WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 14 
  
II. TRADE POLICY AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(1) TRADE POLICY FORMULATION AND FRAMEWORK  
1. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and authority 
to establish rates of duty.  The Executive branch un der the President also has certain roles in trade 
policy.  These may include periodic delegation of au thority and negotiation of trade agreements, i.e. 
under special fast-track procedures, which include  intensive consultations, followed by eventual 
approval and implementation by Congress.  Thus, both  the Congress and the President have roles in 
developing U.S. trade policy (Chart II.1).   
Lead institutions with trade policy function. 
Note: COG:   Congresionnal Oversight Group;  NSC/NEC:  National Security Council/National Economic Council;  TPRG:  Trade Policy  
Review Group;  TPSC:  Trade Policy Staff Committee.         Chart II.1
Formulation of the trade policy
Congress
Source :  WTO Secretariat, based on information from the U.S. authorities.House of 
Representatives
Public Government AgenciesSenatePresident
Trade policy
ConsultationNSC/NEC
TPRG
TPSCTrade
Advisory
CommitteesU.S. Trade
Representative
Senate Finance
CommitteeCommittee on
Ways and Means
Other House
CommitteesOther Senate 
CommitteesOversight
RatificationCOG
 
2. On the Congressional side, a number of Congr essional bodies or groups have specific trade 
policy functions.  The Trade Act of 2002 establis hed the Congressional Oversight Group (COG), 
which is authorized to provide advice to the Preside nt and USTR on a variety of trade policy matters.  
For example, it provides direction with resp ect to negotiating strategies and positions, the 
development of trade agreements, and compliance and enforcement aspects of trade agreements.  
Also, the Trade Act of 1974 provides for the Hous e Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
Finance Committee to designate five members e ach to advise on trade policy and negotiations.1 
3. USTR has primary responsibility for coordi nating and developing trade policy for the 
Executive branch.  Under the Trade Expansion Ac t of 1962, Congress estab lished an interagency 
trade policy mechanism to assist USTR with th e implementation of these responsibilities.  The 
mechanism has three tiers: the National Economic Council located in the White House, the Trade 
Policy Review Group (TPRG), and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), the latter two chaired 
by USTR.  The TPSC and TPRG are composed of 21 members from various government 
Departments, Councils, Offices, or Agencies, and U STR can invite particip ation of others when 
appropriate.  The NEC, at the highest level, is  chaired by the President and has cabinet level 
representation.2 
                                                      
1 Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (2010). 
2 USTR (2012b). United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
4. As part of the reporting and consulting pr ocess with Congress, the President is mandated 
through the Trade Act of 1974 to report annually on the operation of the trade agreements program 
and the national trade policy agenda.  The Presi dent's annual Trade Policy Agenda, prepared by 
USTR, typically sets out the Administration's trade policy priorities for the year.  On a broader level, 
U.S. trade policy is informed by U.S. economic a nd foreign policies and as such its objective is to 
enhance national economic welfare.   
5. Trade legislation is enacted in the same manne r as other laws, through passage by both houses 
of Congress and approval by the President.  For example, the United States implemented the Marrakesh Agreement through the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) under this procedure.
3   
During certain periods since 1974, Congress has put in  place special "fast track" or "trade promotion 
authority" procedures under which the Congress co mmits to vote on trade agreement implementing 
legislation within a fixed period, and without  amendment, once the President submits an 
implementing bill.  The most recent set of these procedures covered trade ag reements signed between 
2002 and mid-2007. 
(2) PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
6. According to the U.S. Trade Policy Agenda, the United States is "committed to preserving 
and enhancing the WTO's irreplaceable role as the pr imary forum for multilateral trade liberalization, 
for the development and enforcement of global  trade rules, and as a key bulwark against 
protectionism".4  The United States continues to support,  participate and pursue trade initiatives and 
further liberalization through the WTO's multilateral trade framework.  Furtherm ore, the United States 
is committed to contributing constructively and creatively to the functioning of the WTO, in 
particular, acknowledging that the WTO Doha Round is  at an impasse, it is committed to fresh and 
credible approaches to new market-opening trade initiatives.5 
7. As an original Member of the WTO, the United States adheres to all the multilateral 
agreements and disciplines, and participates in sever al plurilateral agreements, i.e. the Agreement on 
Civil Aircraft, Agreement on Govern ment Procurement, and the Info rmation Technology Agreement.  
The United States has further liberalized certain goods and services sectors, participating in the 
pharmaceuticals initiative, Uruguay Round zero-for-zer o sectorals, and additional commitments on 
telecommunications and financial services. 
8. The United States is active in all aspects of  WTO work, including the on-going negotiations, 
regular Committee work, reporting and monitoring , development aspects, accessions, and in the 
dispute settlement arena.  During 1 January 20 10 to 30 June 2012, the United States submitted 
22 proposals or communications to the negotiati ng groups;  the majority of these concerned the 
Negotiating Group on Market Access.  During the sam e period, the United States was a respondent in 
eight dispute settlement cases, was a complainant in seven cases, and participated as a third party in 
seven panel proceedings.  The United States was invo lved in seven appeals processes and involved in 
three implementation or arbitration matters (Table AII.1). 
9. The United States also contributes to improving th e transparency of the WTO, its trade rules, 
and creating a clear and effective system by pr oviding information through the WTO notification 
process and promoting the use of open and transparent meetings and hearings.  Of the 11 panels that 
have permitted open hearings at the request of the parties to the dispute, the United States was 
involved as a complainant or respondent in 9.  Si milarly, the United States was an appellant or 
                                                      
3 Public Law 103-465.   
4 USTR (2012b). 
5 USTR (2012b). WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 16 
  
appellee in 7 of the 8 public hearings that have be en held by the Appellate Body.  In addition, the 
United States was a party in both instances where an Arbitrator held open hearings.  
10. The United States has made new or updated no tifications during the period under review 
covering a diverse range of WTO disciplines (Table A II.2).  However, it appears that some changes or 
updates to U.S. trade laws or procedures would re quire updated or amended WTO notifications.  In 
particular, as noted in other parts of this report or in previous Reviews, new notifications are likely necessary in the areas of rectifications and modifica tions of schedules, preferential rules of origin, 
quantitative restrictions, and with respect  to preference programmes like the GSP. 
(3) P
REFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
11. Since its last Trade Policy Review, the United States has moved ahead with the legislative 
approval of three free-trade agreements and the extension of two lapsed preference programmes.  To date it has put into effect its trade agreements with the Republic of Korea and Colombia, and is 
working with Panama to put that agreement into  effect.  The United States has also extended two 
preference programmes (Generalized System of Pr eferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act 
that had lapsed).  Furthermore, as part of the President's 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, important 
priorities were announced with respect to concludi ng a bold and ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership 
agreement and building better export mark ets through regional economic integration.
6 
12. Preferential trade accounts for an important and growing part of U.S. trade.  In 2011, 20.1% 
of U.S. imports were under preferential regimes,  reciprocal preference s accounted for 16.4% and 
unilateral preferences for 3.7% (Chart II.2).  Wh ile imports under unilatera l preference programmes 
remained flat, at US$80 billion in 2011 compared to  2010, in part due to the lapse of the GSP and 
ATPA programmes, reciprocal FTA imports increased 15% in 2011.  Compared to similar figures for 
2008, a peak year for U.S. trade, FTA preferentia l imports were 15.8% of the overall import share 
compared to 16.4% in 2011. 
Chart II.2
Imports for consumption, by type of import regime, 2011
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Trade Data Web.Reciprocal trade agreementsa
16.4%
Unilateral preferences
3.7%
MFN dutiable
31.1%MFN duty-freea
48.8%
Note:  Non-MFN trade statistically rounds to zero.a         "Reciprocal trade agreements" covers trade benefitting from the RTA, and "MFN duty-free" covers all trade 
entering at MFN duty-free levels, although the RTA may provide concessions at zero that are already
MFN duty-free.
 
                                                      
6 USTR (2012b). United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
(i) Reciprocal trade agreements 
(a) New agreements with Colombia, th e Republic of Korea, and Panama 
13. Legislation approving the free-trade agreements with Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and 
Panama, negotiated and signed during the previous Ad ministration, was enacted by the U.S. Congress 
and signed into law by the President in Octobe r 2011.  The United States-Republic of Korea FTA 
entered into force on 15 March 2012, and the U.S.-C olombia FTA entered into force on 15 May 2012.  
As of July 2012, the agreement with Panama is  not yet in force.  As Congress and the current 
Administration had a number of concerns regarding the agreements, thus the U.S. Administration did 
not send the agreements to Congress for approval un til it considered that the concerns had been 
adequately addressed.  Thus, certain changes or additi ons have been agreed in the interim, resulting in 
amendments or new exchanges of letters.   
14. The free-trade agreement with Korea is expect ed have a substantial impact on trade, and 
longer term impact on GDP and investment, as Kor ea is the United States' seventh largest trading 
partner (Table II.1).  The effects of the agreements  with Colombia and Panama are expected to be 
much smaller.  Most imports from Colombia and Panama already benefit from unilateral preference 
programmes or MFN duty-free entry, and they rank 25th and 52nd as trading partners.  In terms of 
trade, the Republic of Korea is expected to qu ickly become the United States' second largest FTA 
partner after NAFTA. 
Table II.1 
Economic impact and predictions for the new free-trade agreements 
FTA 
partner Impact on U.S. 
merchandise 
exports to 
partner Impact on U.S. 
merchandise 
imports from 
partner Impact on U.S. 
services' exports 
to partner Impact on U.S. 
services' imports 
from partner Impact on U.S. 
GDP Impact on U.S. 
investment in 
partner 
Colombia +US$1.1 billion  + US$487 million  Small increase No measurable 
effect + US$2.5 billion  Small positive 
effect 
Korea + US$9.7 billion 
to US$10.9 billion  + US$6.4 billion 
to US$6.9 billion  Increase No substantial 
impact + US$10.1billion 
to 11.9 billion  Could increase 
substantially  
Panama Small but positive No significant 
growth Small increase No significant 
effect Small Possible medium 
and long-term effect 
Source: USITC (2006), U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement:  Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral 
Effects , Publication 3896, December.  Vi ewed at:  http://www.usitc.gov /publications/332/pub3896.pdf; USITC 
(2007), U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement:  Potentia l Economy-wide and Select ed Sectoral Effects , Publication 
3949, September.  Viewed a t:  http://www.usitc.gov/publica tions/pub3949.pdf; and USITC (2007), U.S.-Panama 
Trade Promotion Agreement:  Potential Ec onomy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects , Publication 3948, 
September.  Viewed at:  http://w ww.usitc.gov/publications/pub3949.pdf. 
15. Detailed analysis of the three new agreements is beyond the scope of this report, but a few 
prominent points are summarized in Table II.2. 
Table II.2 
Overview of the new U.S. FTAs, 1 January 2010-30 June 2012 
United States and Colombia 
Passage of U.S. legislation / entry into 
force 21.10.2011 / 15.05.12 
Transition to full implementation Agricultu re product tariffs phased out over 15 years 
Some agriculture TRQs phased out over 19 years Industrial products phased out over 10 years 
Main products excluded from liberalization TRQ on sugar; exemption from national treatme nt and exception of the export restriction 
rules for logs 
Other measures Textile safeguard measure; agriculture  safeguard measure;  sugar compensation mechanism 
Table II.2 (cont'd)  WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 18 
  
U.S. merchandise trade (2011) Imports:  US$22,390 million, 1% of total U.S. imports  
Exports:  US$12,830 million, 1% of total U.S. exports 
of which preferential impor ts US$3,059 million or 14% 
of which MFN duty-free importsa US$9,150 million or 41% 
U.S. commercial services trade (2010) .. 
WTO document series WT/REG314 
United States and the Republic of Korea 
Passage of U.S. legislation / entry into 
force 21.10.2011 / 15.03.2012 
Transition to full implementation Agricultu re product tariffs phased out over 23 years 
TRQ on dairy products phased out over 10 years Industrial products phased out over 10 years 
Main products excluded from liberalization TRQs on most products retained; exemption from national treatment and exception of the 
export restriction rules for logs 
Other measures Motor vehicle safeguard measure; agricu lture safeguard measure; exclusion of imports of the 
other party when invoking a global safeguard measure 
U.S. merchandise trade (2011) Imports:  US$56,006 million, 2.6%  of total U.S. imports 
Exports:  US$41,311 million, 3.2% of total U.S. exports 
of which preferential imports 0 
of which MFN duty-free importsa US$29,552 million or 53% 
U.S. commercial services trade (2011) Imports:  US$8,377 million, 2.1% of  total U.S. imports 
Exports:  US$16,562 million, 2.8% of total U.S. exports 
WTO document series WT/REG311 
United States and Panama 
Passage of U.S. legislation / entry into 
force 21.10.2011 / not yet entered into force 
Transition to full implementation Agricultu re product tariffs phased out over 15 years 
Some agriculture TRQs phased out over 20 years Industrial products phased out over 10 years 
Main products excluded from liberalization TRQ on sugar; exemption from national treatme nt and exception of the export restriction 
rules for logs 
Other measures Textile safeguard measure; agriculture  safeguard measure;  sugar compensation mechanism 
U.S. merchandise trade ( 2011) Imports:  US$388 million,  0.02% of total U.S. imports 
Exports:  US$7,802 million, 0.6%  of total U.S. exports  
of which preferential impor ts US$56 million or 14%  
of which MFN duty-free importsa US$322 million or 83%  
U.S. commercial services trade (2010) .. 
WTO document series Not yet notified  
.. Not available. 
a  MFN duty free and other duty free, including product-specific and unilateral preferences. 
Source:  USTR online information, "Free Trad e Agreements".  Viewed at:  http ://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-
trade-agreements;  WTO documents;  and USITC Data Web.  
(b) Overview of the other free-trade agreements 
16. At the end of 2011, the United States had 11 b ilateral or regional free-trade agreements in 
force with 17 countries, which accounted for 16.4% of  total U.S. imports.  However, this figure may 
underestimate the trade, as it only provides for trad e that would otherwise be dutiable, it does not 
account for all imports from the partner country, as MFN duty-free trade is not included.  As MFN 
duty-free trade accounts for nearly 50% of U.S. imports (Chart II.2), it may also be important to 
analyse these two types of imports in tandem (Table II.3).  Clearly the majority of imports from FTA 
partners receive benefits, with 90% or more of trade entering duty free from partner countries, with 
the exception of the two most recent free-trade agr eements, with Oman and Peru, which entered into 
force in 2009. 
17. United States' FTA trade is dominated by NAFTA  partners, which accounted for 91% of total 
imports under FTAs, and 77% of exports to FTA part ners in 2011.  For the first time, in 2011, United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
Mexican imports under NAFTA preferences surpassed Canadian imports.  Crude petroleum and 
passenger motor vehicles were the top imported pro ducts from NAFTA partners  in 2010 and 2011.  
The United States maintains a positive trade balance fo r 8 of its 11 free-trade agreements, although it 
maintains a significant trade deficit with the NAFTA countries (Table II.3).  CAFTA-DR partner 
countries (Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El  Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) 
and Chile are the next most significant import suppliers, although they account for only 3.3% and 
1.6% of preferential imports in 2011 (Table II.3). 
Table II.3 
Trade under reciprocal trade agreements, 2011 
(US$ million, unless otherwise indicated) 
FTA partner(s) Imports 
under FTA 
preferences Other duty-free 
imports (MFN 
duty free, etc.)a % of imports 
entering 
duty-free Total imports 
from FTA 
partner(s) Total exports to 
FTA partner(s) Trade balance 
Australia 3,034 6,668 95 10,173 25,491 15,318 
Bahrain 326 180 98 518 1,166 648 
Chile  5,706 3,299 98 9,170 14,498 5,328 
Israel  2,661 19,810 98 23,018 8,084 -14,934 
Jordan  870 181 99 1,060 1,410 350 
Morocco 201 694 90 991 2,842 1,851 
Oman  1,526 224 80 2,184 1,369 -815 
Peru 3,079 2,213 87 6,059 7,412 1,353 
Singapore 1,138 16,952 95 18,982 28,224 9,242 
NAFTA 326,548 216,285 94 578,891 393,684 -185,207 
Canada 162,733 126,742 92 316,257 233,774 -82,483 
Mexico 163,815 89,543 96 262,634 159,910 -102,724 
DR-CAFTA 11,912 14,651 95 27,932 28,403 471 
Costa Rica 1,367 8,501 98 10,111 5,565 -4,546 
Dominican Rep. 2,251 1,727 96 4,152 6,963 2,811 
El Salvador 1,913 458 96 2,479 3,167 688 
Guatemala 1,829 1,842 89 4,129 5,857 1,728 
Honduras 3,270 1,046 97 4,457 5,851 1,394 
Nicaragua 1,282 1,077 91 2,604 1,000 -1,604 
a   MFN duty free and other duty free, includi ng product-specific and unilateral preferences. 
Note: U.S. exports that benefit from FTA preferences  cannot be determined wi th the data available. 
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S.  International Trade Commission (USITC), Trade Data Web.  
(ii) Unilateral preferences 
18. The United States has a long history of providing non-reciprocal preferential trade treatment 
to developing countries in order to promote econom ic growth and development.  The preference 
programmes are either global, i.e. the Generalized Sy stem of Preferences, or regional, where the five 
main preference programmes are the Andean Trad e Preference Act (ATPA), the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), the Caribbean Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and th e Haitian Opportunity through Partnership 
Encouragement (HOPE) Act.  In addition, the Unite d States gives unilateral preferential treatment to 
imports from:  U.S. insular possessions (U.S. Virgin  Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island, 
Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, and the Commonwealth  of the Northern Mariana Islands); those with 
Compacts of Free Association (Republic of the Marsha ll Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,  
and the Republic of Palau);  and fro m the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.7   In order to receive benefits 
under one or more of the preference programmes, countries have to meet eligibility criteria, which 
vary by programme, but may include meeting in ternational commitments in worker rights and 
investment practices, as well as foreign policy obj ectives such as having an extradition treaty or 
combating trade in illegal drugs, and other technical  criteria such as adhering to rules of origin 
(Chapter III(1)(iii)(b)). 
                                                      
7 Including qualifying industrial zones. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 20 
  
19. The U.S. Congress sets the statutory guidelines for unilateral preference programmes and is 
responsible for initiating and passing legislation to amend or re-authorize these programmes.  During 
the past two years Congress has held significant polic y discussions on prospective reform of some of 
these programmes, though they have not yet led to any major changes.  The legal authority for the 
GSP and ATPA programmes lapsed on 31 December  2010 and 12 February 2011, respectively.  In 
October 2011, legislation was enacted re-aut horizing the two programmes until 31 July 2013.8  
Congress may consider changes or reforms in the GSP and ATPA programmes when it next takes up 
renewal of these two programmes, probably in the fi rst half of 2013.  According to the President's 
Trade Policy Agenda, the growing competitiveness of  many emerging-market GSP beneficiaries may 
prompt review and reform of the GSP programme.9 
20. U.S. preference programmes taken together ac counted for 3.7% of U.S. imports in 2011 
(Chart II.3), with AGOA accounting for the largest part, at 2.4% of total imports or 65.2% of 
unilateral preferential imports, followed by GSP with  0.9% of total imports or 23.3% of unilateral 
preferential imports.10  The CBERA/CBTPA and ATPA programmes are very small in terms of trade, 
accounting for 0.2% of total U.S. imports each (Chart II.3).  Imports under the GSP and ATPA 
declined in 2011 compared to 2010, while t hose under the AGOA and CBERA increased.  The 
decline in ATPA imports can be attributed to the d eclining number of participants while the decline in 
GSP appears to be due primarily to the graduation of Equatorial Guinea from GSP and the shifting of 
imports from one preference programme to another,  i.e. imports from Angola moving from GSP to 
AGOA preferences.  In terms of the products benefiting from unilateral preferences, crude petroleum 
far outpaced any other product in  2010 and 2011, accounting for ove r two thirds (68% and 66% by 
value) of all unilateral preferential imports, resp ectively.  Other main imports under the preference 
programmes were chemical/fuel prod ucts and textiles and clothing. 
Chart II.3
Unilateral preferences imports, by programme, 2011
(Share of imports)
Source: WTO Secretariat, based on U.S. Internationa l Trade Commission (USITC), Trade Data Web.AGOA (65.2%)  2.4%GSP (23.3%)  0.9%ATPA / ATPDEA (5.5%) CBERA / CBTPA  
Note: Percentage in parenthesis represents share in unila teral preferences imports. Percentage not in parenthesis 
represents share in total imports.Other (1.4%)  0.1%
 
                                                      
8 Upon renewal, the benefits for eligible product s were applied retroactively from 1 January 2011. 
9 USTR (2012b). 
10 Only goods benefitting from the preference prog rammes; does not include MFN duty-free imports. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
(a) Generalized System of Preferences 
21. In 2011, the Administration worked with Congress to restore authorisation for the GSP 
programme.  In October 2011, the President signed legislation extending GSP until 31 July 2013, with 
retroactive effect from 1 January 2011 (Table II.4).  Due to the lapse of the programme in 2011, the 
review of petitions seeking waivers of competitive needs limitations (CNLs)11 was suspended and no 
actions were taken in 2011 to exclude products from GSP eligibility based on CNLs.12  USTR 
launched the 2011 GSP annual review in November 2011.  During such annual reviews, USTR and 
the TPSC consider petitions from interested parties to  modify the status of certain GSP beneficiary 
countries and modify the list of GSP eligible products.13  
Table II.4 
Overview of GSP 
Entry into force 1 January 1976 
Expiry 31 July 2013 
Beneficiaries Independent countries:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angol a, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, 
Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Plurilateral State of Bolivia, Bosnia and Her zegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina 
Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde,  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo 
(Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa), Côte d'Ivoire, Djibou ti, Dominica, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, 
Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, The Georgia, Ghana,  Grenada, Guinea, Guin ea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 
India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiriba ti, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, 
Lesotho, Liberia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro , Mozambique, Namibia, Ne pal, Niger, Nigeria, 
Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, 
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Suriname, 
Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisi a, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, 
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe;  
non-independent countries and territories :  Anguilla, British Indian Ocean Territory, Christmas Island 
(Australia), Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands , Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), Gibraltar, 
Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Montserrat, Niue, Norfolk Island, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, 
Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Is lands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank and Gaza Strip, 
Western Sahara;  
least-developed beneficiary developing countries:  Afghanistan, Angola, Bangl adesh, Benin, Bhutan, 
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African  Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), 
Djibouti, East Timor, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Guinea,  Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, 
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tomé and Principe, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, Somalia , South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, 
Vanuatu, Republic of Yemen, Zambia; and  
certain associations of countries  treated as one country for GSP rule-of-origin requirements 
Benefits GSP provides duty-free treatment  for 3,509 eight-digit tariff lines for GSP beneficiaries.  An additional 
1,463 tariff lines are eligible for duty-free treatment  when imported from leas t-developed beneficiary 
developing countries.  Thus, GSP-el igible tariff lines are 51.3% of dutiable MFN tariff lines, or 72.7% 
when including GSP LDC tariff lines 
Exclusions Many agricultural, textile and appare l, and other import sens itive products are excluded 
Top 3 2010 imports (US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports (US$ million) 
By country  By country  
Total  22,554 Total  18,539 
Thailand 3,612 India     3,736 
Angola 3,544 Thailand   3,720 
India 3,482 Brazil   2,059 
Table II.4 (cont'd) 
                                                      
11 CNLs are quantitative ceilings on GSP benefits that enter into effect when imports of a GSP-eligible 
product from a beneficiary co untry exceed statutorily defined percentage s or dollar values.  CNLs do not apply 
to LDCs or AGOA-eligible sub-Saharan African countries. 
12 76 FR 67530. 
13 76 FR 67531. WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 22 
  
By product  By product  
Total  22,554 Total  18,539 
Crude petroleum 5,433 Silver jewellery   695 
Silver jewellery 655 Aluminium alloy plate/sheet/strip 493 
Rubber automotive tyres 506 Crude petroleum    481 
Note: Trade import data used:  "imports for consumption", "customs value", and HT SUS six-digit basis.  Beneficiaries as 
at 30 June 2012.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data compiled from USITC DataWeb.  Viewed at:  h ttp://dataweb.usitc.gov;  
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Revision 3, February 2012;  USTR (2012) U.S. 
Generalized System of Preferences:  Guidebook , April .  Viewed at:  http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2880;  and 
USTR online information, "GSP by the Numbers".  Viewed at:  http://www. ustr.gov/webfm_send/3017. 
22. In 2011 and continuing into 2012, USTR and th e TPSC were reviewing the GSP eligibility of 
Bangladesh, Georgia, Niger, the Philippines, Sri La nka, and Uzbekistan, based on issues related to 
worker rights.  A worker rights petition from 2008 concerning Iraq remains pending.  Country practices petitions on Lebanon, Russia, and Uzbekistan  for IPR issues also remained under review in 
early 2012.  Pursuant to Presidential Proclama tion 8788 of 26 March 2012, Argentina's status as a 
beneficiary under the GSP was suspended for failure to act in good faith in enforcing arbitral awards 
in favour of U.S. corporations, and the Republic  of South Sudan was added as a least-developed 
beneficiary developing country.
14 
23. The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agre ement entered into force on 15 May 2012.  
At that time, Colombia ceased to be a GSP benefi ciary.  Similarly, when the United States-Panama 
Trade Promotion Agreement enters into force,  Panama will cease to be a GSP beneficiary. 
(b) African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 
24. By Presidential Proclamation on 28 October 2011,  Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, and Niger were 
designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan Afri can countries under the AGOA (Table II.5).15  
Furthermore, they were deemed to satisfy the cr iterion of "lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan 
African country", and thus receive additiona l benefits under section 112 (c) of AGOA.  On 
1 January 2011, also by Presidential Proclamati on, the Democratic Republic of Congo was removed 
as a beneficiary.16 
Table II.5 
Overview of the AGOA 
Entry into force 1 October 2000 
Expiry  30 September 2015 
Beneficiaries Republic of Angola, Repub lic of Benin, Republic of Botswana , Burkina Faso, Republic of Burundi, 
Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cameroon, Repub lic of Chad, Union of th e Comoros, Republic of 
Congo, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, Republic of D jibouti, Ethiopia, Gabonese Republic, Republic of The 
Gambia, Republic of Ghana, Republ ic of Guinea, Republic of Guin ea-Bissau, Republic of Kenya, 
Kingdom of Lesotho, Republic of Liberia, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Mali, Islamic Republic of 
Mauritania, Republic of Mauritius, Republic of Mozambique, Republic of  Namibia, Republic of Niger, 
Federal Republic of Nigeria, Repub lic of Rwanda, Democratic Repub lic of Sao Tome and Principe, 
Republic of Senegal, Republic of Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of South Africa, 
Kingdom of Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Re public of Togo, Republic of Uganda, Republic of 
Zambia  
Benefits AGOA provides duty-free treatment for 1,738 eight-d igit tariff lines, i.e. 25.4% of MFN dutiable tariff 
lines (exclusive of GSP lines) 
Table II.5 (cont'd) 
                                                      
14 77 FR 18899. 
15 76 FR 67035. 
16 President Proclamation 86 18 of 21 December 2010. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
Exclusions Import sensitive products subject to TRQs, ce rtain agriculture, flat goods, and iron and steel products 
Top 3 2010 imports (US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports (US$ million) 
By country   By country  
Total  38,665 Total  51,883 
Nigeria 25,154 Nigeria   31,004 
Angola 6,294 Angola   11,534 
Congo (Republic of) 1,936 Chad 2,991 
By product  By product  
Total  38,665 Total  51,883 
Crude petroleum 35,360 Crude petroleum 47,434 
Certain motor vehicles 1,471 Certain motor vehicles 1,995 
Light petroleum oils 519 Light petroleum oils   801 
Note:  Trade import data used: "imports for consumptio n", "customs value", and HTSUS six-digit basis.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data compiled from USITC DataWeb.  Viewed at:  h ttp://dataweb.usitc.gov;  
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS US) Revision 3, February 2012;  and USTR online 
information, "Fact Sheet on AGOA".  Viewed at:  http://www.ustr.gov/sites/ default/files/AGOA%20Fact%20 
Sheet%202010.pdf. 
25. The AGOA third-country fabric provision, seen  as successful in promoting the textile and 
apparel industry in Africa as well as supporting many j obs, is set to expire on 30 September 2012.  
The U.S. Congress has introduced legislation in this re gard, but it has not been enacted into law at this 
time. 
(c) Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade 
Partnership Act (CBTPA), including the HOPE and HELP amendments 
26. The HOPE amendments to the CBERA agreemen t, in 2006 and 2008, provided additional 
duty-free provisions for Haiti, in particular appare l products.  A further amendment in January 2010, 
known as the HELP amendment further extended more flexible and generous tariff preferences to 
Haiti by allowing third-country inputs to be used  as inputs for Haitian exports under the programme.17  
Upon entry into force of the free-trade agreem ent with Panama, Panama will cease to be a 
CBERA/CBTPA beneficiary (Tables II.6 and II.7). 
Table II.6 
Overview of CBERA 
Entry into force 1 January 1984 
Expiry No statutory expiry 
Beneficiaries Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba , Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica,  Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, 
Montserrat, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Luci a, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and 
Tobago, British Virgin Islands  
Benefits CBERA provides preferential or duty-free treatme nt for 5,498 eight-digit tariff lines, i.e. 80.4% of MFN 
dutiable tariff lines 
Exclusions Most textiles and apparel, leather, canned t una, petroleum and derivatives, certain footwear, certain 
watches, and over-TRQ agricultural goods 
Top 3 2010 imports (US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports (US$ million) 
By country  By country  
Total  1,219 Total  1,739 
Trinidad and Tobago 930 Trinidad and Tobago   1,290 
Bahamas 99 Jamaica   179 
Jamaica 84 Bahamas 124 
Table II.6 (cont'd) 
                                                      
17 Hornbeck (2011). WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 24 
  
By product  By product  
Total  1,219 Total  1,739 
Methanol   890 Methanol   1,097 
Polystyrene 95 Undenatured ethyl alcohol 244 
Raw sugar 26 Polystyrene    122 
Note: Does not include US$2 million (2010) and US$1million (2011) qualifyi ng CBI imports from Puerto Rico.  Trade import data 
used:  "imports for consumption", "customs value", and HT SUS six-digit basis.  Beneficiaries as at 30 June 2012.   
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data compiled from USITC DataWeb.  Viewed at:  h ttp://dataweb.usitc.gov;  
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (H TSUS) Revision 3, February 2012;  USTR (2011), Ninth 
Report to Congress on the Operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act , 31 December .  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_ send/3214;  USITC (2011), Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act:  Impact on 
U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficia ry Countries:  Twentieth Report 2009-10, Investigation 332-227.  
Viewed at:  http://www.usitc.gov/pub lications/332/pub4271.pdf;  and USTR onlin e information, "Caribbean Basin 
Initiative".  Viewed at:  http://www. ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-developmen t/preference-programs/caribbean-basin-
initiative-cbi.  
Table II.7 
Overview of CBTPA 
Entry into force 2 October 2000 
Expiry 30 September 2020 
Beneficiaries Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jama ica, Panama, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago  
Benefits Expanded the coverage of  CBERA to cover qualifying apparel products, petroleum and petroleum 
products, certain tuna, certain footwear , and certain watches and watch parts 
Top 3 2010 imports (US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports (US$ million) 
By country  By country  
Total  1,671 Total  1,879 
Trinidad and Tobago 1,274 Trinidad and Tobago   1,303 
Haiti 356 Haiti 461 
Belize 38 Belize   110 
By product  By product  
Total  1,671 Total  1,879 
Crude petroleum 1,249 Crude petroleum   1,274 
Cotton T-shirts 204 Cotton sweaters and similar 221 
Cotton sweaters and similar 125 Cotton T-shirts 213 
Note: Trade import data used: "imports for consumption", "customs  value", and HTSUS six-digit basis.  Beneficiaries as of 30 Ju ne 
2012.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data compiled from USITC DataWeb.  Viewed at:  h ttp://dataweb.usitc.gov;  
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (H TSUS) Revision 3, February 2012;  USTR (2011), Ninth 
Report to Congress on the Operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act , 31 December .  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_ send/3214;  USITC (2011), Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act:  Impact on 
U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficia ry Countries:  Twentieth Report 2009-10, Investigation 332-227.  
Viewed at:  http://www.usitc.gov/pub lications/332/pub4271.pdf;  and USTR onlin e information, "Caribbean Basin 
Initiative".  Viewed at:  http://www. ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-developmen t/preference-programs/caribbean-basin-
initiative-cbi.  
(d) Andean Trade Preference Act as amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug 
Eradication Act (ATPA/ATPDEA) 
27. Due primarily to the negotiation of free-trad e agreements with countries of ATPA/ATPDEA, 
the programme has fewer beneficiaries and therefore l ess trade coverage than in earlier years:  Peru's 
benefits ceased on 1 January 2011 (Table II.8), a nd those of Colombia on 15 May 2012 as a result of 
the entry into force of their FTAs.  As the Plur ilateral State of Bolivia ceased to be eligible for 
benefits in December 2008, Ecuador is the only  current beneficiary of the ATPA/ATPDEA.  Three 
petitions for removal of Ecuador's ATPA benefits  remain under review:  two worker-rights petitions 
dating from 2003, and one from 2004 concerning an investment dispute. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
Table II.8 
Overview of ATPA/ATPDEA 
Entry into force December 1991 
Expiry 31 July 2013 
Beneficiaries Ecuador (Peru ceased to be a beneficiary on 1 January  2011 and Colombia on 15 May 2012) 
Benefits ATPA/ATPDEA provides duty-free treatment for 5,354 eight-digit tariff lines, i.e. 78.3% of 
MFN dutiable tariff lines 
Exclusions Many textile and apparel articles not otherw ise eligible, rum and tafia, tuna in cans, and over 
TRQ agricultural products  
Top 3 2010 imports 
(US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports 
(US$ million) 
By country  By country  
Total  14,411 Total  4,385 
Colombia 9,473 Colombia   2,675 
Ecuador 4,179 Ecuador 1,706 
Peru 759 Peru   5 
By product  By product  
Total  14,411 Total  4,385 
Crude petroleum 11,945 Crude petroleum 3,629 
Other distillate and residual fuel oils 331 Other distillate and residual fuel oils 216 
Fresh cut roses 314 Fresh cut roses 140 
Note: Trade import data used:  "imports for consumption", "customs value", and HT SUS six-digit basis.  Beneficiaries as 
at 30 June 2012.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data compiled from USITC DataWeb.  Viewed at:  http://Dataweb.usitc.gov;  
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (H TSUS) Revision 3 February 2012;  USTR (2010), Fifth Report 
to the Congress on the Operation of the Andean Trade Preferen ce Act as Amended , 30 June.  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/ files/USTR%202010%20ATPA%20Report.pdf;  and Congressional Research 
Service (14 April).  
(e) Other unilateral preferences 
28. The United States provides duty-free treatment to eligible imports from U.S. insular 
possessions, freely associated States (Table II.9), and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including Qualified Industrial Zones) (Table II.10).  Trade data are not available for U.S. trade with U.S. insular 
possessions (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Johnston 
Atoll, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). 
Table II.9 
Overview of trade with freely associated States 
Entry into force 1985 
Expiry n.a. 
Beneficiaries Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Fede rated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau  
Benefits Duty-free treatment to all qualifying products 
Top 3 2010 imports (US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports (US$ million) 
By state  By state  
Total  4 Total  7 
Marshall Islands 3.2 Marshall Islands   6.7 
Fed. States of Micronesia 0.8 Fed. States of Micronesia 0.4 
Palau - Palau   - 
By product  By product  
Total  4 Total  7 
Tunas, skipjack, and bonito 3 Tunas, skipjack, and bonito 7 
Other fish fillets and fish meat 0.5 Other fish fillets and fish meat 0.2 
Basketwork, wickerwork 0.1 Basketwork, wickerwork 0.2 
n.a. Not applicable.  
- Negligible. 
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on da ta from USITC DataWeb.   WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 26 
  
Table II.10 
Overview of trade with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Qualified Industrial Zones 
Entry into force 1985 
Expiry n.a. 
Beneficiaries West Bank, Gaza Strip,  and Qualified Industrial Zones (located between Israel and Jordan, or 
Israel and Egypt)  
Benefits Duty-free treatment to all qualifying products 
Top 3 2010 imports 
(US$ million) Top 3 2011 imports 
(US$ million) 
By area  By area  
Total  1,160 Total  1,108 
Egypt 956 Egypt 1,009 
Jordan 200 Jordan 95 
Gaza Strip 3 Gaza Strip 3 
By product  By product  
Total  1,160 Total  1,108 
Women's or girls' trousers of cotton 198 Men's or boys' trousers of cotton 209 
Men's or boys' trousers of cotton 180 Women's or girls' trousers of cotton 172 
Sweaters, pullovers of cotton 106 Sweater s, pullovers of manmade fibers 73 
n.a. Not applicable.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat, based on data compiled from USITC DataWeb.   
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES  
(i) Bilateral investment treaties and framework agreements 
29. The United States negotiates bilateral investment  treaties (BITs) to provide a framework and 
detailed provisions to foster or facilitate the flow of  investment.  In addition to BITs, the United States 
has significant investment provisions in many of its free-trade agreements,  thus extensive coverage in 
an FTA may replace the need for a BIT.  For ex ample, the United States does not have BITs with 
Canada or Mexico, but the NAFTA (chapter 11) contains investment provisions similar to those in 
U.S. BITs;  this is also the case for a number of  other FTA partners.  At end-June 2012, the 
United States had 41 BITs in force.18  The United States does not have BITs with many of the 
emerging economies, which have been growing in im portance with respect to world investment flows 
in recent years.  Moreover, it is in the process of negotiating with several countries although some 
negotiations have been on-going for many years, i.e.  China and India.  A fe w BITs that have been 
negotiated, have not entered into force, i.e. Be larus, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Russia, and 
Uzbekistan. 
30. The BITs have been traditionally negotiated on the basis of a model that is then applied to the 
new partners entering into negotiations.  The use of BITs and its goals are to: 
 protect investment abroad in countries wher e investors' rights are not already protected 
through existing agreements (such as modern  treaties of friendship, commerce, and 
navigation, or FTAs); 
 open markets to investment, i.e. pre-establishment 
 encourage the adoption of market-oriented domestic  policies that treat private investment in 
an open, transparent, and non-discriminatory way;  and 
                                                      
18 Department of State online information, "United States Bilateral Investment Treaties".  Viewed at:  
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/bit/117402.htm. United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
 support the development of international la w standards consistent with these objectives.19 
31. In 2009, the Administration launched a review of  the 2004 model BIT to update it in order to 
ensure that it was consistent with the public interest and the Admini stration's overall economic 
agenda.  The Administration completed the review  in April 2012, and announced a new model BIT.  
The 2012 model has 42 pages (including annexes) and is reported to build upon the previous model by 
enhancing transparency and public participation;  sharpening disciplines that address preferential 
treatment to state-owned enterprises, including the distortions created by certain indigenous 
innovation policies;  and strengthening protec tion relating to labour and the environment.20 
32. The United States also uses Trade and Invest ment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) for 
dialogue on trade and investment issues.  Currently , 47 agreements are in force with individual 
countries or country groups.  TIFAs have often been  used as the first leve l of engagement before 
moving towards a closer trade and investment re lationship.  According to the 2012 Trade Policy 
Agenda, the United States intends to pursue more TIFAs in 2012, especially with African and Middle 
East countries.  Furthermore, the United States plans to strengthen enga gement on labour rights 
thorough the TIFAs in 2012.21 
(ii) Investment promotion 
33. In June 2011, the U.S. Government took steps to  facilitate and attract inward FDI into the 
United States by creating the first government-initia ted centralized investment promotion body.  The 
SelectUSA initiative was established22, by Presidential Executive Order, to attract and retain 
investment in the American economy, with the speci fic mission to facilitate business investment in the 
United States in order to create jobs, spur economic  growth, and promote American competitiveness.  
The SelectUSA initiative involves the creation of th e Federal Interagency Investment Working Group, 
to coordinate activities to promote business investment  and to respond to specific issues that affect 
business investment decisions.  Acco rding to the Executive Order: 
 "The Initiative shall coordinate outreach and engagement by the Federal Government to 
promote the United States as the premier location to operate a business. 
 The Initiative shall serve as an ombudsman that facilitates the resolution of issues involving 
federal programs or activities re lated to pending investments. 
 The Initiative shall provide information to dome stic and foreign firms on: the investment 
climate in the United States;  federal programs and incentives available to investors; and State 
and local economic deve lopment organizations. 
 The Initiative shall report quarterly to the Pr esident through the Na tional Economic Council, 
the Domestic Policy Council, and the National Security Staff, describing its outreach 
activities, requests for information recei ved, and efforts to resolve issues."23 
                                                      
19 Department of State online information, "Bilateral Investment Treaties and Related Agreements".  
Viewed at:  http://www.state .gov/e/eb/ifd/bit/index.htm. 
20 Department of State (2012). 
21 USTR (2012b). 
22 White House Press Release, "Executive Order 13577:  SelectUSA Initiative", 15 June 2011.  Viewed 
at:  h ttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the- press-office/2011/06/15/executive-orde r-selectusa-initiative.  SelectUSA 
activities are performed by the U.S. Department of Commerce under its existing appropriations.   
23 White House Press Release, "Executive Order 13577:  SelectUSA Initiative", 15 June 2011.  Viewed 
at:  h ttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/1 5/executive-order-selectusa-initiative.   WT/TPR/S/275/Rev.2 Trade Policy Review 
Page 28 
  
(iii) Investment regulations and restrictions 
34. The United States' investment regime has been  described as open and transparent with few 
formal encumbrances.  For example, there is free movement of capital and profits, and no minimum investment thresholds.  However, there remain a number of restrictions to foreign investment in 
certain areas, and certain information-gathering, mo nitoring, reporting, and disclosure procedures can 
also have an impact on foreign investment. 
35. According to a 2009 Congressional Research Serv ice report, a number of federal laws or 
regulations act as barriers or otherwise restrict foreign investment in several areas, i.e. maritime, aircraft, mining, energy, lands, radio communications , banking, and investment company regulations.  
In addition, in terms of reporting and disclosure, four  major federal statutes have an impact on foreign 
investment.   For example, a provision in the Agri cultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act requires 
foreign persons or an interest by a foreign pers on in agricultural land to submit a report to the 
Secretary of Agriculture within a specified timeframe.
 24 
36. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an interagency 
committee authorized to review transactions that  could result in control of a U.S. business by a 
foreign person, in order to determine the national security effects of such transactions.  Where CFIUS 
identifies national security concerns with a transa ction that are not adequately and appropriately 
addressed by other laws, CFIUS is authorized to ne gotiate or impose mitigation measures or, if the 
risks cannot be mitigated, recommend to the President that he suspend or prohibit the transaction.  CFIUS operates essentially on a voluntary basis, but has the authority to initiate a review of any 
transaction that may raise national security concer ns.  Between 2009 and 2011, the number of notices 
received and investigations undertaken by CFIUS have increased steadily (Table II.11), although 
notices remain below the 2008 pre-recession level. 
Table II.11 
CFIUS covered transaction notices, withdrawals, and decisions, 2009-11 
 
No. of notices Notices withdrawn 
during review No. of investigations Notices withdrawn 
during investigation Presidential 
Decisions 
2009 65 5 25 2 0 
2010 93 6 35 6 0 
2011 111 1 40 5 0 
Source: Department of Treasury online information.  Vi ewed at:  http://www.treas ury.gov/res ource-center/ 
international/foreign-investment/Doc uments/CFIUS%20Stats%202009-2011.pdf.   
37. A separate, but parallel mechanism establis hed through Executive Order is the National 
Industrial Security Program (NISP) for the protectio n and safeguarding of classified information that 
may be released to industry.25  The Department of Defense serv es as the Executive Agent and has the 
lead to issue and update an NISP Operating Manua l (NISPOM), to implement standards for industry 
that are consistent with those established for U.S.  government agencies for the protection of classified 
information.  The NISPOM requires evaluation of any foreign ownership, control or influence factors 
at a U.S. company as part of the determination of  eligibility for access to cl assified information.  
U.S. companies cleared through the NISP must agree to comply with the NISPOM and be subject to 
compliance inspections.26 
                                                      
24 Seitzinger (2009). 
25 Executive Order 12829. 
26 Jackson (2010).   United States WT /TPR/S/275/Rev.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
(5) AID-FOR-TRADE  
38. The United States is one of the world's largest bilateral contributors to trade capacity building 
initiatives, and is an active partner in the Aid-for-T rade discussions and initiatives.  In late 2010, 
President Obama released his strategy for developm ent, which was the first initiative of its kind to 
provide a coherent framework for U.S. development policy, i.e. the Presidential Policy Directive on 
Global Development.27  In particular, this policy sets out the new strategic context through three 
pillars:  
 a focus on sustainable development outcomes that places a premium on broad-based 
economic growth,  democratic governance, game-cha nging innovations, and sustainable 
systems for meeting basic human needs; 
 a new operational model that positions the United St ates to be a more effective partner and to 
leverage leadership;  and 
 a modern architecture that elevates deve lopment and harnesses development capabilities 
spread across government in support of common objectives – including a deliberate effort to leverage the engagement of and collaboration with other donors, foundations, the private 
sector, and NGOs – not just at the project level, but systemically.
28 
39. In 2010, the U.S. Department of State i ssued its first Quadrennial Diplomacy and 
Development Review (QDDR) which, among other things, made an assessment of how the 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID ) could become more accountable, efficient, and 
effective.  As a result, there have been a numbe r of changes and a move towards more accountability 
and delivery of results.  An evaluation of US AID's trade capacity building programmes was 
completed in late 2010.  One of the findings of  the report showed a statistically significant 
relationship between USAID trade capacity build ing (TCB) obligations and developing country 
exports, indicating that, on a predictive basis, an additional US$1 of USAID TCB assistance is 
associated with a US$42 increase in the value of developing country exports two years later.29 
40. One of the developments resulting from the 2010 Directive on Global Development is the 
establishment of the Partnership for Growth (PFG ) initiative.  This programme, established in 2011, 
begins with an analysis of the c onstraints to growth, followed by th e development of joint action plans 
to address these constraints, and mutual accountability for implementation.  To date, PFG 
programmes have been initiated with El Salv ador, Ghana, the Philippines, and Tanzania.30 
41. U.S. aid for trade gives countries, including tho se with low volumes of trade, the training and 
technical assistance needed to make decisions about th e benefits of trade reforms, to implement their 
obligations to bring certainty to th eir trade regimes, and to enhance their ability to compete in a global 
economy.31 
                                                      
27 White House Press Release, "Fact Sheet:  U.S. Global Development Policy", 22 September 2010.  
Viewed at:  http://www.whitehouse. gov/the-press-office/2010/09/22/fact-sheet-us-global-development-policy. 
28 USTR (2012b). 
29 USAID (2010). 
30 Department of State Press Release, "Partnership  for Growth", 29 November 2011.  Viewed at:  
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/11/177887.htm. 
31 USTR online information, "Aid for Trade".  Viewed at:  http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-
development/trade-capacity-building/aid-trade.