UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT (SECOND COMPLAINT)
Document: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Union Request for Consultations
Date: 2 October 2012
Document codes: WT/DS353/16
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.2, 5, 6.3, 1.1, 2  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. III:4  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE
IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT
(SECOND COMPLAINT)

Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Union

Request for Consultations

 The following communication, dated 25 Sept ember 2012, from the delegation of the
European Union to the delegation of the United States and to the Chairperson of the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU.

With respect to dispute WT/DS353, ( US – Large Civil Aircraft ), the European Union hereby requests
consultations with the United States (US) pursuant to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXIII:1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( GATT 1994 ), Articles 4.1, 7.1 and 30 of the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), to the extent that Article 30 incorporates
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and the "Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding and Article 7 of the SCM Agreement " concluded by the European Union
and the United States with respect to this dispute on 12 January 2012 (Sequencing Agreement).
1

I. BACKGROUND
For decades, the United States has provided subs idies for the development and production of
large civil aircraft. While there is disagreement on the precise amount of total subsidization, there is
no dispute that it runs to many billions of dollars.

On 23 March 2012, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body Report
and the Panel Report (as modified) in US – Large Civil Aircraft , which found that US federal, state
and local governments provide subsidies to US producer s of large civil aircraft (LCA) – specifically,
the Boeing Company (Boeing) – that are inconsistent with US obligations under the SCM Agreement.

In particular, the DSB ruled that the following are specific subsidies, within the meaning of
Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement , that cause adverse effects, or threat thereof, to European
Union (EU) interests, within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(b) and (c) of that same Agreement:

1 WT/DS353/14, 27 April 2012, , Understanding between the European Union and the United States Regarding Procedures
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, concluded 12 January 2012.

 Payments and access to government facilities, equipment, and employees under
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aeronautics research &
development (R&D) programs;
 Payment and access to facilities under US Department of Defense (DoD) aeronautics
R&D programs;
 Tax exemptions under Foreign Sales Corpora tion/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI)
legislation and successor acts;
 Washington State business and occupation (B&O) tax rate reductions; and,
 Tax exemptions related to Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs ) issued by the City of
Wichita, Kansas.

The DSB recommended that the United States take appropriate steps to remove the adverse
effects or withdraw the subsidies.
2 Under Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreement, the United States had
until 24 September 2012 to comply with the DSB's recommendations.

The DSB also ruled that the United States provid es subsidies to Boeing that are prohibited by
the SCM Agreement, and recalled that prior recommendations of the DSB with respect to this matter
continue to be operative.3

By communication dated 23 September 2012, the United States notified the European Union
that the United States has taken a number of actions allegedly withdrawing the subsidies or removing
their adverse effects (23 September 2012 notification).

II. SUMMARY
The actions and events listed by the United States in its 23 September 2012 notification do
not withdraw the subsidies or rem ove their adverse effects, as required by Articles 4.7 and 7.8 of the
SCM Agreement . Instead, after the end of the impl ementation period on 24 September 2012, the
United States maintains specific subsidies that cause present adverse effects to EU interests. These
subsidies are also prohibited subsidies, as they are contingent on export performance, as well as on the
use of domestic over imported goods. Accordingly, in the view of the European Union, the United
States has failed to achieve compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The
European Union therefore requests consulta tions with the United States concerning, inter alia , the
matters described below.

III. MEASURES
After the end of the implementation period on 24 September 2012, the United States
maintains billions of dollars of subsidies, within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement,
including both those subsidies that the DSB ruled to be specific subsidies causing adverse effects, as
well as additional subsidies that constitute "measu res taken to comply", within the meaning of
Article 21.5 of the DSU. These subsidies cause present adverse effects and are prohibited. Amongst
those specific subsidies are, inter alia:
4

2 See Minutes, DSB Meeting of 23 March 2012, WT/DSB/M/313, para. 79.
3 Panel Report, ,
particularly Section VIII.
4 The NASA and DoD programs listed below should be understood to include all NASA or DoD R&D
programs and projects included within the meanings of such terms as us ed by the EU before the original panel
in DS353, regardless of any prior or subsequent changes in titles, budgetary codes, or organizational structure.

1. NASA R&D Subsidies

The United States asserted in its 23 September 2012 notification that NASA has: (a) modified
the rights accorded to the parties under the contract s covered by the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB, as well as subsequent contacts, so as to make them consistent with commercial practice; (b)
terminated the Advanced Composites Technolog y, High Speed Research, Advanced Subsonic
Technology, High Performance Computing and Communications, Quiet Aircraft Technology, Vehicle
Systems, and Research and Technology Base programs, and reduced funding for aeronautics research
contracts with private parties under other aeronautics research programs; (c) changed its policies so as
to remove limitations on access to the results of NASA research and development efforts, including
by ceasing the use of limited exclusive data rights ("LERD") clauses; and (d) implemented a policy
of seeking greater prompt disclosure of the resu lts of its sponsored research when it purchases
research and development services from private entities.

The European Union has carefully reviewed these assertions and measures, and considers that
NASA maintains subsidies that presently benefit US LCA producers by providing Boeing with
funding and access to government facilities, equipm ent, and employees for R&D applicable to the
development, design, and production of LCA on term s more favourable than would be available on
the commercial market, as well as by providing Boeing with royalty-free use of the technologies
developed with such funding and support or use of such technologies on terms more favourable than
would be available on the commercial market through, inter alia, the following programs:

 Advanced Composites Technology;
 High Speed Research;
 Advanced Subsonic Technology;
 High Performance Computing and Communications;
 Aviation Safety;
 Quiet Aircraft Technology;
 Vehicle Systems;
 Research and Technology Base;
 Fundamental Aeronautics;
 Integrated Systems Research;
 Aeronautics Strategy and Management;
 Aeronautics Test Program;
 High End Computing; and,
 Strategic Capabilities Assets Program.

The European Union considers that the subs idies include, but are not limited to, those
provided through any contracts and other agreemen ts with Boeing (as modified), under these
programs, as well as through the contracts and other agreements (as modified) listed in Annex A of
the United States' 23 September 2012 notification, and the associated programs.

2. Department of Defense R&D Subsidies

The United States asserted in its 23 September 2012 notification that the US DoD has: (a)
modified the rights accorded to the parties under the cooperative agreements, technology investment
agreements, and Other Transactions covered by th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB, as well
as subsequent contracts, so as to make them c onsistent with commercial practice; and (b) ceased
funding of the following programs, i.e., Dual Use Application and Dual Use Science and Technology
(Program Element ("PE") 0602305F); Navy Manufacturing Technology ("ManTech")
(PE 0603771F); Air Force ManTech (PE 0708011F); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
research on the Joint Strike Fighter (PE 0603800E ); Army research related to the Comanche

(PE 0604223A); Air Force research on the B-2 (PE 0604240F); and Air Force research on
A-6 Squadrons (PE 0604240F).

The European Union has carefully reviewed these assertions and measures, and considers that
the US DoD maintains subsidies that presently be nefit US LCA producers by providing Boeing with
funding and access to government facilities, equipm ent, and employees for R&D applicable to the
development, design, and production of LCA on term s more favourable than would be available on
the commercial market, as well as by providing Boeing with royalty-free use of the technologies
developed with such funding and support or use of such technologies on terms more favourable than
would be available on the commercial market through, inter alia, the following programs:

 A-6 Squadrons;
 Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems;
 Aerospace Avionics/Aerospace Sensors;
 Aerospace Flight Dynamics/Aerospace Vehicle Technologies;
 Aerospace Propulsion;
 Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology;
 Aerospace Structures/Aerospace Technology Dev/Demo;
 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS);
 Aviation Safety Technologies;
 Aviation Survivability;
 AV-8B Aircraft;
 B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber;
 C-17;
 Comanche;
 CV-22;
 Defense Research Sciences;
 Dual Use Applications/Dual Use Science & Technology Program;
 F/A-18 Squadrons;
 F-22;
 Flight Vehicle Technology;
 Flight Vehicle Technology Integration;
 KC-10S;
 KC-46, Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft;
 Joint Strike Fighter;
 Long Range Strike Bomber;
 Manufacturing Technology/Industrial Prepar edness Program (Air Force, Navy,
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Wide Manufacturing Science and Technology);
 Materials;
 Materials and Biological Technology;
 Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (P-8A);
 RDT&E for Aging Aircraft;
 Sustainment Science & Technology;
 Technology Transfer;
 Technology Transition; and
 V-22.

The European Union considers that the subs idies include, but are not limited to, those
provided through any contracts and other agreemen ts with Boeing (as modified), under these

programs, as well as through the agreements and othe r transactions (as modified) listed in Annex B of
the United States' 23 September 2012 notification, and the associated programs.

3. Federal Aviation Administration R&D Subsidies

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in collaboration with NASA, maintains
subsidies that presently benefit US LCA producer s by providing Boeing with funding and access to
government facilities, equipment, and employees for R& D applicable to the development, design, and
production of LCA, as well as by providing Boei ng with royalty-free use of the technologies
developed with such funding and s upport, on terms more favourable th an would be available in the
commercial market through the Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy, and Noise (CLEEN) program
and other FAA R&D programs. Such R&D suppor t is authorized by 49 U.S.C. §§ 44501-44517,
48102, and periodic reauthorization legislation.

4. Washington State and Local Subsidies

The United States asserted in its 23 September 2012 notification that the State of Washington
is applying rates of B&O tax for aerospace manufac turing and retailing in a manner consistent with
Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement.

The European Union has carefully reviewed this assertion, and considers that the State of
Washington and its political subdivisions mainta in the following subsidies presently benefiting
Boeing:

 State B&O tax rate reduction for manufacturers of commercial aircraft;
 State B&O tax credits for preproduction/aerospace product development and property
taxes;
 State sales and use tax exemptions for computer hardware, peripherals, and software;
 City of Everett B&O tax reductions;
 State B&O tax credits for leasehold excise taxes on covered buildings and land,
pursuant to Section 10 of House Bill 2466 (Chapter 177, Laws of 2006);
 Establishment of a "Dreamlifter Operations Center" at Paine Field by Snohomish
County, Washington; and,
 Establishment of the "Joint Center for Aerospace Technology Innovation" to
inter alia provide aerospace R&D-related funding, coordination, and training.

5. FSC/ETI Legislation and Successor Acts

The United States asserted in its 23 September 2012 notification that the United States has (a)
enacted legislation terminating the FSC/ETI tax be nefits, and (b) confirmed that Boeing did not use
FSC or ETI tax benefits after 2006.
The European Union has carefully reviewed these assertions and measures, and considers that
the United States maintains tax exemptions and tax exclusions under FSC/ETI legislation and
successor legislation presently benefiting Boeing.

6. State of Kansas and City of Wichita Subsidies

The United States asserted in its 23 September 2012 notification that the City of Wichita (a) is
applying its IRB program in a manner c onsistent with Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement, and (b) has
not provided any IRBs to Boeing since 2007.

The European Union has carefully reviewed thes e assertions and considers that the State of
Kansas and the City of Wichita maintain state and local property and sales tax abatements that
presently benefit Boeing in relation to the issuance of IRBs by the City of Wichita.

7. South Carolina State and Local Subsidies

The State of South Carolina and its political subdivisions, including the County of Charleston,
maintain various subsidies for Boeing related to the production of the company's 787 model of
aircraft, primarily (but not exclusively) as part of two incentive packages: (i) the "Project Gemini"
incentives, related to the location, establishment, and operation of an additional final assembly line
for the 787 at the Charleston International Airport in North Charleston, South Carolina; and, (ii) the
"Project Emerald" incentives, related to the location, establishment, and operation of manufacturing
facilities for 787 fuselage components on the same s ite. Such subsidies have served to motivate
Boeing to locate a portion of its production and assembly in South Carolina that could have otherwise
been located in Washington State and subject to the state and local subsidies in Washington State
referenced in item 0, above. Th ese South Carolina state and local subsidies include, but are not
limited to, the following:

A. Project Gemini

The measures that constitute the subsidies provided by South Carolina and its political
subdivisions for Boeing's 787 final assembly facility include actions by vari ous state agencies and
boards, the state legislature, and multiple Charl eston County agencies and authorities. Several of
South Carolina's commitments to Boeing related to Pr oject Gemini are included in three instruments:
(i) the Project Gemini Agreement between Boeing and the State of South Carolina, dated 1 January
2010; (ii) H3130 (Act No. 124 of 2009); and (iii) the Fee Agreement between Charleston County and
Boeing, dated 1 December 2009 ("the Boeing Fee Agreement").

Among the subsidies provided to Boeing for th e 787 final assembly facility, including through
these three instruments along with other instruments, are:
 Provision of a long-term lease of government-owned land at below-market rates;
 Provision of facilities and infrastructure funded through state-issued bonds, at no cost
to Boeing;
 Exemptions from state sales and use taxes;
 Reductions of state corporate income tax through income allocation and
apportionment agreement and multi-county industrial park designation;
 Property tax exemptions for Boeing's Large Cargo Freighters, pursuant to H3482 (Act
No. 45 of 2009);
 Establishment of workforce recruitment, training and development programs for
Boeing; and,
 Property tax reductions under a fee-in-lie u-of taxes agreement with Charleston
County.

B. Project Emerald

The measures that constitute the subsidies provided by South Carolina and its political
subdivisions for Boeing's 787 component manufacturi ng facilities include actions by various state
agencies and boards, the state legislature, and mu ltiple Charleston County agencies and authorities.
Several of South Carolina's commitments to Boeing related to Project Emerald are included in two
instruments: (i) the Project Emerald Confidential Site Development and Incentive Agreement,
undated from 2006; and (ii) the Fee Agreement between Charleston County and Vought Aircraft

Industries, Global Aeronautica, and Boeing, da ted 19 December 2006 (the Project Emerald Fee
Agreement).

Among the subsidies provided to Boeing for the 787 component manufacturing facilities,
including through these two instruments along with other instruments, are:

 Provision of a long-term lease of government-owned land at below-market rates;
 Provision of facilities and infrastructure funded through state-issued bonds, at no cost
to Boeing;
 State corporate income tax reductions through a multi-county industrial park
designation; and,
 Property tax reductions under a fee-in-lie u-of taxes agreement with Charleston
County.

In addition to the measures specifically liste d above in Section III of this request for
consultations, the European Union also consider s that any amendments, supplements, extensions,
replacement measures, renewal measures, related measures, or implementing measures may also be
subsidies that cause present adverse effects and are prohibited.

IV. LEGAL BASIS
The United States asserted in its 23 Septembe r 2012 notification that, in light of the
conditions of competition in the market for large civ il aircraft and actions taken by the United States,
any adverse effects of the subsidies in question have ceased to exist, or a "genuine and substantial
relationship of cause and effect" no longer ex ists between the subsidies subject to the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and any adve rse effects within the meaning of Article 5(c)
of the SCM Agreement. Through its alleged actions, the United States asserts that it has withdrawn
the subsidy or removed the adverse effects with respect to each of the subsidies found to be
inconsistent with Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement. The United States asserts that this is the case
with regard to all of the Boeing aircraft covere d by the DSB recommendations and rulings, as well as
the Airbus aircraft with respect to which the adverse effects existed.

The European Union has carefully reviewed these assertions and measures, and considers
that, after the end of the implementation period, the United States maintains a series of subsidies,
within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement . Those subsidies are specific, within the
meaning of Articles 1.2 and 2 of the SCM Agreement. Those specific subsidies presently benefit the
development, production and sale of Boeing's 737 NG, 737 Max, 747, 767, 777 and 787 families of
LCA, as well as any other future derivatives of these LCA families, including of the 777.
Collectively, and under the conditions of compe tition present in the LCA markets, those subsidies
cause present adverse effects, or threat thereof, to EU interests, inconsistently with Articles 5(c),
6.3(a), 6.3(b) and 6.3(c), including Articles 6.4 and 6.5, of the SCM Agreement. The effects of those
subsidies adversely impact sales, market shar es and prices of Airbus' A320, A320neo, A330,
A350XWB and A380 families of LCA. Specifically, the subsidies cause present serious prejudice, or
threat thereof, to EU interests, in the form of: (i) displacement and impedance of EU imports into the
United States, within the meaning of Article 6.3(a) of the SCM Agreement ; (ii) displacement and
impedance of EU exports to other third country markets, within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the
SCM Agreement (including on the basis of Article 6.4 of the SCM Agreement); and, (iii) significant
price undercutting, price suppression, price depre ssion, and lost sales, within the meaning of
Article 6.3(c) of the
SCM Agreement (including on the basis of Article 6.5 of the SCM Agreement).

The subsidies are also contingent on export performance, as well as on the use of domestic
over imported goods, such that they are, accordingly, inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2

of the SCM Agreement . Finally, through the measures identif ied in this request, the United States
accords treatment less favourable than that accorded to like products of US origin, inconsistently with
Articles III:4 and III:5 of the GATT 1994.

An Annex to this request includes, pursuant to Articles 4.2 and 7.2 of the SCM Agreement, a
statement of available evidence as to the existe nce and nature of these subsidies and the serious
prejudice they cause EU interests.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of the Sequenc ing Agreement, the European Union looks
forward to holding these consultations within fifteen days of the receipt of this request by the
United States.

To the extent the Parties are unable to resolve this dispute pursuant to consultations and the
European Union consequently files a request for panel establishment, the European Union reserves
the right to request at that time that the DS B initiate the procedures for developing information
concerning serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM Agreement. At that time, the DSB "shall"
initiate those procedures, as clarified by the Appellate Body Report in US – Large Civil Aircraft.
5

This request for consultations is without prej udice to the European Union's right to proceed
directly to a request for DSB authorization to apply countermeasures, under footnote 1 and
paragraph 6 of the Sequencing Agreement.

5 Appellate Body Report, US – Large Civil Aircraft, paras. 531-533, 549.

ANNEX

STATEMENT OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE

For purposes of Articles 4.2 and 7.2 of the SCM Agreement , the European Union sets out
below evidence available to it at this time regardi ng the existence and nature of the specific subsidies
subject to this request for consultations, as well as regarding the serious prejudice caused to EU
interests by the subsidies. The European Union reserves the right to supplement or alter this list in the
future, as required.

 Panel Report, US – Large Civil Aircraft , WT/DS353/R, 31 March 2011, adopted as modified
by the Appellate Body Report, 23 March 2012;
 Appellate Body Report, US – Large Civil Aircraft , WT/DS353/AB/R, 12 March 2012,
adopted 23 March 2012;
 US – Large Civil Aircraft, Exhibits EC-1 through EC-1450;
 US – Large Civil Aircraft, Exhibits US-1 through US-1364;
 NASA Budget Submissions, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013;
 NASA Research Opportunities in Aeronautics Solicitations for 2007 through 2011;
 NASA Contract and Award Data from the Fe deral Procurement Data System – Next
Generation (FPDS-NG) and USAspending.gov;
 All valid U.S. patents issued/assigned to Boei ng, that were funded in-part or in-whole by
NASA, according to the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database (PatFT)
(http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/ );
 DoD Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Budget Submissions, Fiscal Years 2007
through 2013;
 DoD Contract and Award Data from the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation
(FPDS-NG) and USAspending.gov;
 All valid U.S. patents issued/ assigned to Boeing, that were funded in-part or in-whole by the
DoD, according to the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database (PatFT)
(http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/ );
 FAA Other Transaction Agreement No. DTFAWA-10-C-00030;
 FAA Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-03293;
 FAA, Fact Sheet - Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program (24
June 2010);
 Boeing, Continuous Lower Energy, Em issions and Noise (CLEEN) Technologies
Development – Boeing Program Update (2 November 2011);
 Boeing, Boeing Unveils Plans for Advanced ecoDemonstrator Program (21 July 2010);
 Qualification for FSC benefits and ETI Exclus ions," Office of Chief Counsel, Internal
Revenue Service Memorandum Number AM 2007-001, 22 December 2006;
 Substitute Senate Bill 6828 (Chapter 81, La ws of 2008) (Washington), enacted 20 March
2008;
 House Bill 2466 (Chapter 177, Laws of 2006) (Washington), enacted 23 March 2006;
 Substitute Senate Bill 5982 (Chapter 242, La ws of 2012) (Washington), enacted 30 March
2012;
 Revised Code of Washington 28B.155.010, 82.04.260(11), 82.04.4461, 82.04.4463,
82.08.975, and 82.12.975, as amended;
 Washington State Department of Revenue, 2012 Tax Exemption Study (January 2012);
 Snohomish County Council Motion 12-062, "Authorizing the Snohomish County Executive
to Sign a Predevelopment Contract to Design a Dreamlifter Operations Center and Exclusive

Option to Lease Land at the Snohomish County Airport" and attachments thereto, passed
13 February 2012;
 City of Wichita, Chart, IRBs Issued to Boeing, 1979-2007;
 Industrial Revenue Bond Lease Agreements between Boeing and the City of Wichita for 2006
and 2007;
 H3130 (Act No. 124 of 2009) (South Carolina), enacted 30 November 2009;
 H3482 (Act No. 45 of 2009) (South Carolina), enacted 2 June 2009;
 Project Gemini Agreement between the Boeing Company and the State of South Carolina,
dated 1 January 2010;
 Fee Agreement between Charleston County and Boeing, dated 1 December 2009;
 Project Emerald Confidential Site Development and Incentive Agreement;
 Fee Agreement between Charleston County and Vought Aircraft Industries, Global
Aeronautica, and the Boeing Company, dated 19 December 2006;
 Ground Lease Agreement between Charleston Count y Airport Authority and South Carolina
Public Railways, dated 25 August 2006;
 Information regarding Airbus and Boeing products, including at
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ and
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/products.html, and related links and company
information;
 Airbus and Boeing documents describing aircraft performance and seating capacity;
 Boeing list prices, as well as order and delivery data, including at
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ and
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm;
 Airbus order and delivery data, including at
http://www.airbus.com/no_cache/company/market/orders-deliveries/ (and based on internal
confidential sources);
 Airbus marketing material analysing the comp etitive relationship between various Airbus and
Boeing products;
 Ascend database;
 Boeing Current Market Outlook, various editions (including at
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/);
 Airbus Global Market Forecast, va rious editions (including at
http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/ and
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/);
 Airbus press releases (including at http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/all-news/press-
releases/);
 Boeing press releases (including at http://boeing.mediaroom.com/ and
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/archive.html);
 Press releases by Airbus and Boeing customers;
 Notification of the Withdrawal of Subsidies and Removal of Adverse Effects in United States
– Measures Affecting Trade in Larg e Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint) (23 September 2012)
and the documents referenced therein.