. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/W/584 
18 December 2007 
 (07-5633) 
General Council 
18-19 December 2007 Original:   English 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED 
UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF GATT 1994 
 
Response by the United States to the Communication from Japan  
Regarding the Review Pursuant  to Paragraph 3 of GATT 1994  
  
 The following communication, dated 17 December 2007, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 Question 1
 
 
 Japan would like to point out that some data contained in the tables regarding US shipyard 
deliveries from 2001 to 2005 on pages 2 and 3 of th e report (WT/L/680) seem to be inconsistent, 
although these tables are based on the same sources (see the following examples).  The relationship 
between the data of the two tables should be clar ified and corrected data should be provided if 
necessary. 
 
Answer : 
  We agree an error occurred in the formulation in  those two specific data cells of the table, 
which we have corrected.  
Question 2
 
  The US puts notes in the report that "Cance lled or delayed vessel orders may not be 
accurately reflected in the report".  However, we  believe that the US should provide relevant 
information that accurately reflects the current circum stances of US shipyards.  Therefore, we request 
the US to provide more accurate information based on sources other than Lloyd's Maritime 
Information Services if the Lloyd' s information is insufficient. 
 Answer
: 
 
 Lloyd's Maritime Information Services holds  one of the World's most comprehensive 
electronic shipping databases.  The information prov ided by Lloyd’s has limitations that we have 
acknowledged in our previous  submissions.  The Maritime Administration strives to ensure that the 
information (expressed or implied) is correct.  Ev ery precaution has been taken to provide accurate 
and up-to-date information. However the Maritime Administration cannot be responsible for any error 
or omission caused by a third party, such as Lloyd's. 
 WT/GC/W/584 
Page 2  
 
  Question 3
 
  According to the US's response, it does not ha ve a specific quantitative threshold or criteria 
for shipbuilding or maintenance capacity for nationa l security.  Without such threshold or criteria, 
how can the US assess its shipbuilding or maintenan ce capacity?  We are concerned that lack of the 
threshold and criteria would allow the US to make arbitrary decision and that the exemption would be 
permitted forever.  Answer
: 
  
Qualitative not quantitive assessments are made  by the US Department of Defense in 
conjunction with the Department of Homeland Securi ty and other national security agencies.  As the 
nature of the threats has changed over the years, th e assessment of the level of security needed is 
constantly being examined and refined.  
Question 4
 
  "Pontoon" is listed in the report.  According to the US's response, Pontoon is considered a 
vessel and registered in US Coast Guard vessel documen tation.  Since it is used at a fixed point, we 
believe that Pontoon should not be  covered by "vessels in commercial applications between points in 
national waters or the waters of an exclusive econom ic zone" in the context of GATT paragraph 3(a).  
Could the US elaborate on this? 
 Answer
: 
  We agree and the inclusion of a pontoon was an  inadvertent error, which has been corrected. 
 
Question 5
 
  According to the US's response, the additi onal information on the use, sale, lease and the 
repairing of relevant vessels stipulated in paragra ph 3(c) of GATT 1994 is not available.  We request 
the US to provide this information shortly, since the US has an obligation to submit this annually 
pursuant to the paragraph. 
 Answer
: 
  As we have reported earlier we still do no t have a source for this information. 
 
__________