report). 
 Question 35. How does the FCC calculate the proportion of foreign ownership? As a specific 
example, please explain how the FCC reviews foreign investment in the US's common carrier 
wireless licence? In addition, has the FCC ever rejected a case in which an investment would exceed the 25% foreign ownership ceiling? If so, what reasons were given by the FCC for the 
rejection? 
 RESPONSE: Details on how foreign ownership is calculated can be found at 47 C.F.R 
1.992. Specific examples can be found in any order approving foreign ownership of a 
wireless license. A rece nt example is here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_ 
public/attachmatch/DA-13-384A1.pdf.  The FCC has never denied an application to 
exceed the 25% foreign ownership ceiling. 
 
Question 36. Besides the FCC, do any other governmental institutions also undertake reviews of foreign investments in the U.S. telecommunications industry? If so, could the U.S. please describe 
the review process? 
 RESPONSE: Depending on the case, a review of  a license application may involve any of 
the following: the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Justice,  and the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative. These agencies all have th e opportunity (but not the obligation) to 
comment on any pending application, ba sed on their agency-specific interests.  
 
4.2.2.3 Policy actions  
Pages 127 and 128 (Paras 4.95 and 4.96) 
In December 2010, the FCC issued a Report and Order (FCC 10-201) to adopt open internet rules. The FCC prohibited fixed broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffic and from blocking lawful content, applications, and services. The FCC also 
imposed more limited anti-blocking rules on mobile  broadband providers, and required both fixed WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 418 - 
 
  and mobile broadband providers to disclose their network management practices. In September 
2011, Verizon appealed the FCC's Open Internet Order. In January 2014, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the FCC's blocking and discriminations rules for the internet, but also upheld the FCC's authority to adopt open Internet rules under section 706 
of the Telecommunications Act. 
 In response to the Court's decision, on 15 May 2014 the FCC proposed new Open Internet rules, 
so as to enhance the existing transparency requir ement, reinstate the no-blocking rule with certain 
clarifications, and require fixed (and potentially mobile) broadband providers to ensure that their 
practices are commercially reasonable. The FCC also  sought comment on whether it should adopt 
legal presumptions that certain practices by broadband providers are commercially unreasonable, 
including with respect to prioritization of traffic from affiliated services. The FCC sought public 
comment on these proposed rules and on altern ative proposals to protect the open Internet, 
including those that would regulate broadband providers as common carriers under certain 
circumstances. The deadline for submitting initial comments was 15 July 2014, and replies to those 
comments were due on 15 September 2014. New Open Internet rules are expected to be adopted by the end of 2014. 
 
Question 37. Have there been any further developments since the public comments on the FCC's proposed new internet rules were compiled and what was the main reaction in terms of public opinion? Moreover, after the experiences of the co urt decision and the public comment on its new 
proposals, what is the FCC's position on the subjec t of network neutrality, and what direction is it 
likely to take in the future?  
RESPONSE: As this is an open proceeding, it  would be premature to conclude what the 
FCC's position might be.  
 
PART II: REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT (WT/TPR/G/307) 
 4. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2012 4.2 Regional Initiatives 
 
Page 12 (Para 4.9) During the period of this review, the United States and its TPP partners – Australia, Brunei 
Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexi co, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam 
– made substantial progress toward completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a high-standard, 12 country Asia-Pacific trade and investment agreement. The TPP will advance U.S. 
economic interests with the fastest growing region  of the world and expand U.S. exports, which 
are critical to U.S. economic growth and supportin g and retaining high-paying, high-quality jobs in 
the United States, while creating a platform for economic integration across the Asia-Pacific region.  
Question 38. The TPP is seen by the U.S. government as a platform for economic integration 
across the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, the formation of a free trade area across the Asia-Pacific region (the FTAAP) has long been a goal of the APEC member economies. Could the 
U.S. government please elaborate further on how the TPP will contribute to achieving the FTAAP 
goal, in particular by pointing to where the TPP trade agenda complements or enhances trade-
related initiatives proposed in the APEC forum? 
  
RESPONSE: The United States supports the goal that APEC members have endorsed of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (F TAAP), and have further supported the 
APEC members' vision that FTAAP can be ac hieved through multiple pathways. With our 
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) partners, we are developing TPP as a regional 
agreement that could be expanded in the futu re to include other regional economies that 
are prepared to meet its ambitious standard s. We view TPP as a high-standard pathway 
to FTAAP, recognizing that ambitious and co mprehensive agreements are more likely to 
generate the greatest economic benefits for participants. TPP members have built on the 
work of APEC in many areas, including on regulatory issues, small- and medium-sized 
enterprises, trade facilitation, and other areas.  
  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 419 - 
 
  ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE SEPARATE  
CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
  
PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/307) 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 AGRICULTURE 
4.1.1 AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014 Page 103-104 (Table 4.1) According to Table 4.1 Overview of main pr ogramme changes in the 2014 Farm Bill, crop 
insurance amendments include new subsidized insurance programmes: supplemental coverage 
option (SCO) and stacked income protection plan for producers of upland cotton (STAX). 
 
Question(s): 
1. Regarding Table 4.1 Overview of main prog ramme changes in the 2014 Farm Bill, could the 
U.S. please elaborate on the amendments of crop insurance plans and the anticipated benefits
？ 
 
RESPONSE: Information on Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX), and other Farm B ill amendments affecting crop insurance is 
available on the Risk Management Agency's website at http://www.rma.usda.gov/ 
news/currentissues/farmbill/index.html . The main benefit of SCO and STAX coverage is 
that they provides producers an option to  purchase subsidized area-based insurance 
coverage for a portion of the expected mark et value of their crops, and is generally 
based on the deductible of an underlying policy.  
PART II: REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT (WT/TPR/G/307) 
  4. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2012 4.2 REGIONAL INITIATIVES  
 
Page 12 (Para 4.9) During the period of this review, the United  States and its TPP partners – Australia, 
Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and 
Vietnam – made substantial progress toward completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a high-standard, 12 country Asia-Pacific  trade and investment agreement. The TPP will 
advance U.S. economic interests with the fastest growing region of the world and expand 
U.S. exports, which are critical to U.S. economic growth and supp orting and retaining high-paying, 
high-quality jobs in the United States, while creating a platform for economic integration across the Asia-Pacific region.  
 
Question(s): 2. Would the U.S. please explain the standards it applies when discussing whether to accept 
new members with other TPP members? Chinese Taipei would be the sixth largest trading 
economy if accepted to the TPP. With its unden iable economic size, Chinese Taipei's entrance 
would be in line with the objectives of the ab ove-mentioned "advancing U.S. economic interests 
with the fastest growing region of the world and expanding U.S. exports, which are critical to 
U.S. economic growth and supporting and retaining high-paying, high-quality jobs in the United 
States."  
RESPONSE: TPP is being developed by the curre nt partners as a potential platform for 
further Asia-Pacific regional economic inte gration, and TPP membership has expanded 
from seven partners at the negotiation's la unch to 12 now. Decisions about accepting 
new candidates into TPP are made on a consensus basis by all current TPP partners. The 
United States looks at any candidate's de monstrated readiness to take on TPP's 
ambitious trade and investment commitments an d address bilateral issues, as well as its 
track record on living up to existing trad e and investment commitments. Right now, the 
12 TPP partners are focused on concluding the negotiations to create the TPP. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 420 - 
 
  THAILAND 
  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
 Page 29 (paragraph 2.12)  
Question 1: As explained in the Report, the United States will continue to promote its policy of 
legally and sustainably caught and accurately labeled seafood, and will assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Could the United States provide further details on such policy in particular how to deal with seafood fraud as well as on the capacity 
building program to assist foreign nations in combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud? 
 RESPONSE: The Task Force is providing its recommendations to the President in 
December 2014. The recommendations will be published in the Federal Register  with an 
opportunity for public comment. Upon receiv ing guidance from the President on the 
recommendations, the Task Force will begin its implementation of the recommendations 
and, within one year, will report to the Pr esident on its progress. Capacity building 
activities and opportunities are one of th e elements for possible inclusion in the 
recommendations that the Task Force is co nsidering. Through the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act an d other authorities, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service engages in international co operation and assistance, with particular 
emphasis on efforts to combat IUU fishing, mitigate bycatch of pr otected living marine 
resources, and conserve sharks. One purpose is to assist nations that are identified 
under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, so that they may better 
address the activities for which they were id entified, including IUU fishing. Information 
regarding IUU measures is available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/ 
iuu/iuu_overview.html . 
 
Page 39 (paragraph 2.51)  Question 2:  With regard to the "Make it in America" programme, Thailand would appreciate it if 
the U.S. could clarify whether the one-time or three-year grant award is conditional upon the 
employment of American citizens and how to apply such programme in compliance with the US' commitments in various FTAs with regard to the provision on Prohibition of Performance 
Requirements, particularly prohibition of domestic content measures. 
 RESPONSE: The Make it in America program was a one-time program, carried out in 
2012, to identify innovative projects focuse d on increasing investment and employment. 
Further information is available at www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2012/ 
09/25/fact-sheet-make- it-america-challenge . The winning projects are described at 
http://www.eda.gov/challenges/M akeItInAmerica/winners.htm . Information about the 
SelectUSA program is available at http://selectusa.commerce.gov . The SelectUSA 
websites contains a searchable database of over 70 different federal incentive programs 
designed to encourage business inve stment across a range of sectors 
(http://selectusa.commerce.gov/investment-incentives ).  
 
Page 39 (paragraph 2.52)  
Question 3 : Thailand would like to ask the U.S. the following questions:  
 (1) What are the criteria set for transactions that may fall within the scope of "covered" foreign investment transactions to be determined  by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States (CFIUS)? 
 
RESPONSE: The rules governing the CFIUS pr ocess are set forth in section 721; in 
Executive Order 11858, as amended most  recently by Executive Order 13456 of 
January 23, 2008 (''Executive Order11858''); and in regulations found at 31 CFR part 
800, as amended most recently by the Final Rule published at 73 FR 70702 (Nov. 21, 2008) (''Regulations''). These provisions establish CFIUS and provide the 
President and CFIUS with the authority to re view any ''covered transaction,'' defined in 
the Regulations as ''any transaction that is  proposed or pending after August 23, 1988, 
by or with any foreign person, which could result in control of a U.S. business by a 
foreign person. 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 421 - 
 
   (2) Is there any Thai investment that falls under such scope? 
 RESPONSE: The number of filings per countr y in 2012 is availa ble in CFIUS's 2012 
Annual Report. http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/foreign-
investment/Documents/2013%20CFIUS%20Annual%20Report%20PUBLIC.pdf . 
 
 (3) Could the U.S. share with Thailand its guidelines for the determination of whether a 
transaction threatens the national security? 
 RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determinin g whether a transaction raises national 
security concerns, and a general description of  the types of transactions that CFIUS has 
reviewed and that have presented national se curity considerations is available in the 
official guidance that Treasury pub lished on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register  
(and available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/ 
international/foreign-investme nt/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). The CFIUS process 
is fully described in statutes, executive orders, regulations, and in the guidance 
document noted above, all of which are available at www.treasury.gov/cfius .  
 
Page 85 (paragraph 3.167)  Question 4:  With regard to the US's government proc urement, we have the following questions: 
(1) Would the United States estimate the timing of finalizing the regulatory changes to 
implement the above-mentioned law? 
 RESPONSE: The effective date of the statute was the date of its enactment, January 2, 
2011. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and th e Treasury Department are in the process 
of drafting regulations.   
 (2) Would the United States elaborate further whether such new legislation is to create a 
2% federal excise tax to be applied only to all foreign suppliers of goods and services receiving 
payments for purchasing of goods and servic es from the federal governments under the 
government procurement contracts? Is there any federal excise tax on foreign suppliers of goods 
and services receiving payments under the normal course of trade?  
 RESPONSE: The U.S Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations. The Unit ed States is unable to provide details about 
the administration or interpretation of the legislation prior to the publication of these regulations. 
 
 (3) Please elaborate the term and definition of "international procurement agreement"   RESPONSE: The effective date of the st atute was the date of its enactment, 
January 2, 2011. The U.S. Internal Revenue Se rvice and the Treasury Department are in 
the process of drafting regulations.  
 (4) Has, in history, the U.S. federal government awarded procurement contracts to foreign 
suppliers of goods and services, including construc tion services, where their government is neither 
a party to the WTO GPA nor to an international procurement agreement with the U.S.? Please 
specify. 
 RESPONSE: Yes. Exceptions exist to the purc hasing restrictions under the Buy American 
Act (see paragraph 3.183 and associated footnote 143) and the Trade Agreements 
Act. Contract awards are searchable in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) at 
www.fpds.gov .  
 
Pages 86-87 (paragraphs 3.174-3.182) 
Question 5:  Has any international procurement agreement been waived from the bidding 
procedures regulated under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)? Please clarify. 
 
RESPONSE: The Federal Acquisition Regulation  (FAR) incorporates U.S. obligations for 
Federal procurements covered under international agreements, so compliance with the FAR is not waived for such procurements. See FAR subpart 25.4.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 422 - 
 
  Page 87 (paragraph 3.184) 
Question 6:  (1) Would the United States please elaborate "eligible products" covered under the 
WTO GPA, some relevant FTAs, and for LDCs that have been waived from the Buy American Act? 
 
RESPONSE: Eligible products are those covere d by the United States under the WTO GPA 
and Free Trade Agreements (FAR 25.403(a)). Least Developed Countries end products 
are eligible products for procurements covere d by the United States under the GPA (FAR 
25.404). 
   (2) Does "some relevant FTAs" mean all FTAs incorporating the government procurement provisions? If not, please explain. 
 
RESPONSE: Yes. "Some FTAs" means those FT As that include government procurement 
market access obligations.  
 
Pages 88-89 (paragraph 3.187 and Table 3.22) Question 7:  
 (1) Do we understand correctly that all thre sholds in all trade agreements, including the 
WTO GPA, are subject to revision(s) by the USTR approximately every two years?  RESPONSE: The WTO Committee on Government Procurement adopted GPA/1 on 
March 5, 1996 providing for notice every two years of threshold figures in national 
currencies. Each U.S. free trade agreement with government procurement market access 
obligations addresses the frequency and form ula for any adjustment of the relevant 
thresholds. The agreements generally provide for thresholds to be adjusted every two 
years consistent with the timing of the WTO GPA notifications. The next adjustments are 
schedule for December 2015 and will be publis hed in the Federal Register by USTR.  
 
(2) What are the grounds for consideration of such revision?  
 RESPONSE: Market access commitment thresholds under the WTO GPA are denominated 
in IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). WTO Committee on Government Procurement 
document GPA/1 addresses how to calcul ate the threshold figures in national 
currencies. The relevant U.S. free trade agreements also specify the formula for 
adjustments to the thresholds.  
 Table 3.22 has shown thresholds for the application of trade agreements:  
 (3) Are these trade agreements only agreemen ts incorporating the government procurement 
provision?  RESPONSE: Table 3.22 reflects U.S. FTAs th at include government procurement market 
access obligations.  
  (4) Thailand has noted that some thresholds for "supply and services contracts" under 
certain FTAs are less than these thresholds under the WTO GPA. However, it is different for 
construction contract. Thresholds for construction contract under particular FTAs, namely Bahrain FTA, NAFTA and Oman FTA are higher than thresholds under the WTO GPA and other 
FTAs. Would the United States clarify why these FTA parties receive less favorable than other WTO 
GPA parties for the construction contract?   RESPONSE: The higher construction thresh olds under U.S.-Bahrain FTA, NAFTA and 
U.S.-Oman FTA reflect the mutually agreed  levels of market access coverage.  
 Page 89 (paragraph 3.188) 
Question 8:  
 (1) Would the United States please specify the list of "some 37 states participat[ing] in the GPA" as portrayed under the paragraph? 
 (2) Do these states, which participate in the WTO GPA, also participate in international 
procurement agreements? Please specify.  RESPONSE: Information on the United States coverage schedule under the revised GPA 
can be located on the WTO webpage WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 423 - 
 
  (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ gproc_e/gp_app_agree_e.htm#revisedGPA ). I
nformation on the United States coverage schedule under Free Trade Agreements can be 
found on the webpage of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/government-pro curement/ftas-government-procurement-
obligations).  
 Page 110 (paragraph 4.31)  
Question 9 : Thailand would like to seek clarification on the following points; 
 (1) Whether the U.S. Government has donation limits on a single category of dairy products under the Dairy Product Donation Program.   
RESPONSE: There are no specif ic limits on donations, although USDA dairy product 
purchase quantities may have to be limit ed to meet the 2014 Farm Bill's immediate 
distribution requirement. According to Sec.  1431e(1) of the Farm Bill, "…The Secretary 
of Agriculture shall distribute, but not stor e, the dairy products purchased under the 
dairy product donation program…"   
 (2) Whether the Dairy Product Donation Program implementation would possibly create 
significant market distortions in global dairy supply chain.   RESPONSE: Time limits for purchases under th e Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP) 
and domestic price and international price di fference limits ensure that any impact on 
the global dairy supply chain would be insignif icant in comparison to global production 
and trade. 
 
DPDP purchases will cease at the end of the month in which it is determined that:  
• The actual dairy production margin for the previous month is above US$4 per cwt; 
• Purchases have taken place fo r three consecutive months; 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds worl d prices by 5% if the actual dairy 
production margin is at or below US$4 but above US$3; or 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds world pr ices by 7 percent, if the margin is 
US$3 or less. 
 Page 116 (paragraph 4.65)  
Question 10:  
(1) Could the United States please explain why most tariff rate quotas were under-filled?  
 
RESPONSE: The fill rates for U.S. tariff quotas are driven by market conditions. This can 
lead to fill rates varying significantly from one tariff quota to anot her and from year to 
year. With regards to the 2012 notification, most of the tariff rate quotas with very low fill rates are administered on a first come, first-served basis.  
 
 (2) What measures will be taken for improvement?   
RESPONSE: To further liberalize markets and bolster transparency, the United States is 
committed to and encourages the implementati on of the Bali Ministerial Understanding 
on Tariff-Rate Quota Administration.  
 
Pages 124-125 (paragraph 4.90)  Question 11:  What are the FCC's criteria in considering whether a corporation meets the basic 
needs for "the public interest" as indicated in the last sentence of the paragraph? 
 
RESPONSE: Following the WTO conclusion of negotiations on basic telecommunications 
and adoption of the Fourth Protocol, the FCC adopted a "rebuttable presumption" that 
foreign investment from WTO Member countri es in common carrier licensees does not 
pose competitive concerns in the U.S. market. The FCC continues to apply that 
presumption. The FCC also continues to consider , as part of its public interest analysis, 
any national security, law enforcement, fore ign policy or trade policy concerns that may 
be raised by proposed foreign investment  that would exceed the limits of the 
Communications Act.  Page 134 (paragraph 4.106)  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 424 - 
 
  Question 12:  Please provide clarification why, in practice, the measures indicated in the 
paragraph would apply only to Canada?  RESPONSE: Canada is the only WTO Member we  are aware of that discriminates in this 
manner. 
 Pages 134-135 (paragraph 4.111)  
Question 13:  
 (1) Please provide clear definitions and illustrati ons for "directly or indirectly controlled" (any 
other corporation of which more than 25% of the capital stock is owned or voted by aliens, foreign governments or foreign corporations). 
  
RESPONSE: "Directly or indirectly controlled" means controlled by the 
foreign-established company, or by a subsidia ry that company established in the United 
States. To hold such a license, the foreign company needs to create another corporate 
layer in the United States (e.g. a holding comp any) to effectuate its holding of a license. 
Through such a structure, however, 100% co ntrol, all flowing through to the foreign 
company, can be achieved. 
 
(2) What are the FCC's criteria in considering whether or not to allow higher levels of 
foreign ownership in controlling U.S. parent companies to meet certain standard for the public 
interest on this matter?  
 RESPONSE: The answer is the same as with question 11 above. The public interest 
standard for granting common carrier wire less licenses to companies with foreign 
ownership that would exceed the limits in the Communications Act has not changed for WTO investors. Following the WTO conc lusion of negotiations on basic 
telecommunications and adoption of the Four th Protocol, the FCC adopted a "rebuttable 
presumption" that foreign investment from  WTO Member countries  in common carrier 
licensees does not pose competitive concerns  in the U.S. market. The FCC continues to 
apply that presumption. The FCC also continues to  consider, as part of its public interest 
analysis, any national security, law enforcem ent, foreign policy or trade policy concerns 
that may be raised by proposed foreign inve stment that would exceed the limits of the 
Communications Act.  
 
Page 140 (paragraph 4.130)  Question 14:  Please provide specific laws and regulations concerning a needs-based quantitative 
limit specified in the paragraph. 
 RESPONSE: A description of U.S. state "certi ficate-of-need ("CON") programs and links 
to relevant laws and regulations can be found at http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/ 
con-certificate-of-need-state-laws.aspx . 
 
The U.S. healthcare industry is largely open  to foreign investment as shown by inward 
foreign affiliates trade statistics, i.e. on  sales of subsidiaries of foreign-owned 
companies with inward flows being fourfold  the outward flows and by the fact that 
seven out of the ten largest private equity deals in global healthcare in 2011 were 
targeting U.S. companies. This attraction pr evails despite the fact, recognized by the 
authorities themselves32, that it can be challenging for foreign firms to enter the U.S. 
market due to state level regulations and lic ensing requirements, as well as difficulties 
qualifying for reimbursem ent from third parties. 
 
The United States is the world's leading de stination for foreign healthcare workers. 
It hosts the largest number of foreign heal thcare workers in absolute terms although 
foreign professionals make up a larger share of the workforce in many European 
countries. In 2010, demand for physicians exceeded supply by 13,700 physicians and 
22% of the physicians operating in the Unit ed States graduated from foreign medical 
schools.33 As a result of the healthcare reform and the additional demand it will entail, it 
is expected that the supply-demand gap for physicians will widen in the coming years. 
                                               
32 This statement is excerpted from pages 4-16. S ee U.S. International Trade Commission (2013b). 
33 Outside the United States and Canada. See U.S. International Trade Commission (2013b). WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 425 - 
 
  As a consequence, foreign caregivers are allo wed to practice in the United States under 
specific programmes, for instance a visa-w aiver program, which allows U.S. trained 
international medical graduates to stay in the United Stat es if they practice in a 
medically-underserved area for three years.  To date, 9,000 physicians have worked 
under this program. 
 Page 141 (paragraphs 4.132-4.133)  
Question 15:  Thailand would like to inquire about the following issues; 
 (1) Whether the U.S. Government has a policy to amend the relevant regulations of healthcare industry in order to facilitate and promot e foreign investment in this field in the future.  
 
RESPONSE: As the Secretariat noted, the United States warmly welcomes foreign 
investment in the health care sector, just as it does in al l other sectors. The market for 
investment in health care is largely open . We are unaware of plans to change any 
regulations for this purpose. 
  (2) The possibility of Thailand being informed of the U.S. government's long term policy on 
solving the under-supply of physicians in the U.S.  particularly any foreseeable future plans on 
introducing Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) between the U.S. and any countries.   RESPONSE: The following provides an overview of the programs that enable health care 
providers from foreign countries to receive training or provide clinical care in the 
United States.  
Training 
The Department of State's Exchange Visito r Program (EVP), provides non-immigrant 
visas for individuals to participate in academ ic or training exchange programs. Students 
and various professions including physicians are eligible for the EVP. More information 
can be found at http://j1visa.state.gov . 
 
Clinical Care  
In order to provide care in the United Stat es, a foreign educated or trained physician 
must be licensed in a U.S. State (in addi tion to holding an appropriate visa).  
 
To be licensed, a foreign physician must comp lete a U.S. residency program, as well as 
U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) St eps 1, 2, &3. To compete for a residency 
position, all foreign-trained physicians (inc luding U.S. citizens & permanent residents 
trained abroad) must be certified by Ed ucational Commission for Foreign Medical 
Graduates (ECFMG).  Most foreign physicians enter U.S. Residencies on the J-1 (training) visa; the 2-year post 
training foreign residency requirement of the J-1 visa may be waived  in return for an 
agreement to work for 3 years in an underserved area.   
We are not aware of plans by U.S. licensing authorities to introduce Mutual Recognition 
Arrangement (MRA).  
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REPORT BY THE GOVERNMENT 
 Page 26 (paragraph 6.2) Question 16:  
 (1) What is the relationship between the EGA initiative and the negotiations on the 
elimination of tariffs and non tariff barriers on environmental goods and services (EGS) under the CTE?  
 
RESPONSE: The United States sees no conflict between the EGA negotiations and the CTE-SS' work to liberalize trade in environmental goods.  The recently launched 
EGA negotiations present a unique opportun ity to add impetus and energy to the 
multilateral trading system. The EGA is bein g negotiated by a group of WTO Members 
committed to liberalization in this sector , but the benefits will accrue to all 
WTO Members, as the participants plan to e liminate tariffs on agreed products on an 
MFN basis.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 426 - 
 
   
 (2) Have the U.S. and 13 other WTO members, under the EGA negotiations, agreed on definitions, criteria, or ways to  define "Environmental Goods"?  
 
RESPONSE:  The EGA participants are building on  the list of environmental goods 
endorsed by APEC Leaders by exploring a broad range of additional products. 
 
 (3) Have the U.S. and 13 other WTO members,  under the EGA negotiations, agreed on the 
procedure to follow in case of revising the initially  agreed list of environmental goods in the future?  
 RESPONSE:  EGA participants have committed to ex plore a future oriented agreement 
able to address other issues in the sector an d to respond to changes in technologies in 
the years to come. These discussions are ongoing.  
 (4) Please provide information on the work th at the U.S. has done or has been doing under 
the CTE on the relationship between the WTO rules and multilateral environment agreements (MEAs). 
 
RESPONSE:  The United States has been an active  participant in both the WTO Committee 
on Trade and Environment (CTE) and Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS) since their inception. With regard to the former, the United States has 
continually emphasized the importance of capacity-building and information sharing 
among Members to meet key trade and environmental objectives.  
Pages 26-27 (paragraphs 6.3-6.4) 
Question 17:   (1) Please clarify (1.1) whether these measures would affect international trade, and if so 
(1.2) what approach will be adopted to ensure  that the cooperation between the U.S. and  
partner countries to apply measures which tackle environmental problems are consistent with the WTO rule .  (2) Specifically, it would be useful to clarify how to ascertain that these measures would not 
(2.1) be applied in a manner that would consti tute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, and (2.2) constitute a disguised restriction on international trade. 
 
RESPONSE: The United States strives to ensu re that its trade and environmental policies 
and measures are mutually supportive, and that measures to protect the environment 
are implemented in a manner consistent with international trade obligations. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 427 - 
 
  THAILAND (ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS) 
  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
 
Page 39 (paragraph 2.50)  
Question 18:  It is mentioned that SelectUSA "does not offer direct incentives but provides a link 
to federal government programmes offering incent ives to businesses." In this regard, Thailand 
would like to seek clarification on the following points:  
 (1) What are the incentives which the federal government as well as the government 
authorities in each state offers to foreign direct  investment "to attract and retain investment"?  
 (2) What are the eligibility criteria and procedures in an application for these incentives? 
 
RESPONSE: The SelectUSA website contains a detailed and searchable database of 
Federal Government programs and incentives for 
businesses: http://selectusa.commerce.gov/investment-incentives . The database 
provides summary information about these prog rams and incentives, as well as links to 
websites where more detailed information about each program, including eligibility 
criteria and application procedures, can be found. 
 
Page 39 (paragraph 2.51)  
Question 19:  What are the criteria, qualifications, and/or conditions of a project applying for the 
grant awards? For example, is there a condition of foreign shareholding restriction?   
 RESPONSE: The criteria, qualifications, or conditions for application for particular 
business programs or incentives may va ry depending on the program. Detailed 
information about Federal Go vernment programs and ince ntives, including eligibility 
criteria and application procedures, is available through the SelectUSA 
website: http://selectusa.commerce. gov/investment-incentives . 
 
 Page 39 (paragraph 2.52)  
Question 20:  Thailand would like to ask the U.S. the additional following questions on CIFUS:  
 (1) What is the procedure for CFIUS in investigating "covered foreign investment 
transactions"?  
 (2) Which sectors are the targets for such investigation?  
 (3) What is the ground for the President to prohibit such transaction? Are there other grounds than national security? Has any Thai "cover ed transaction" been investigated in the past? 
 
RESPONSE: CFIUS's approach to determinin g whether a transaction raises national 
security concerns, and a general description of  the types of transactions that CFIUS has 
reviewed and that have presented national se curity considerations is available in the 
official guidance that Treasu ry published on December 8, 2008, in the Federal Register 
(and available on our webpage at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/international/foreign-inves tment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf ). The CFIUS 
process is fully described in the CFIUS statut e, executive order, regulation, and in the 
guidance document noted above, all of which are available at: www.treasury.gov/cfius .  
 
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
 
Page 89 (paragraph 3.189)  
Question 21:  Thailand would like to seek further clarification on the following points: 
 (1) What is the definition of "IP-intensive industries"? 
 (2) What type of businesses falls under the "IP-intensive industries"? 
 (3) Could the U.S. elaborate on the types of IP-related jobs that are mentioned in the 
paragraph?  RESPONSE: Regarding the definition of "IP-intensive industries" used in the report cited 
by the Secretariat, the report states that it "…employs USPTO administrative data to WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 428 - 
 
  identify the industries that most intensivel y use the protection offered by patents and 
trademarks. For copyrights, the report iden tifies the set of industries primarily 
responsible for both the creation and produc tion of copyrighted materials. The report 
then uses standard statistical methods to identify which American industries are the 
most patent-, trademark-, and copyright-intensive, and defines this subset of industries 
as 'IP-intensive'".  
Regarding the type of businesses that constitu te "IP-intensive industries," Section II of 
the report cited by the Secretariat provides extensive analysis with respect to patent-, 
trademark, and copyright-intensive industries in the United States. For example, Table 1 
of the report lists patent intensity by industry, Table 6 lists trademark-intensive 
industries, Table 9 lists copyright-intensive industries, and Table 10 lists IP-intensive 
industries.  
Regarding the types of IP-related jobs discussed in the report, Section III provides a 
detailed assessment of contributions of IP-int ensive industries to the U.S. economy, 
including with respect to employment. The repo rt explains that its review covers payroll 
jobs (or wage and salary workers), as we ll as the self-employed and unpaid family 
workers. The report does an in-depth assess ment of the types of jobs associated with 
patent-, trademark-, and copyright-intens ive industries in the United States. 
 
 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
 
Pages 124-125 (paragraph 4.90) 
Question 22:  Thailand would like to know that in the case that the FCC does not apply the 20% 
foreign ownership limitation, is there any other limitation on foreign ownership in the telecom 
sector? If so, please provide details.  
 RESPONSE: Section 310(b)(4) of the Communi cations Act establishes a 25% benchmark 
for investment by foreign individuals, govern ments, and other foreign-organized entities 
in U.S.-organized entities that directly or indirectly control a U.S. common carrier radio 
licensee. A foreign individual, government, or  other foreign-organized entity may own, 
directly or indirectly, more than 25% (and up to 100%) of the stock of a U.S.-organized 
entity that, in turn, holds a controlling interest in a common carrier licensee, unless the 
Commission finds that the public interest w ill be served by refusing to permit such 
ownership. The Commission applies the same pub lic interest criteria in reviewing foreign 
ownership that would exceed the 20% an d 25% limits in Sections 310(b)(3) and 
310(b)(4), respectively. (See attached Section 310(b)(3) and Section 310(b)(4) ownership diagrams.)   
We also note that Section 310(a) of th e Communications Act prohibits a foreign 
government or its representative from hold ing a radio license in its own right. In 
addition, Sections 310(b)(1) and 310(b)(2) pr ohibit any foreign individual or its 
representative, and any foreign-organized co rporation, respectively, from holding a 
common carrier radio license in its own right.  Apart from services based on the use of 
wireless spectrum, there are no statutor y foreign ownership limitations in the 
telecommunications sector. 
  Page 133 (paragraph 4.104) 
Question 23:  Thailand would like to seek clarification on the following points: 
 (1) What is the difference between "radio and television service (2.D.c)" and  "radio and 
television transmission services (2.D.d)"? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States followed the W.120 in scheduling its service commitments, and the distinction Thailand is qu erying is implicit in that classification 
system: the W.120 distinguishes between  services relating to radio and 
TV programming, and the transmission of su ch programming. The distinction is also 
explicit in the CPC references indicated in the W.120 (although the United States did not 
rely on these in making its commitments.).  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 429 - 
 
   (2) Please explain about the definitions of "officer" and "directors" in this context, i.e. the 
last sentence of the quoted text.  RESPONSE: Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, that formed the basis of the 
U.S. 1994 GATS commitments, was amended in 1996. It no longer refers to either 
"officers" or "directors."  
 
 
OTHER QUESTIONS   Question 24:  Intellectual property rights - Patent  
 Regarding the USPTO's aim in reducing the period  of patent registration from 33.9 months in 
2012, 27.8 months in 2014 and 20 months in 2019, Tha iland would appreciate it if the U.S. could 
provide further details as follows:  
 (1) The process/procedure methods to accelerate the patent registration.  
 (2) The statistics of patent examiners relati ng to the applications received per year.  
 (3) The USPTO's future plan to increase the number of patent examiners. 
 
 RESPONSE: The USPTO has moved from a one- track patent examination process to a 
multitrack process by adopting procedures and initiatives that incentivize abandoning 
applications that are not important to applic ants, accelerating critical technologies, and 
exploring other incentive and accelerated ex amination options. Specific initiatives 
include Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement pilot program, the After Final 
Consideration Pilot 2.0, and Track One Prioritized Examination program. 
 The requested statistics are as follows: 
 
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 
Applications 
(including RCEs)  537,171 565,566 601,464 618,330 
Examiners at  
End-of-Year 
 6,780 7,935 8,051 8,611 
(Utility, Plants, Re-Issue, Designs) 
 
The USPTO plans to hire 1,000 examiners in Fiscal Year 2015 (October 1, 2-14 – 
September 30, 2015). After FY2 015, the USPO anticipates it will be able to scale down 
hiring efforts and focus primarily on repl acing attritions to maintain an optimal 
examination capacity and working level inventory. 
  
Question 25: Intellectual property rights - Trademark 
 (1) As the U.S. trade policy review report do es not specifically mention the development or 
measures concerning trademark, it would be appr eciated if the U.S. could elaborate more on the 
success of the extension of trademark protection to  scent marks and provide the statistics thereof. 
 (2) Does the infringement of trademark in th e U.S. which is not the infringement found at 
the border, tend to increase or decrease? What is the cause of such a trend?  
RESPONSE: The United States has a broad defi nition as to what may be eligible for 
trademark protection. Section 45 of the Tradem ark Act (15 U.S.C. §1127) states that any 
word, name, symbol, or device, (or any comb ination thereof) used to identify and 
distinguish goods or services and to indicate  their source is capable of being protected 
as a trademark. Thus, a scent, if it is proven  to function as an indicator of source, may 
be protected as a trademark. The U.S. believes that applicants are in the best position to 
develop and choose a sign to identify and di stinguish their own goods and services from 
others. Any limitation, such as a requirement that a sign to be visually perceptible, 
merely limits the types of elig ible subject matter that may be protected as a trademark 
and, therefore limits businesse s from selecting these type s of non-traditional marks 
(i.e., scents) to identify their goods or serv ices. Thirty one trademark applications have WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 430 - 
 
  been received with nine proceeding to re gistration and three currently pending final 
disposition.  The United States does not keep statistics on  the rates of trademark infringement claims 
filed in federal and state courts or on rates of  infringement found in such cases, so is not 
in a position to indicate whether ra tes are increasing or decreasing.  
 
 
Question 26: Technical regulations and standards  
 Referring to the TBT Committee meeting in November 2014, Thailand expressed its concerns on Notification G/TBT/N/USA/916 regarding Tire Identification and Recordkeeping which proposed 
to increase the plant codes from 2 to 3 digits and require a blank space 50 mm after the tire 
identification number (TIN).   In this regard, Thailand would like the U.S. to review the requirements proposed. Moreover, 
Thailand would like to be updated on the progress  and/or outcome of the mentioned Notification. 
Any advice on the development and provision of related text or document would be appreciated.  
RESPONSE:  On 24 July 2014, The National Highwa y Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) published a Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) in the Federal Register. 
NHTSA proposed two amendments to the Tire Identification Number (TIN), which must 
appear on virtually all new and retreaded mo tor vehicle tires sold in the United States, 
and which plays an important role in identi fying which tires are subject to recall and 
remedy campaigns for safety defects and noncompliances.  
The comment period has closed, and NHTSA is currently evaluating the comments 
received, including those submitted by the Go vernment of Thailand. All of the comments 
can be viewed at: http://www.regulation s.gov/#!docketDetail; D=NHTSA-2014-0084. 
NHTSA is carefully considering all comments as it works to develop the final rule. 
Therefore, NHTSA cannot provide a determinatio n at this time on the issues raised by 
Thailand or any other entity that submitte d comments. These issues, and many others, 
will be addressed when the final rule is pu blished, including a comprehensive response 
to comments the agency received. Thailand is welcome to submit additional questions to 
NHTSA using the contact points identified in the hyperlink above. WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 431 - 
 
  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  
  Report by United States (WT/TPR/G/307) 
 
SECTION 1: The United States in the Global Trading System   
(a) Paragraph 1.6 (page 4): The report indicated that the U.S. will continue vigilant trade 
enforcement efforts at the WTO, while also monitoring and enforcing commitments in our bilateral, plurilateral, and regional trade agreements, to maintain a level playing field and uphold the rule of law.  
 
Question 1: What new legislative measures have been put in place to uphold outstanding rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in areas where the U.S. was found to be in violation of the 
Intellectual Property Agreement? 
 RESPONSE: Several bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress in relation to the 
DSB recommendations and rulings in United States - Section 211 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 1998 (WT/DS176) . In prior meetings of the DSB, the United States 
described the status of each of these bills.   
 
(b) Paragraph 2.11 (Page 6): "Although the labor market continues to improve, the recovery is 
not yet complete. Even with the recent de clines, the unemployment rate remains above 
the estimates of its longer-run level. Labor force participation also appears to be weaker 
than expected based on changing demographics and the level of unemployment."   
Question 2: What innovative measures will the U.S. implement to further reduce the 
unemployment rate and encourage labour force participation?   RESPONSE: The bulk of the decline in labor fo rce participation from its peak is due to 
long-forecast trends attributable to the reti rement of the baby boomers. A substantial 
component is due to typical cyclical fact ors, in which participation declines in 
downturns. The aging of the population will continue to push the rate downward, 
however, the recovering economy will tend to  push in the other direction. White House 
CEA analysis finds that an important residu al remains after accounting for aging trends 
and cyclical factors. The evolution of this  residual, some of which is due to greater 
educational attainment depressing participat ion for young workers, will also contribute 
to participation rates going forward. While the unemployment rate, at 5.8 percent, is 
very close to what many consider to be its structural value of 5.4 percent, and the short 
term unemployment rate is be low its pre-recession average, other indicators such as 
those working part time for economic reason s, and those marginally attached to the 
labor force, remain elevated and point to sl ack in the economy. For a discussion of the 
causes and implications of the U.S. labor forc e participation rate, as well as a discussion 
of potential policy responses, please see 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fil es/docs/labor_force_participation_report
.pdf. 
 
(c) Paragraph 4.10 (Page 13): "In addition, the TPP will cover cross-cutting issues not 
included in previous trade agreements, such as regulatory coherence." 
 
Question 3: The pursuit of regulatory coherence is quite noble and ambitious, given the number of 
TPP partners. What priority activities or hurdles must the U.S. address to achieve this objective?  
RESPONSE: In the Trans-Pacific Partnershi p (TPP) agreement, regulatory coherence 
refers to the use of good regulatory practices in the process of developing, 
implementing and reviewing regulatory measur es in order to facilitate achievement of 
domestic policy measures, as well as to  efforts across government to enhance 
regulatory cooperation to further these objectives and promote trade, growth and employment. The United States has a well -established domestic system in place 
designed to achieve regulatory coherence, with the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and its work with WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 432 - 
 
  U.S. Government agencies at its core. We believe improving the coherence of 
TPP regulatory systems in TPP partners will make trade and investment across the 
region more seamless and deepen re gional economic integration.  
 
 
Report by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/307)  
SECTION 2: Trade and Investment Regime 
(2.3.3)  Other Agreements and Arrangements  
(2.3.3.1) Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement  
Question 4:  
(a) Paragraph 2.43 (page 37): When does the U.S. intend to implement the Anti-
Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? 
 
RESPONSE: ACTA has not yet entered into force.  ACTA is consistent with existing U.S law 
and changes to U.S. law are not required to implement the agreement. 
 
(2.3.2.2.2) Generalized System of Preferences   Question 5 
(a) Paragraph 2.32 (page 35): - The US's GSP programme expired on 31 July 2013, does the 
U.S. intend to resume this initiative in the near future? 
 
RESPONSE: The Administration supports Co ngressional action to reauthorize the 
GSP program at the earliest opportunity.  
 
SECTION 3: Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
(3.1.1.1.1) Single Window  
Question 6 
  (a) Paragraph 3.5 (page 43): The U.S. intends to make mandatory all import and export cargo 
manifest data to be submitted through Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by 
1 May 2015.  
Are their provisions in place to assist developing trading partners to become compliant? Will countries unable to meet the 1 May deadline be afforded any flexibility? 
 
RESPONSE: The ACE mandatory dates are for trade filers (such as importers), not countries. To enable filers to use ACE by th e deadline, CBP has encouraged the adoption 
of air manifest changes as early as possible to ensure confirmed compliance by May this 
year. Trade testing is available as of January  3, 2015. The current air manifest technical 
standards and documentation are also located on http://www.cbp.gov . 
 
(3.1.4.3) Bindings  
 Question 7 
(a) Paragraph 3.40 (page 52): The U.S. WTO tariff commitments as contained in Schedule XX 
were last updated in 2011 after approval of the HS2000 nomenclature changes. However, a number of changes to the HTSUS have not yet been notified to the WTO as a change to 
Schedule XX. 
 
Could the U.S. provide more information as to why the WTO has not yet been notified of the change to Schedule XX? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States will be noti fying the Committee on Market Access of 
modifications to Schedule XX of the United States to reflect changes to the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States as soon  as possible. For further reference, the 
nomenclature changes from late 2011 will be  included in the certification of 2012 
nomenclature changes. The changes are shown in the U.S. International Trade 
Commission website section on HTS modifications: 
http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/modifications_hts.htm , specifically, the full text of WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 433 - 
 
  the Presidential Proclamation regarding chan ges, as published in the Federal Register 
can be found at: http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_a ffairs/hts_documents/PP8742.pdf . 
 
 
(3.2.4) Export Support and Promotion 
(3.2.4.1) Structures (3.2.4.1.1) Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) and National Export 
Strategy 
 Question 8 
(a) Paragraph 3.113 (page 75): When will the TPCC issue its report on the annual National 
Export Strategy?   
 RESPONSE: The TPCC Secretariat does not have a specific release date yet, but plans to 
release the annual National Export Stra tegy during the first half of 2015. 
 (3.2.4.2) National Export Initiative (NEI) and NEI/NEXT 
 
(b) Paragraph 3.118 (Page 76): "….There are five main points: connect more U.S. businesses 
to global customers, streamline U.S. export  services and processes, expand access to 
finance, promote exports and FDI, and help developing economies improve their business 
environment to open new markets."  
 Question 9:  
(i) Is the CARICOM Region included in th e referenced develo ping economies?  
(ii) Could the U.S. provide some clarity on how su ch assistance will be given to developing 
economies such as Trinidad and Tobago? 
 
RESPONSE: The NEI/NEXT initiative is not re stricted to a defined group of eligible 
countries, although priority regional focuse s include sub-Saharan Africa (through the 
Doing Business in Africa campaign, www.trade.gov/dbia ), Asia, and Latin America 
(through the Look South initiative www.export.gov/looksouth ). NEI/NEXT prioritizes 
existing technical assistance programs, and country eligibility will be decided based on 
the eligibility requirements of each  technical assistance program.  
 
One priority in the NEI/NEXT initiative is to  provide technical assistance to developing 
and developed economies to support transpar ent business climates and a level playing 
field. This effort prioritizes coordination am ong several U.S. agencies leading efforts to 
build trade capacity, including assuring inte llectual property protections, addressing 
corruption and lack of transparency, and harmonizing regulations and standards. 
Countries can work with the appropriate U.S. agencies to apply for assistance with any 
of these issues under a number of exis ting technical assistance programs. 
 SECTION 4: Trade Policies by Sector 
(4.1) Agriculture 
(4.1.1.2) Title I (Commodities) (4.1.1.2.1) Elimination of Direct Payments 
 
(a) Paragraph 4.12, Table 4.2 (page 105) Support notified under the Green Box has continued 
to increase in marketing year 2011 as domestic food aid increased. Domestic food aid is by far the biggest item.  
 
Question 10 
What was the cause of the continued increase (from last WTO Trade Policy Review period 
and this current review period) in domestic food aid support under the Green Box? 
 RESPONSE: The increase in domestic food  aid was driven by increased program 
participation and benefits resu lting from the economic downturn that began in 2008. In 
addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) authorized increased funding for five USDA-administe red nutrition assistance programs: the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (S NAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program; 
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 434 - 
 
  the National School Lunch Program; the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations; and the Emergency Food Assi stance Program. Funds were used for 
increased benefits for participants, equipm ent and facilities improvement; emergency 
food purchases for food banks, food pantri es, and soup kitchens; and for assistance to 
States to help meet increased administrati ve support and delivery costs of assistance. 
The greatest growth in expenditures o ccurred in the SNAP program due to the 
combination of higher payment levels under ARRA and increased participation resulting 
from rising unemployment .  
 (4.2.5) Maritime Transport  (4.2.5.2) Institutiona l and Legal Framework  
(a) Paragraph 4.144 (Page 143): Trinidad and Tobago has specific interest in the maritime 
sector and has identified it as one of the pr iority service sectors in its Strategic Plan 
2011-15. Trinidad and Tobago is also interested in the Repair and Maintenance of Vessels 
particularly for its service providers to gain  access to the U.S. market. Based on the  
 
Secretariat's review of the United States Trade Policy it was highlighted that for maritime 
transport no commitment under the GATS were  undertaken, and no offers were tabled 
with respect to maritime transport in the U. S. services offer of the Doha Development 
Agenda. 
 
Question 11: 
Is there any intention by the U.S. to make  liberalization commitments in the Maritime 
sector? 
 
RESPONSE: The TPR is not a negotiating foru m. Requests made in the context of the 
DDA services negotiations should  be taken up in that forum. 
 
Question 12:  General Question 
(a) Was the Role of the Broker Initiative (stated in 2012 WTO trade Policy Review period) 
implemented? 
 RESPONSE: The Role of the Broker Initiative is still being reviewed, and changes related 
to it have not yet been implemented.  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 435 - 
 
  TURKEY 
  The Secretariat Report 
 
2.1.1 Trade promotion authority, pp. 25, para. 2.4 Question 1: As far as we know, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) allows the executive branch to 
select the countries with which to conduct trade negotiations based on the parameters outlined by 
the aforementioned Authority. However, can TPA be granted for a specific country or set of 
countries? In short, once the TPA is in place do es that mean the executive branch can negotiate 
trade agreements with any country without any restrictions? 
 
RESPONSE: Trade Promotion Authority legislat ion may vary on substance, scope, and 
procedures. The Administration is working cl osely with the United States Congress to 
pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (T PA) legislation that would spell out such 
parameters.   
2.1.1 Trade promotion authority, pp. 25, para. 2.6  
Question 2: It is mentioned in the report that "Recently, the President highlighted the importance of obtaining TPA authority in 2013 and 2014, given the two major regional negotiations which the 
United States intends to conclude or make signif icant progress on. A proposal to reauthorize TPA 
was introduced in the Congress in 2014, but to  date no legislation has been approved." 
Could you please give a legislative update on TPA?  
RESPONSE: The Administration is working closely with the United States Congress to 
pass bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation.  
 
2.1.2 Role of the private sector and other stakeholders, pp. 26, para. 2.7  
It is mentioned in the report that "The United States has a long history of involving the private sector in trade policy advice. In 1974, a USTR-l ed trade advisory committee system was created, 
to enable public- and private-sector input in th e formulation and implementation of U.S. trade 
policies". 
 Question 3: As the concerns of small and large sized enterpreneurs show difference, could you 
kindly explain which criteria are used to choose private sector participant of trade advisory 
committee?  
RESPONSE: Every applicant is evaluated ba sed on the membership criteria for the 
committee to which they applied. Committees  are continuously evaluated to ensure 
balance and that a wide range of views are represented.  
2.3.2.2 Unilateral preferential re gimes, para. 2.25 and 2.26, pp.32 
It is mentioned in the report that "2.25. The United States continued to provide unilateral preferences to a number of countries or territories during the review period, although some 
programmes are in decline, have expired, or are undergoing review. The programmes are not 
mutually exclusive and some developing and least de veloped countries are eligible to participate in 
more than one programme (Table A2.3). In partic ular, there is overlap in the GSP and AGOA, with 
trade figures under each programme often changing year-to-year as traders choose one 
preference program over another   2.26. The product coverage of the programmes is not identical, nor are other aspects, such as 
rules of origin or textile provisions. In terms of  tariff coverage, preferences granted to Caribbean 
countries and those granted under GSP are nearly identical, with the greatest product coverage. 
AGOA builds on GSP by providing AGOA beneficiaries (all are GSP beneficiaries) with additional 
product coverage, most notably for textile and foot wear products. The ATPA has expired, but when 
i t  w a s  i n  f o r c e  A T P A  c o v e r a g e  w a s  b u i l t  u p o n  t h e  G S P  b e n e f i t s  t h a t  t h e  A T P A  c o u n t r i e s  a l s o  enjoyed. Generally, the least preferential coverage is given for textiles and apparel, which has 
traditionally been an import-sensitive industry for the United States." 
 Question 4: Because of its complexity and overlapping content, does the U.S. Government have any foresight about changes on its unilateral preferential system? 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 436 - 
 
  RESPONSE: The Administration continues to work with the U.S. Congress on possible 
changes to the African Growth and Oppo rtunity Act (AGOA), including potential 
expansion of product coverage. With respect to GSP, the first priority is reauthorization of the program. Once that has been accomp lished, the Administration looks forward to 
consulting with Congress on possible reform s to the GSP program to take into account 
evolving global trade relations, includ ing the growing competitiveness of many 
emerging market GSP beneficiaries. 
 
2.3.2.2.2 Generalized System of Pr eferences (GSP), pp. 35, para. 2.32 
It is mentioned in the report that "The United States' GSP, its main global programme for preferences for developing and least developed countries, expired on 31 July 2013. Therefore, 
imports that benefited from GSP provisions are subject to MFN tariffs as of 1 August 2013." 
 QUESTION 5: Could you please give a legislative update on GSP? Does the U.S. Government 
intend to maintain its practice of applying the GSP retroactively?  
 RESPONSE: The Administration fully supports the economic development objectives of 
the U.S. Generalized System of Preference s (GSP) program and continues to support 
reauthorization of the program by the U.S.  Congress at the earliest opportunity.  
 In the past, when Congress acted to extend the program, it did so retroactively to the 
expiration of the program, thereby allowing importers to seek refunds of duties paid. 
However, it is not known whether Congress will make any future reauthorization of GSP 
retroactive. 
 
2.3.3.1 Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement, pp. 37, para. 2.43 It is mentioned in the report that "The United States is a signatory to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 
Agreement (ACTA), a plurilateral agreement negotiated among 11 trading partners.41 The ACTA 
aims to combat infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular piracy and counterfeiting. It provides for enhanced international cooperat ion, promotion of enforcement practices, and a 
legal framework for IPR enforcement. Although the agreement was finalized in 2011, it has not yet 
entered into force. The agreement reportedly does not require any statutory changes to U.S. law." 
 QUESTION 6: Could U.S. kindly provide information whether are there any effort to put into 
practice ACTA? 
 RESPONSE: On October 5, 2012, Japan became the first signatory to ACTA to deposit its 
instrument of acceptance. The United States  continues to work with Japan and other 
negotiating parties to bring the ACTA into force. The ACTA effort, launched in October 
2007, brought together a number of like-minded countries prepared to embrace strengthened IPR enforcement and cooperativ e enforcement practices. ACTA signatories 
are Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, 
and the United States. The European Union and 22 EU Member States signed the Agreement in January 2012, but it was not approved by the European Parliament. For 
signatories, the next step towards bringing th e ACTA into force is to deposit instruments 
of ratification, acceptance, or approval. The ACTA will enter into force for those 
signatories 30 days following the deposit of the sixth such instrument. The ACTA 
includes innovative provisions to deepen  international cooperation and to promote 
strong enforcement practices, and will ulti mately help sustain American jobs in 
innovative and creative industries.  
2.4.2 Investment promotion, pp. 39, para. 2.50 
It is mentioned in the report that "SelectUSA is the federal government's centralized hub to attract and retain investment. In addition to the newly expanded services, it provides information and 
advocacy to potential investors, in particular counsel and advisory services for investors, 
ombudsman, problem-solving, investment advo cacy promotion, outreach, and investment 
missions. It does not offer direct incentives but provides a link to federal government programmes 
offering incentives to businesses. In 2013, it held its first investment summit to bring international 
investors, government officials, U.S. compan ies, and economic development organizations 
together to facilitate foreign investment. SelectUSA is housed in the Department of Commerce with a proposed budget of US$20 million for FY2014" 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 437 - 
 
  We understand that the SelectUSA Program does not provide any direct incentives to foreign 
investors, however investors are linked to Federal Government Incentives Programs. 
 QUESTION 7: Could U.S. Delegation kindly give in formation on the percentage of foreign investors 
who invested in the U.S. via SelectUSA Program? What is the corresponding rate for those 
benefited from federal incentives?  
RESPONSE: While percentage data are not available, SelectUSA has assisted over 
1,000 companies in the past year with investme nt-related inquiries, and has assisted in 
facilitating over US$18 billion in investme nt since the start of the program. The 
SelectUSA website contains a se archable database of over 70 different federal incentive 
programs designed to encourage business  investment across a range of sectors 
http://selectusa.commerce.gov/investment-incentives ).  
 
3.1.7 Anti-Dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures 
pg. 62 and 65, par. 3.67 and 3.69 In the Secretaria t Report, leading creative and effective efforts 
at the WTO to open markets and combating protectionism are identified among the trade priorities 
for 2013-14 of the U.S. The report also touches on  the remarkably increased numbers of AD and 
CVD investigations initiated against imports to protect the U.S. domestic industry in 2013 compared to previous years.  QUESTION 8: Against this background, could the U.S. give information regarding the reasons of 
considerable increase of its AD and CVD investigations initiated in 2013?  
 RESPONSE: The United States disagrees with Turkey's characterization as to why 
antidumping and countervailing measures are imposed. The United States administers 
its trade remedy laws in accordance with applicable WTO agreements. An antidumping 
or a countervailing duty investigation is initiate d in response to a petition filed by a U.S. 
industry. The decision to impose an an tidumping measure is based on a factual 
determination of whether dumping exists an d whether dumped imports have caused, or 
threaten to cause, material injury to a do mestic industry. The decision to impose a 
countervailing duty measure is based on  a factual determination of whether 
countervailable subsidies exists and whether such subsidized imports have caused, or 
threaten to cause, material injury to a domestic industry. Where dumped/subsidized 
imports, and material injury caused by those imports have been found, the United States 
will impose an antidumping or counterva iling duty measure, as applicable.  
 3.1.9.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspec tion Service, pp. 70, para. 3.92  
It is mentioned in the report that "The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the 
Department of Agriculture is responsible for regulations to protect against the introduction of plant and animal diseases and pests. To this end, APHI S regulates imports of live plants; grain, oilseed 
and horticultural products; live animals (including embryos, semen, ova), animal products, and 
research and exhibition animals." 
 QUESTION 9: Does the U.S. Government plan to strengthen the institutional capacity of APHIS, as 
the processing of import permits take quite long times?  
 RESPONSE: APHIS issues permits for the import, transit and release of regulated 
animals, animal products, veterinary biologic s, plants, plant products, pests, organisms, 
soil, and genetically engineered organism s. APHIS has established an electronic, 
web-based system that allows users to su bmit import permit applications, track 
applications, and receive copies of their permits.  
 
3.2.4.2 National Export Initiative (N EI) and NEI/NEXT, pp. 76, para. 3.118 
It is mentioned in the report that "3.118. In May 2014, the Administration launched NEI/NEXT as 
the successor of the NEI. It builds on the prin ciples of the NEI and lessons learned from 
NEI customer surveys, and provides a strategic framework to continue export growth. There are 
five main points: connect more U.S. businesses  to global customers, streamline U.S. export 
services and processes, expand access to finance, promote exports and FDI, and help developing 
economies improve their business environment to open new markets. NEI/NEXT is a long-term project to help U.S. companies reach their export potential and create and support American jobs." 
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 438 - 
 
  QUESTION 10: Taking into consideration that, NEI/NE XT aims also to help developing economies in 
improving their business environment to open new markets, among others, could U.S. Delegation provide information on possible actions ever taken to that regard?   
RESPONSE: The U.S. government helps developing countries improve their economic 
policy environment so that the private sector  can spur growth. MCC programs are focus 
on economic growth and USAID has a long hi story partnering with countries to improve 
the investment climate for small and medium enterprises. Some recent examples 
include:    • USAID supported Mozambique's introduction  of a court-supervised reorganization 
procedure for resolving insolvency an d strengthening creditors' rights.  
• In Kosovo, USAID worked with the governme nt to reduce construction permit fees 
and introduce phased inspections for construc tion, making it easier for companies to 
acquire construction permits. 
• In Jamaica, USAID supported the governme nt in establishing more predictable and 
consistent tax collection procedures for businesses 
• In Mexico, USAID trained judges & lawy ers on best commercial and contract 
practices, role of mediation, and alte rnative dispute resolution mechanisms.  
• In Pakistan, USAID provided technical as sistance and equipment to enable real-
time automated processing and reconciliation of export and import documents, thereby 
increasing expediency. 
 USAID Press Releases: (specific examples of  reforms we supported captured in the 
World Bank Doing Business reports) 
 www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-re leases/oct-29-2014-usaid-support-top-
reformers-highlighted-world-bank-group-doing   
www.usaid.gov/news-information/press- releases/oct-31-2013-usaid-supports-
reforming-governments-doing-business-2014   
 
MCC Information: http://www.mcc.gov/   
 
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assi stance, pp. 80, para. 3.138, 3.139 and 3.140   
In the Secretariat Report, the following paragraphs explain the latest developments on subsidies: 
3.138. According to the authorities, there is no overarching, legal framework governing subsidies 
in the United States. Rather, various subsidy programmes are in place at the federal level, 
pursuant to legislation or government programmes under many executive branch agencies. 
3.139. The latest subsidies notification to the WTO on federal and sub-federal programmes, submitted in May 2014, contained statistical information up to 2012. The magnitude of government assistance has decreased since the previous review (Table 3.15). 3.140. In most 
cases, subsidies take the form of grants, tax co ncession, loan guarantees, and direct payments. 
The agriculture and energy sectors remain the largest recipients. In the latest notification to the WTO on federal and sub-federal subsidies (G/SCM/N/253/USA, 9 May 2014), the amount of 
sub-federal subsidies is not specified.  
QUESTION 11: Could the U.S. provide information or estimates on the amount of sub-federal subsidies that agriculture and energy sectors benefited in recent years? Is there any scheme to 
reduce the amount of subsidies being channeled to those sectors? 
 RESPONSE:  While the subsidy amount informatio n provided in the most recent 
notification of the United States may no t be comprehensive for each of the over 
600 programs notified at the sub-federal level, information on the subsidy amounts at 
the sub-federal level are indeed provided. For example, the subsidy amount under Alabama's Certified Capital Companies (CAP CO) states as follows: "US$200 million is 
allocated among 12 CAPCO funds; each CAPCO f und may loan up to 15% of its allocation 
to a single project and multiple CAPCOs ma y invest in the same single project." The 
subsidy amount under Iowa's Ethanol Infras tructure Cost-Share Program states: "The 
program will provide for a maximum of US$3 25,000 annually." The subsidy amount for 
North Dakota's Agricultural Co mmodity Processing Facility Investment Tax Credit states: 
"The credit is equal to 30% of the invest ment, up to a maximum credit of US$50,000 per 
year. A taxpayer is allowed no  more than US$250,000 in credits for all tax years. An 
unused credit may be carried forward up to ten years." Nonetheless, the United States WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 439 - 
 
  recognizes that detailed information for some sub-federal programs is lacking. The next 
subsidy notification of the United States will seek to address this issue.  4.2.1.2 Recent developments, pp. 120, para. 4.75, (c) 
QUESTION 12: It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that "the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC) proposed new draft rules by the middle of 2011, but so far no final rules have been adopted". Regarding this draft, could the U.S. Government explain the reasons behind this 
delay about adoption of the additional rules? 
 RESPONSE: SEC adopted a final rule governing Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) on August 27, 2014. This rule is effective November 14, 2014, 
except for certain amendments which are effe ctive June 15, 2015. The final rule can be 
found at: http://www.sec.gov/rule s/final/2014/34-72936.pdf . 
 
4.2.1.3 Other policy action s, pp. 122, para 4.81 
QUESTION 13: In the Secretariat Report, it is clearly stated that there is a need of improvement of financial system, especially on the issue of "shadow banking". Could the U.S. Government clarify 
whether there is any plan to this end? 
 Response: The United States has made sign ificant progress in addressing potential 
systemic risks to financial stability eman ating from the shadow banking system. The 
Dodd-Frank Act has led to a stronger, better regulated, and more resilient financial 
system. The Dodd-Frank Act also gave the Financial Stability Oversight Council ("the 
Council") the ability to expand the regulato ry perimeter to subject certain nonbank 
financial companies that could pose a threat to  U.S. financial stability to Federal Reserve 
supervision and enhanced prudential standards.  
 
New policy measures are also in place or bein g developed to address the risks posed by 
shadow banking activities, including money market funds (MMFs), the tri-party repo 
market, and hedge funds. In July 2014, the SEC approved final rules to reform MMFs. The final rules, combined with initiatives undertaken in 2010, are intended to reduce 
MMFs' vulnerability to investor runs, particularly in times of  stress, as well as increase 
transparency to investors. U.S. banks have reduced their reliance on short-term funding 
and have largely shifted to secured funding tr ansactions with higher quality collateral. 
The U.S. has made substantial progress in reducing intraday credit exposure and 
reforming collateral practices in the tri-party repo market. The United States has taken steps to enhance oversight of hedge funds. Most hedge fund advisers are now required 
to register and to file comprehensive portfo lio risk information with U.S. regulators, 
making it among the most stringen t reporting regimes in the G-20. 
 4.2.4.2.2.3 Applied regime, pp. 141, para 4.132 
QUESTION 14: According to paragraph 4.132, state-level regulations and licensing requirements, 
and also hardships for reimbursement from third parties become challenging for foreign investment to enter the healthcare industry. Rega rding this paragraph, could the U.S. Government 
kindly explain why the eagerness in attracting fo reign investment is given up and what are the 
reasons behind that?  
RESPONSE: The United States warmly welcomes  foreign investment in the health care 
sector, just as it does in all other sectors. Far from stating that the U.S. has given up its 
open investment policy in this sector , the Secretariat's report notes that 
notwithstanding certain inherent difficulties wi th the U.S. federal system of regulation, 
"[t]he U.S. healthcare industry is largely open to foreign investment as shown by inward 
foreign affiliates trade statistics, i.e. on  sales of subsidiaries of foreign-owned 
companies with inward flows being fourfold  the outward flows and by the fact that 
seven out of the ten largest private equity deals in global healthcare in 2011 were 
targeting U.S. companies."  
THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
 2.4 Nominal Savings/ Investment, pp.6, para. 2.9 "U.S. gross investment increased by US$367 billion between 2011 and 2013, 60% the  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 440 - 
 
  increase in U.S. gross saving. With levels of U.S.  saving growing faster than domestic investment, 
a decline in net inflows of capital occurred, fr om US$461 billion in 2011 to US$454 billion in 2012, 
and US$401 billion in 2013."  
QUESTION 15: Could the U.S. kindly provide info rmation on the reasons of the decline in net 
capital inflows especially in the year 2013?  
RESPONSE: A major source of the increased saving was the reduction in the Federal 
government budget deficit. In addition, th e moderate, but sustained, growth of the 
economy held down the need for additional  investment since the rate of capacity 
utilization remained below its long-term average.  
 
4.2.3 Asia-Pacific Economic Coop eration Forum, pp. 14, para. 4.21 
It is mentioned in the report that "Since it was founded in 1989, the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation (APEC) forum has been instrumental in promoting regional and global trade and 
investment and is central to our efforts to achieve a seamless economy in the Asia-Pacific region that will expand opportunities for U.S. exporter s, services providers, and workers, providing 
greater economic growth across the region." 
 QUESTION 16: Could you provide more information on recent developments over the course of the 22nd APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting as to promoting trade and investment liberalization and 
facilitation in the APEC region?  
 RESPONSE: 2014 proved to be a successful year for APEC in its efforts to promote trade 
and investment liberalization and facilitation , as demonstrated by the declaration by 
APEC Leaders  http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Pape rs/Leaders-Declarations/2014/ 
2014_aelm.aspx ) and the statement by APEC Ministers ( http://www.apec.org/Meeting-
Papers/Ministerial-State ments/Annual/ 2014/2014_amm.aspx ). The United States 
accomplished a number of important objectives  on trade and investment in APEC in 
2014, particularly regarding regulatory transparency, supply chain performance, 
environmental goods, and electric vehicles ( http://www.whitehou se.gov/the-press-
office/2014/11/11/fact-sh eet-22nd-annual-apec-economic-leaders-meeting ; 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o ffice/2014/11/11/fact-s heet-apec-leaders-
agree-actions-promote-re gional-economic-integrat ).  
 
4.2.5 Engagement with the Middle East  and North Africa, pp.15, para. 4.28  
It is mentioned in the report that "In 2013, the United States continued to monitor, implement and 
enforce U.S. FTA's in the region; signed a TIFA with Libya, and sought new opportunities to 
cooperate more closely with Egypt."  QUESTION 17: Could you please give update on Libya and Egypt initiatives? 
 
RESPONSE: The United States has continued to  reach out to Egypt to explore ways to 
increase cooperation on trade-related and in vestment issues. Two years ago, the United 
States and Egypt jointly agreed to explore en dorsing joint principles on information and 
communications technologies and investment , respectively. Egypt is now reviewing 
those documents. The United States traveled to Egypt In April 2014 to explore additional 
areas in which to cooperate such as standards and IPR, among others. In Libya, little 
progress has been made in re-opening the Trade and Investment Framework Dialogue 
given the complex political situation on the ground.   
4.2.6 Managing and deepening U. S.-EU trade, pp. 15, para.4.31 
It is mentioned in the report that "On 17 June 2013, President Obama and EU Leaders announced the launch of negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) 
agreement. Three negotiating rounds took place in 2013, and both sides have agreed to pursue an 
ambitious schedule of negotiations in 2014."  
QUESTION 18: Considering the U.S. and the EU's ex isting multilateral trade agreement initiatives, 
how would you evaluate the possibility of the thir d countries' involvement to the T-TIP process?  
 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 441 - 
 
  RESPONSE: We have been keeping interested trading partners apprised of the general 
progress of the negotiations. However, we ha ve no plans to involve third countries at 
this time.   
4.3.4 United States – Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, pp.18, para.4.51 
"The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) entered into force on 15 May 2012. Two-way goods trade totalled US$40.0 billion in 2013. The CTPA's central oversight 
body is the United States-Colombia Free Trade Commission (FTC), comprised of the U.S. Trade 
Representative and the Colombia Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism or their designees. In November 2012, the FTC held its inaugural meeting and concluded that the Agreement was functioning smoothly and was already benefiting  both countries. In 2013 both Governments 
worked together to carry out initiatives launched at the November 2012 FTC, such as consideration 
of accelerating tariff elimination, additional elements of the dispute settlement mechanism, and updating the rules of origin." 
 
QUESTION 19: Could the USA kindly provide further information on the additional elements of the 
dispute settlement mechanism? 
 
RESPONSE: The CTPA calls for the establishm ent of Model Rules of Procedure (Article 
21.10); the establishment of a code of cond uct for panelists (Article 21.8.1(d)); the 
establishment of the amount of remuneration  that will be paid to panelists (Article 
20.1.2(e)); and the establishment of r osters of panelists (Article 21.7).  
 The text of the CTPA is available at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-
trade-agreements/col ombia-fta/final-text . 
 
4.3.6 United States-Jordan Free Trad e Agreement, pp. 19, para. 4.58 
It is mentioned in the report that "In addition, the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZs), established 
by the U.S. Congress in 1996, allow products to enter the United States duty free if manufactured in Jordan, Egypt, or the West Bank and Gaza, wi th a specified amount of Israeli content. The 
program has succeeded in stimulating significant business cooperation between Jordan and Israel." 
 
QUESTION 20: In this regard, are there any plans to extend QIZ program?   
RESPONSE: The USTR considers requests from eligible countries regarding the 
program. Most recently, in February 2013, fo llowing a request from Israel and Egypt, the 
USTR liberalized the QIZs in Egypt. Establishment of QIZs in other countries would 
require action by Congress.  
 4.3.6 United States – Jordan Free Trade Agreement, pp.19, para.4.60 
 "At the October 2012 meeting of the Joint Committee (JC) established under the FTA, the 
United States and Jordan crafted an action plan  outlining concrete steps to boost trade and  
investment bilaterally, and between Jordan and other countries in the Middle East region. Among its first steps under the action plan during 2013, Jordan endorsed Joint Principles on International 
Investment and Joint Principles for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Services." 
 QUESTION 21: Could the USA kindly give informatio n on the concrete steps for boosting trade and 
investment bilaterally, and between Jordan and other countries in the Middle East region? 
 RESPONSE: The United States continues to work with Jordan and other countries in the Middle to promote reforms that improve the environment for trade, foster small and 
medium-sized enterprises and attract investme nt. The first step in this process was to 
secure endorsement from Morocco, Jordan , Tunisia, Libya and Egypt on the Joint 
Principles on International Investment and Joint Principles for Information and 
Communication Technology (ICT) Services. Morocco and Jordan have endorsed the 
two sets of principles, while Egypt and Tunisi a are actively reviewing the two texts. The 
next step is to work with these countries  to fully implement the commitments of the 
WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, providing te chnical assistance where able. Additional 
steps are under consideration at this time.   5. Trade- Related Capacity Building Init iatives: TCB Initiatives for Africa, pp.25, 
para.5.16 WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 442 - 
 
  "The United States also provides complementary support to the cotton sector through other 
programs. MCC is implementing or has implemented compacts with Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal. The USDA also provides support to these countries through its Food for Progress program, which encourages development of the agriculture sector and market development. 
USDA further supports the West African cotton sector through its research and exchange 
programs, specifically the Borlaug Programs and the Cochran Program."  
QUESTION 22: Could United States of America kind ly provide details on the Borlaug Programs and 
the Cochran Program?  RESPONSE: The Cochran Fellowship Program provides short-term training in the United 
States for international participants fr om middle-income and emerging market 
countries. Cochran fellows are government offi cials, farmers, importers, veterinarians, 
or other agriculturalists in key positions. During their training, the fellows meet with 
U.S. agribusinesses, attend policy and food  safety seminars and receive technical 
training related to short- and long-term, market development and trade capacity building. The Cochran Fellowship Program aims  to increase agricultural trade linkages 
with the United States and promote food security.  
 The Norman E. Borlaug International Agricu ltural Science and Technology Fellowship 
Program (Borlaug Fellowship Program) promotes  food security and economic growth by 
providing training and collabora tive research opportunities to fellows from developing 
and middle-income countries. Borlaug Fellows are generally scientis ts, researchers, or 
policymakers who are in the early or middle st ages of their careers. Each Fellow works 
one-on-one with a mentor at a U.S. universit y, research center, or  government agency, 
usually for 6-12 weeks. The U.S. mentor will later visit the Fellow's home institution to 
continue collaboration.  WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 443 - 
 
  VIET NAM 
  
1. The 2014 Agriculture Act introduces a new subsidized insurance programme (Supplemental 
Coverage Option) that allows eligible farmers to top up their crop insurance, in order to 
cover a portion of the deductible of the insu rance. As regulated, the new Agriculture Act 
attempts to address the potential for overcompen sation of farmers' actual losses. Does this 
mean the U.S. intend to subsidize the export of agricultural products?  
 RESPONSE: Crop insurance coverage does not differentiate between production that is 
exported versus production retained for dome stic consumption, and therefore, does not 
act as an export subsidy. 
 
2. Under the new Dairy Product Donation Program, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is 
authorized to temporarily purchase dairy products at prevailing market prices for 
distribution to low-income residents when dairy milk margins are depressed. Could this program potentially cause an increase in trade distortions?  
 
RESPONSE: Time limits for purchases under th e Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP) 
and domestic price and international price di fference limits ensure that any impact on 
the global dairy supply chain
 would be insignificant in comparison to global production 
and trade. For instance, DPDP purchases will cease at the end of the month in which it is 
determined that:  
• The actual dairy production margin for the previous month is above US$4 per 
cwt; 
• Purchases have taken place fo r three consecutive months; 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds worl d prices by 5% if the actual dairy 
production margin is at or below US$4 but above US$3; or 
• U.S. cheddar or NDM price exceeds worl d prices by 7%, if the margin is 
US$3 or less. 
 
3. We noted that Table 3.15 Federal subsidy programmes, 2012 includes the subsidy amount 
for textiles around US$1.7 million. Will this create a barrier for the textiles of the other countries from entering the U.S. market and cause a trade distortions?  
 
RESPONSE : WTO Members are permitted to provide subsidies so long as they are not 
"prohibited" or cause "adverse effects" to  the trade interests of other Members, as 
defined under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailin g Measures. U.S. incentive 
programs are consistent with the WTO obligat ions of the United States. The one textile 
program notified by the United States is the Textile/Clothing Te chnology Corporation 
Program, which funds the Textile/Clothing Tec hnology Corporation. This Corporation is a 
non-profit membership organization design ed to stimulate economic growth in the 
U.S. textile and apparel sector. It has pr ograms to demonstrate advanced equipment 
and techniques, to educate participants in th e sector, and to do ba sic research. Only the 
basic research element is funded by the fe deral government through a grant from the 
U.S. Department of Commerce. The basic research is performed internally by the organization and, in part, by external entiti es on a contractual basis. The results of the 
basic research are made available throug hout the textile and apparel sector. No 
production subsidies are provided under this program.  
4. Though the United States does not impose expo rt taxes or duties on exports, it imposes 
restrictions, licensing requirements, additional controls and prohibitions on a variety of 
exports for national security and foreign poli cy reasons. Furthermore, the exporter may 
have to identify additional factors such as th e country of destination, end-use, and foreign 
person or firm, depending upon the relevant requirements. These restrictions are even 
tighter than export duties. Could the U.S. clarify the reason for imposing restrictions on natural gas and electric power. What kind of restrictions does the U.S. impose on such 
items? Will these restrictions be compared  to the export duties imposed by some 
WTO Members on similar items? (crude oil, coal, natural resources).  
 RESPONSE:  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has authority over long-term natural 
gas imports and exports of natural gas, incl uding liquefied natural gas (LNG), under the WT/TPR/M/307/Add.1 
 
- 444 - 
 
  Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the DOE Organiza tion Act. The procedures to apply for 
authorization are set forth in regulations at 10 CFR 590. DOE must also comply with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (N EPA), which requires consideration of 
environmental impacts. Further information ca n be found on the Department of Energy's 
website: http://www.fossil.energy.gov /programs/gasregulation  and on the website of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-
gas/overview.asp . The U.S. LNG projects that have been approved to date will enable 
the export of up to 5.7 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of LNG to FTA and 
non-FTA partners. In addition, DOE has given conditional approval for another 4.9 bcf/d, 
for a total of 10.6 bcf/d. As a practical matter,  the first project to export U.S. LNG is not 
expected to be operational until late 2015. 
 
For electricity, Presidential permits are required for the construction, connection, 
operation and/or maintenance of electr ic transmission lines that cross the 
U.S. international border. These permits do not restrict the quantity of electricity to be 
exported. DOE must obtain concurrence from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
Defense before issuing a permit. DOE also author izes the export of electric energy from 
the United States. DOE must comply with NEPA with respect to both permits for 
transmission lines and authorizations to export. Additional information regarding 
permits and exports with respect to electricity is available at 
http://energy.gov/oe/services/elec tricity-policy-coordination-and-
implementation/international-electricity-regulation . 
 
5. Regarding the change in U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) practice for selecting 
mandatory respondents in anti-dumping proceedings, Viet Nam concerns that the new 
sampling methodology may not ensure the resprentativeness and would like to seek clarification on how a small sample can be "statistically valid" in its methodology?  
 
RESPONSE:  Further information regarding the change in practice can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-11-04/html /2013-26266.htm . 
A determination regarding resp ondent selection will be based on the specific facts and 
circumstances of a particular proceeding; ther efore, it would be difficult to respond to 
the question in the abstract.   
 
6. Will the U.S. issue a clear and complete guideline on how DOC conducts the selection of 
mandatory respondents and a list of substitutes list in case of uncooperation of initially selected respondents? With regards to the voluntary exporters, is there any possibility of 
being selected as a substitute by DOC?  
 RESPONSE: Further information regarding the change in practice can be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-11-04/html /2013-26266.htm . 
A determination regarding resp ondent selection will be based on the specific facts and 
circumstances of a particular proceeding an d the basis for the determination will be 
placed on the administrative record of that proceeding. 
 
7. Could the U.S. explain the need for the "substan tially all" (i.e. 85 percent) requirement in 
the final rule of using market economy input prices in antidumping proceedings concerning 
NMEs instead of the previous 33% and its concerns regarding the reliability of market prices 
when the quantity purchasesd is less than 85 percent? Would the quantity purchased affect 
the purchase price since DOC typically examin es a single respondent, whose purchases of 
an input are not likely to affect the global price of that input and only the price of certain 
products may change depending on the quantity of such input that is purchased?   
 
RESPONSE:  Further information regarding this final rule can be found at: 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-08-02/html /2013-18547.htm . The analysis 
regarding whether or not to use market ec onomy input prices will be based on the 
specific facts and circumstances of a partic ular proceeding; therefore, it would be 
difficult to respond to the remaining questions in the abstract. 
 
__________