WT/TPR/S/235
Page 80
Trade Policy Review
IV.
DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS
(1)
AGRICULTURE
(i)
Agriculture in the United States
1.
Agriculture production contributed slightly less than 0.8% to U.S. GDP in 2009 while total
employment in the sector was about 1.4% of the civilian labour force. Agriculture products
represented 6% of total exports and about 3% of total imports. Thus, agriculture is an important part
of the U.S. economy and, for some individual states, it is one of the main economic activities.
2.
The value of agricultural production in the United States increased from US$195 billion in
crop year 2002 to US$311 billion in 2007 as a result of high commodity prices and increased
production.1 It declined to about US$287 billion in 2009 as a result of lower international prices. The
United States is the world's biggest producer of several agriculture products including soybeans,
maize, beef, chicken meat, and milk. It is also the second or third biggest producer of barley, wheat,
sugar beet, and several fruits and vegetables.2 Although a wide range of products are produced, five
commodities contributed more than half of the total value of production (Table IV.1).
Table IV.1
Value of production, 2007-09
(US$ million)
2007
Total value of production (at farm gate)
of which:
Maize
Dairy products
Cattle and calves
Soybeans
Broilers
Hay
Wheat
Note:
%
2008
%
2009
%
311,228
100
315,597
100
287,022
100
54,667
35,666
35,973
26,974
21,514
16,842
13,289
17.6
11.5
11.6
8.7
6.9
5.4
4.3
49,313
34,977
34,859
29,458
23,112
18,639
16,626
15.6
11.1
11.0
9.3
7.3
5.9
5.3
48,489
24,200
30,757
31,760
21,677
14,990
10,626
16.9
8.4
10.7
11.1
7.6
5.2
3.7
Figures for 2009 are estimates.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2009), The 2010 Statistical Abstract, The National Data Book.
Viewed at:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture.html, except for total value of production, reported by
the authorities and based on National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data, and ERS cash receipts data for
commodities not available from NASS.
3.
The United States is the world's largest exporter of agriculture products and one of the biggest
importers and consumers. For a number of products, a large proportion of production is exported,
representing a large proportion of world trade (Table IV.2). Because the United States accounts for a
significant share of the global market for a number of agriculture products, the measures it takes that
support production and trade can affect world prices and, thus, international trade. The authorities
pointed out that import measures, such as high tariffs, taken by other countries that account for a
significant share of world consumption, can have similar effects on world prices and markets.
1
2
Crop year varies from one commodity to another.
Online data from FAOStat. Viewed at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx [July 2010].
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 81
Table IV.2
Production and exports of selected commodities, selected years
(Million tonnes unless otherwise stated)
2005
Prod.
Wheat
Maize
Soybeans
Rice, milled basis
Cotton (million bales)
57.0
282.0
84.0
7.1
19.2
Exports
27.4
56.1
25.6
3.9
13.7
2008
% of world
exports
24.1
67.9
40.1
13.2
35.5
Prod.
68.0
307.1
80.8
6.5
12.8
2009
Exports
% of
world
exports
Prod.
Export
% of
world
exports
27.6
47.2
34.9
3.0
13.3
19.3
55.9
44.4
10.4
44.1
60.3
333.5
91.4
7.0
12.2
23.5
48.3
39.3
3.3
12
18.8
56.1
47.7
11.0
35.1
Source: World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates, USDA, April 2010.
(ii)
Agriculture policies
4.
Most agriculture policies in the United States are set out in the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, which authorizes agricultural programmes for 2008-2013.3 There is a large body
of legislation underlying the Farm Act, much of which is incorporated into it. Some of the
programmes have their roots in legislation going back many years, although they have evolved
significantly over time and new programmes have been introduced, existing ones amended or
dropped.
5.
The Farm Act of 2008, like its predecessor, was prepared and passed in Congress. In 2008,
passage of the Farm Act had to overcome two Presidential vetoes. The current law provides for a
series of wide-ranging policies that cover almost all agriculture production but with very different
programmes in different areas, not all of which provide support to producers. The Act, like previous
Farm Acts, has a limited duration. In theory, if a new Act is not passed before the current one expires
(in 2013) the legislation reverts to the permanent legislation, most of which is in the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agriculture Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act of 1948. However, in the past, the existing Act has been extended in these circumstances.
6.
In many respects, the 2008 Farm Act is divided into a number of Titles, which set out the
programmes run by the USDA and other government agencies. It covers more than support to
agriculture: the largest budgetary outlays are domestic food aid programmes.
7.
What follows is a summary of the main Titles of the Farm Act, including other relevant
information under the same heading.
(a)
Title I (Commodity Programs)
Direct Payments
8.
Farms that used to produce cereals, cotton, peanuts and oilseeds are eligible for Direct
Payments, which are based on historic planting and yields and are decoupled from current production
and prices. The 2008 Farm Act lowered payments to 83.3% of base acres for 2009-2011 from 85% in
the 2002 Act. However, the payment rates remain the same. (Table AIV.2)
3
The Farm Act of 2008. Viewed at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc. cgi?dbname=
110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2419enr.txt.pdf [February 2010].
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 82
Trade Policy Review
Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
9.
Marketing assistance loans are available from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to
eligible producers of the covered commodities.4 After harvest, a producer may obtain a marketing
loan from the CCC equal to the loan rate multiplied by the quantity produced. The loan may be
redeemed by: repaying the capital plus interest (generally set at 1 percentage point above the
U.S. Treasury borrowing rate); or, when market prices are below the loan rate, transferring ownership
of the crop to the CCC or repaying at a loan repayment rate based on local (county) market prices. As
an alternative to taking out a marketing assistance loan, a producer may receive a loan deficiency
payment based on the difference between the loan rate and market prices. The loan rates in the 2008
Farm Act were the same as in the previous Act with increases and decreases for some products set for
2009-12. For seed and high-moisture-content maize, loans cannot be repaid by transferring ownership
of the crop. For upland cotton, the repayment rate is based on world market prices rather than local
prices (Table AIV.3).
Counter-cyclical Payments Program
10.
Counter-Cyclical Payments are based on historical production and the difference between a
target price and the "effective" price (based on current market prices). The target price for each
eligible commodity is set out in the Farm Act (Table AIV.4) and are the same as those set by the
previous Act for 2004-07, except for upland cotton whose target price was set slightly lower. For
2010-12, most rates were set at the same level except for wheat and oats, which were increased. The
2008 Farm Act extended the crops covered by Counter-Cyclical Payments Program to include dry
peas, lentils, and chickpeas. Although these payments are based on prices, current production of the
covered crop, or any other crop, is not required for payment and the size of the payment is not
affected by current production of any crop.
11.
The payment rate for counter-cyclical payments is the target price minus the direct payment
rate minus the higher of the loan rate or the market price. The payment rate is then multiplied by the
historical yield and historical acreage to give the total payment due to the producer.5
Sugar
12.
Sugar qualifies for non-recourse loans, i.e. processors may borrow at the loan rate set out in
the Farm Act and redeem the loan by repayment or by forfeiting the crop to the CCC. The processors
are required by law to pay producers at a rate proportional to the value of the loan. In addition, sugar
is subject to annually determined marketing allotments, which potentially restrict marketing and are
meant to prevent sugar being transferred to the CCC in forfeit. The Secretary of Agriculture may also
purchase sugar intended for food use and sell it to bioenergy producers although, in practice, this has
not happened.
4
The covered commodities are wheat, maize, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, extra-long
staple cotton, rice, peanuts, soybeans, other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, wool, mohair, honey, sugar
beet, and sugar cane. To be eligible for marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments, a producer
must comply with conservation and wetland protection requirements, report how they use their cropland, have
beneficial interest in the commodity, and ensure the commodities meet minimum grade and quality standards.
(See:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=
prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20070601_farln_en_nonrecmkt.html [July 2010].)
5
For example, for wheat, assuming the loan rate is higher than the market price, the counter-cyclical
payment rate for 2008-09 would be: US$144.04 - US$19.11 - US$101.05 = US$23.88/tonne of eligible
historical production.
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 83
13.
Under the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program a company may obtain a licence to import sugar
duty-free for refining and export, or to import raw sugar to replace domestically produced refined
sugar that has been exported. Under the Sugar Containing Products Re-Export Program, a
manufacturer of products that contain sugar can import sugar duty free for use in products to be
exported. The Polyhydric Alcohol Program allows manufacturers of polyhydric alcohol to buy dutyfree sugar from licensed refiners for use in the production of polyhydric alcohol for non-human
consumption.
Table IV.3
Exports of sugar and sugar-containing products, 2005-09
(Tonnes)
Sugar-containing products
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
145,337
157,571
162,259
144,932
154,264
Refined sugar
162,450
197,735
322,065
200,698
137,553
Source: Data provided by the U.S. authorities.
Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program
14.
The 2008 Farm Act introduced the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program as an
option to counter-cyclical payments. ACRE Program payments are also counter-cyclical but based on
revenue (State yields and market prices compared to historic yields and prices). Opting for the ACRE
Program means Direct Payments are reduced by 20% and loan rates by 30%. A total of 128,620
farms (7.7% of total enrolled farms) have signed up 32,528,628 acres (12.8% of total base acres).
Economic Assistance to Cotton Users
15.
The Economic Adjustment Assistance Program provides a payment to domestic users of
upland cotton from any source for specified uses, including modernizing plants or equipment.
Domestic users and exporters of extra-long staple cotton also receive payments when world market
prices fall for four consecutive weeks below U.S. prices and below 134% of the loan rate for
extra-long staple cotton.
Dairy
16.
The dairy sector is supported by several programmes that differ markedly from other support
programmes under Title I of the Farm Act of 2008. Price support is provided through purchase prices
set out in the Act; the CCC "will buy butter, cheddar cheese, and non-fat dry milk offered to it" at the
prices set out in the 2008 Farm Act.6 These purchases may be resold and, in 2009 and 2010, the CCC
sold about 455 tonnes of non-fat dairy milk, for conversion into edible dry casein or caseinate, at a
price of about US$1.58 per kg.
17.
In addition to the purchase prices set by the Farm Act, Federal Milk Marketing Orders
(FMMOs) set minimum prices for fluid Grade A milk7 that "first handlers" (processors or
manufacturers) must pay for milk. According to the authorities, minimum prices are set to encourage
6
USDA, ERS online information, "Briefing Rooms, Dairy: Policy", March 2009. Viewed at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Briefing/Dairy/Policy.htm [May 2010].
7
Grade A milk is milk that complies with the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) by the Food and
Drug Administration concerning sanitary standards; 99% of milk produced in the United States is Grade A.
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 84
Trade Policy Review
the production and movement of fluid milk from areas of surplus production to areas where
production is low and demand is high. FMMO prices can vary from month to month depending on
expected supply and demand, and are not guaranteed: average milk prices have fluctuated sharply in
recent years. Currently, there are ten federal marketing orders covering about 62% of milk produced
in the United States. California operates a similar system which covers about 22% of milk produced,
and the states of Maine, Montana, Nevada, and Virginia regulate nearly all the remainder. Under the
federal system, the minimum prices depend on the end-use of the milk: Class I for milk used in milk
beverages; Class II for milk used in soft and frozen products (fluid cream, yoghurts, ice cream, etc.);
Class III for milk used for cheese; and Class IV for milk used for butter or milk powder. Each month
minimum prices are set for each Class: the prices for Classes II to IV are based on the wholesale
prices of these products; and the price for Class I is set as a margin over the minimum price for milk
used for manufactured dairy products.
18.
The 2008 Farm Act continued, with some changes, the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC)
Program, under which a direct payment is made to dairy producers in each month that the price of
fluid milk is less than an annually determined fixed price. The payments provide partial
compensation when prices are below the reference price, subject to a quantity limit.8
(b)
Title II (Conservation)
19.
The agriculture conservation programmes are part of a much larger set of measures to protect
the natural environment. These programmes involve the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Forest Service (part of USDA), and other federal agencies. In 2007, spending on
USDA conservation programmes accounted for about 16% of the US$33.8 billion spent on
programmes to protect natural resources.9 Producer participation in most programmes is voluntary
with the exception of certain commodity programmes where producers on highly erodible and
protected wetlands risk not receiving benefits if they fail to meet the programmes' conservation
requirements. The 2008 Farm Act provided an additional US$8 billion for conservation programmes
and changed the amount of land that may be brought into reserve programmes. The area allowed in
the Conservation Reserve Program was reduced from 39.2 million acres to 32 million acres, while in
some smaller programmes (Wetland Reserve and Grassland Reserve) the area was increased.
(c)
Title III (Trade)
20.
The Farm Act 2008 retained some of the agriculture export programmes from the previous
Act. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the USDA administers most of the programmes with
the exception of some food aid programmes, which are the responsibility of the United States' Agency
for International Development (USAID). The Act terminated the Export Enhancement Program, the
Supplier Guarantee Credit Program, and GSM-103.
Export subsidies
21.
The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) provides subsidies (bonuses) through the CCC to
exporters of dairy products. In May 2009, DEIP was made available for the year beginning 1 July
8
The reference price is the Class I milk price in the Boston market under the applicable FMMO
(currently US$16.94 per cwt or US$373 per tonne). Compensation is paid at 45% of the difference for the
period 1 October 2008 – 31 August 2012 and subject to a limit of 2.985 million lbs (1,354 tonnes) per operation.
From 1 September 2012, the rate is 3%, and the allowable quantity per dairy operation is 2.4 million pounds
(1,087 tonnes).
9
USDA ERS online information, "Briefing Rooms, Conservation Policy: Background" January 2009.
Viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ConservationPolicy/background.htm [February 2010].
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 85
2008 through publication of invitations for offers to apply for bonuses for exports of non-fat dry milk,
cheese, or butterfat quantities. On 6 July 2009, another announcement activated the program for the
year beginning 1 July 2009. The global limits for exports under the DEIP were 19,235 tonnes of
butterfat, 68,201 tonnes of non-fat dry milk, and 3,030 tonnes of cheese. The export subsidy per unit
exported varies with each offer. Once an offer is received, the USDA/CCC makes a decision based
on the data provided by the exporter as it relates to the export sales contract. The determination by
USDA/CCC is based on an evaluation of both the export and domestic markets for that commodity.
According to the authorities, the DEIP bonus is intended only to offset the differential between the
export market and the domestic market.
22.
For the programme year beginning 1 July 2008, bonuses were awarded for 20,025 tonnes of
non-fat dry milk; 1,862 tonnes of butter/butteroil; and 152 tonnes of cheese. For the fiscal year
beginning 1 October 2008, budgetary outlays were: US$7.2 million for non-fat dry milk;
US$11.3 million for butter/butteroil; and US$0.3 million for cheese.
23.
Most agricultural products are eligible for the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102).
Under GSM-102, the USDA provides guarantees for credits extended by private banks in the United
States to approved foreign banks for purchases of agricultural products by foreign buyers. Fees are
based on the risk of the obligor country, the tenor of the loan, and other factors.10 As of 30 September
2009, exporters had registered US$5.3 billion (although by May 2010 this had fallen, due to the
cancellation of some guarantees). The default percentage (defined as the lifetime default claims as a
percentage of disbursements) was 5.33%. The estimated budget cost for FY2010 of GSM-102 is
-1.21%, meaning that its fees plus recoveries on default claim payments are expected to exceed
default claim payments on a net present value basis.
Export promotion
24.
The FAS is also responsible for the Market Access Program (MAP), which provides
cost-share financial assistance to approved organizations for overseas marketing and promotional
activities, including trade shows, market research, consumer promotions for retail products, technical
capacity building, and seminars to educate overseas customers. Assistance for brand promotion is
restricted to small-sized entities11, cooperatives, and producer associations. Authorized funding for
the MAP remained at US$200 million from 2007 through 2009. Under the Technical Assistance for
Speciality Crops (TASC) Program, funds are made available for projects that address SPS and TBT
measures in export markets, including: seminars and workshops; study tours; field surveys; pest
and disease research; and pre-clearance programmes. Authorized funding for the TASC Program
increased from US$2 million in 2007 to US$4 million in 2008 and US$7 million in 2009.
Food aid
25.
For many years, the United States has been the world's biggest donor of food aid, usually
delivering about half of total aid (3.2 million tonnes grain equivalent or 49% of the total in 2008).12
10
USDA (2010), GSM-102 Guarantee Fee Rate Schedule, April. Viewed at: http://www.fas.usda.
gov/excredits/gsm102fees.html [July 2010].
11
The definition of a small business entity follows the Small Business Size Standards of the Small
Business Size Regulations (13 CFR 121). For farming, the general rule is an enterprise with a turnover of less
then US$750,000, for the food industry it is an enterprise with less than between 500 and 1,000 employees
depending on the type of activity undertaken.
12
World Food Programme (2010).
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 86
Trade Policy Review
Most aid is given under the Food for Peace Act of 200813, which replaced the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480). The objectives of the Food for Peace Act are to:
combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes; promote broad-based, equitable, and
sustainable development, including agricultural development; expand international trade; foster and
encourage the development of private enterprise and democratic participation in developing countries;
and prevent conflicts. Nearly all aid is given in fully grant form through the World Food Programme
or private voluntary organizations.
26.
Most food aid donated by the United States is provided as direct transfers (i.e. as in-kind
commodities) rather than as cash for local or regional purchases. Direct transfers have been criticized
as being less efficient than cash for local or regional purchases.14 A declining amount of food aid is
monetized by private voluntary organizations to generate proceeds for development activities or to
cover their administrative and distribution expenses. The GAO has stated that food aid donations by
the United States could be made more efficient if some legal requirements were relaxed, such as the
obligation to carry 75% of food aid in U.S.-flagged ships.15
27.
In order to give USDA more flexibility in administering food aid programmes, the 2008 Farm
Act provided authority under a pilot programme (the Local and Regional Procurement Project) to
purchase food aid in local and regional markets. The funding provided was: US$5 million for
FY2009; US$25 million for fiscal years 2010 and 2011; and US$5 million for FY2012.16 In
addition, in FY2010, the Administration received US$300 million in the International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) account for emergency food assistance such as local and regional procurement, cash
voucher and cash transfers, which allow for greater flexibility and timeliness in delivering food
assistance. The Administration is requesting this IDA funding again in FY2011.
28.
Under the Food for Progress Act of 1985, 18 projects were approved or active in 2009 with an
estimated value of US$212 million.17 In total the Food for Progress Program provided over
US$238 million in food assistance in FY2009, supporting the purchase and shipment of
288,530 tonnes of commodities. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program also provided US$175.5 million in aid in FY200918, with more than
126,523 tonnes of commodities to support child nutrition and school feeding programmes in
18 countries. In addition, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT) is a reserve of commodities
and cash used to meet unanticipated food aid needs. The BEHT currently holds only cash.
(d)
Title IV (Nutrition)
29.
In addition to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Food
Stamp Program, the Farm Act authorizes other nutrition programmes including: the National School
Lunch Program; the School Breakfast Program; the Child and Adult Care Food Program; the
13
For the full text of the Food for Peace Act of 2008, see: http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/
FoodAid/pl480/Food_for_Peace_Act.pdf [February 2010].
14
OECD (2006).
15
GAO (2007).
16
USDA FAS (2009).
17
USDA FAS Press Release, "USDA Announces US$212 million in International Assistance under the
Food for Progress Program". 17 December 2008. Viewed at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/PressRelease/
pressrel_dout.asp?Entry=valid&PrNum=0179-08.
18
USDA FAS Press Release, "Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Additional US$80 million in
Food Assistance Under McGovern-Dole Program: USDA Releases Final Rule on Food Assistance Program
Regulations", 7 April 2009. Viewed at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/PressRelease/pressrel_dout.asp?
Entry=valid&PrNum=0057-09.
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 87
Summer Food Service Program; and the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Program. The Food and
Nutrition Service of the USDA is also responsible for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Program which provides food, education and healthcare to women on low incomes before and after
childbirth and for children up to five years of age. The total spending on nutrition programmes under
the USDA was about US$93.85 billion in FY2010 out of a total budget of US$135.52 billion (not all
of which was funded through the Farm Act).19
30.
The Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA also operates commodity purchase
programmes to acquire food products for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and other
Federal nutrition programmes that may also be used to "help to stabilize prices in agriculture
commodity markets by balancing supply and demand".20 These programmes purchase a wide variety
of products, including livestock products, fruit, vegetables, nuts, speciality items, and corn syrup.
Under the NSLP, participating schools are entitled to receive food valued at US$0.195 per lunch
served. The entitlement varies from one year to another based on changes in food prices. In addition,
schools and other feeding programmes can get "bonus" commodities as they become available
through agricultural surpluses. During the 2009 school year, the USDA purchased over
US$973 million worth of commodities for schools/child nutrition programmes.21
(e)
Title V (Credit)
31.
The 2008 Farm Act made some relatively minor amendments to the existing legislation on
lending to agricultural producers through the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). Direct loans of up
to US$300,000 are available from government funds for: purchasing farmland; investment in
buildings and other fixtures (Direct Ownership Loans); or for operating expenses (Direct Operating
Loans). Under the Direct Ownership Loans, an applicant may opt for a joint-financing plan with the
FSA providing half the loan and the rest through commercial banks. Emergency Farm Loans are
available to help farmers recover from natural disasters or quarantine conditions imposed as a result of
an SPS measure (Tables IV.4 and IV.5). Such loans are available only to citizens or permanent
residents of the United States. Individuals starting out in farming or ranching may obtain direct loans
from the FSA of up to US$300,000 or loan guarantees for borrowings of up to US$1,094,000. In
addition, each year the FSA targets a portion of its loans to socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers, as well as to beginning farmers and ranchers.
Table IV.4
Farm Service Agency Direct Loans; loan volumes at end of Fiscal Year
(US$ million)
New loan volume
2008
Operating loans
Ownership loans
Emergency loans
629.1
381.8
45.0
2009
1,225.5
560.0
30.4
Source: USDA FSA (2010), Farm Loan Programmes.
19
USDA (2010).
USDA AMS (2008).
21
USDA FNS (2009).
20
Outstanding volume
2008
2,354.4
3,049.4
821.2
2009
2,803.4
3,307.2
758.4
Delinquent loans
2008
177.4
71.5
140.2
2009
192.1
73.9
150.1
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 88
Trade Policy Review
Table IV.5
Farm loan programmes; interest rates (effective as of 1 February 2010)
Programme
Interest rate
Programme
Interest rate
Direct Farm Operating Loans
2.625%
Direct Farm Ownership Loans – Joint financing
5.000%
Direct Farm Ownership Loans
4.875%
Farm Ownership – down payments
1.500%
Emergency Loan
3.750%
Source: USDA FSA (2010), Farm Loan Programmes, Interest Rates. Viewed at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?
area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=dfl-ir [February 2010].
(f)
Title VII (Research and Related Matters)
32.
The USDA has a wide-ranging research programme implemented primarily through the
Agricultural Research Service, other State agencies, and universities. In addition to providing
funding, the changes in the 2008 Farm Act are intended to improve efficiency through better
coordination of research activities. The provisions include: the creation of the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to replace the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service; and the creation of the Research Extension and Education Office to assist with coordination.
The 2008 Farm Act also increased the emphasis on awarding funding competitively, and research on
organic and speciality agriculture.
(g)
Title IX (Energy)
33.
The 2008 Farm Act continues and expands funding for federal agency procurement of biobased products, construction and development of advanced biofuel refineries, biomass research and
development, and biodiesel education. New programmes encourage renewable energy use by
bio-refineries, renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements, rural energy
self-sufficiency, development of next generation feedstocks, and use of forest and woody biomass for
energy production. The Biorefinery Assistance programme seeks to encourage production of biofuels
from renewable biomass sources other than maize-kernel starch. It covers grants for the construction
of biofuel refineries of demonstration size, and loans for the construction of new refineries of
commercial size. In addition, the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels provides payments to
producers who produce, under contracts with the USDA, biofuels from renewable biomass other than
corn-kernel starch. The new programmes in the 2008 Farm Act include the Biomass Crop Assistance
Program to assist producers of biomass crops and conversion plants, and the Agricultural Bioenergy
Feedstock and Energy Efficiency Research and Extension Initiative, which provides grants for
research and extension services. Total mandatory funding through the 2008 Farm Act is about
US$620 million.
(h)
Title X (Horticulture and Organic Agriculture)
34.
Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, growers and handlers of certain
agricultural products may, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, establish a marketing
order under which measures can be taken to promote orderly markets. Orders vary considerably in
their terms and conditions. In some cases they may include supply control through marketing
restrictions and/or reserve pools. Marketing orders for tart cherries, cranberries, hazelnuts, dried
prunes, raisins, and spearmint oil include volume control measures.22
22
USDA (2008).
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 89
35.
Federal crop insurance is addressed under Title X although it covers a wide range of crops
and risks. Although the insurance is provided by the private sector, "the Government subsidizes a
significant portion of the cost."23
36.
The 2008 Farm Act extended the Speciality Crop Block Grant Program through to FY2012.
Under the Programme, individual States may apply to the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service for
grants to improve the competitiveness of fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and
nursery crops (including floriculture).
(i)
Title XI (Livestock)
37.
Although the 2008 Farm Act has a Title dedicated to livestock, the provisions under Title XI
are not all exclusively for livestock, such as the provisions relating to country-of-origin-labelling
(COOL). In most cases, the United States' policies relating to livestock are confined to insurance and
disaster relief programmes, animal health programmes, and assistance in meeting sanitary measures
within the United States and in export markets. According to the OECD, transfers arising from
government programmes in FY2006-2008 to pig meat, poultry, beef, and veal producers were zero.24
38.
The main exception to the general livestock policy is wool and mohair production. The 2002
Farm Act reintroduced support for wool and mohair, which was continued in Title I of the 2008 Farm
Act (see Table AIV.3).
39.
The 2008 Farm Act added chicken, goat meat, ginseng, pecans and macadamia nuts to the list
of commodities covered by the country-of-origin labelling provisions.25 It also introduced different
categories of labels depending on whether the animal was born, raised and/or slaughtered in the
United States. On 19 November 2009, the DSB established a panel to hear complaints from Canada
and Mexico on the country-of-origin labelling provisions.26
(j)
Title XII (Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance Programs)
40.
The 2008 Farm Act retained, with minor amendments, the crop insurance programme set up
under earlier legislation. As stated, under Title X, crop insurance is provided by the private sector at
subsidized rates under terms set by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and administered by the
USDA Risk Management Agency.
41.
Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance (SADA) provides disaster assistance payments
to producers of eligible commodities (crops, farm-raised fish, honey, and livestock) in counties
declared by the Secretary of Agriculture to be "disaster counties," including counties contiguous to
disaster counties and any farms with losses in normal production of more than 50% in a calendar year.
SADA is effective only for losses incurred as result of a disaster, adverse weather, or other
environmental condition that occurs on or before 30 September 2011.
23
USDA, Briefing Rooms: Fruit and Tree Nuts: Policy, Viewed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/
Briefing/FruitandTreeNuts/Policy.htm#cropins [February 2010].
24
OECD (2009b), p. 239.
25
Other commodities include: muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork; ground beef, ground lamb, and
ground pork; farm-raised fish and shellfish; wild fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities (fresh
fruits and vegetables as defined by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act); and peanuts.
26
WTO document series WT/DS/384/- and WT/DS/386; and WT/DSB/M/276, 29 January 2010.
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 90
(iii)
Trade Policy Review
Agriculture tariffs and tariff quotas
42.
Tariffs and tariff-rate quotas for agricultural products are not covered in the Farm Act 2008.
Based on the WTO definition of agricultural products, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) has 1,791 tariff lines at the 8-digit national level. Some of these lines refer to
in-quota tariff rates with other tariff lines for the same product giving the out-of-quota rate. There are
1,595 tariff lines for out-of-quota tariff rates for agricultural products.27
43.
For these 1,595, the average applied MFN tariff is 8.9%, which is relatively low compared
with some other WTO Members. However, rates vary a lot from one product group to another, from
350% for some tobacco tariff lines to zero for 368 tariff lines. Of these 1,595 tariff lines, 696 have
non-ad valorem duties. Ethyl alcohol used as fuel is also subject to "other duties or charges" and
bound in HTSUS at US$0.1427 per litre.
44.
The highest tariffs are on tobacco, sugar, peanuts, and dairy products, followed by beef,
cotton, and certain horticultural products (such as mushrooms).
45.
The United States notifies the Committee on Agriculture for 44 tariff quotas covering
171 tariff lines, mostly for dairy products, sugar products, products containing sugar and/or dairy
ingredients and cotton. The most recent notification is for 2007 and 2008.28 Fill rates varied
significantly from one quota to another and have been particularly low for cotton, possibly reflecting
the decline of the textiles and clothing industry. They were also quite low for some dairy and other
products. On the other hand, in-quota imports were close to or greater than the quota quantity in
several cases.
46.
The United States has reserved the right to use the Special Agricultural Safeguard on
189 tariff lines, mostly dairy products, sugar products, products containing sugar and/or dairy
ingredients, and cotton. The quantity-based SSG was last used in 2003. However, the price-based
safeguard has been applied much more frequently. It was used 61 times in 2007, and 53 times in
2008. In nearly all cases, the SSG was applied to very small quantities, for example: 4kg of cream
over 45% fat; and 3kg of cocoa powder over 65% sugar, but it was also used on commercially
significant imports, such as 327 tonnes of milk-based drinks and 2,598 tonnes of frozen, boneless
bovine meat.29
(iv)
Support levels
47.
Notifications by the United States to the WTO Committee on Agriculture cover domestic
support up to crop year 2007 and do not include changes resulting from the 2008 Farm Act.
However, although changes were made in the Act to payment rates and coverage in existing
programmes, and some new programmes were established, the 2008 Farm Act does not represent a
radical departure from the 2002 Farm Act.
48.
The notification for support for crop year 2007 stated that total support to agriculture was
US$84.65 billion. Of this, US$76.2 billion was notified under the Green Box, of which:
US$54.4 billion was for domestic food aid; US$5.2 billion was notified as Direct Payments under
decoupled income support; US$4.3 billion was annual outlays by states for services; and
US$1.9 billion was for the Conservation Reserve Program.
27
For more information see HTSUS at: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/
1000gntoc.htm [May 2010].
28
WTO document G/AG/N/USA/72 of 1 March 2010.
29
WTO document G/AG/N/USA/67, 2 March 2009.
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 91
49.
The Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (Current Total AMS) in the
United States was US$6.3 billion in 2007. In addition, there was US$2.0 billion in non-productspecific support and US$0.2 billion in other product-specific support, which were below the
de minimis limits.
50.
Thus, Amber Box support in the United States is a small portion of total support notified to
the WTO. Most of this support is related to prices, to production or to both. Marketing assistance
loan programmes for cereals, oilseeds and cotton effectively give nearly all producers of these
products guaranteed minimum prices by providing compensation for falls in market prices30 below the
loan rates set out in the Farm Act. Counter-cyclical payments also provide some compensation
should prices fall below the target prices in the Act, although in this case, payments are decoupled
from production. Apart from upland cotton, there have been essentially no marketing loan payments
since 2005 because market prices have been greater than the Farm Bill loan rates. Other commodities
also qualify for price-related support programmes such as non-recourse commodity loans for sugar
and minimum purchase prices for dairy products.
51.
As a result of the close link between support and prices for some commodities, the Current
Total AMS and product-specific AMS values vary with changes in market prices. Thus, under the
2002 Farm Act, Current Total AMS was US$12.9 billion for 2005 before falling to US$6.3 billion in
2007. It should be noted that, due to the methodologies used to calculate the product-specific AMS
values, the value of support for dairy and sugar appears to be relatively constant from one year to
another while support for other commodities varies considerably.31 Chart IV.1 shows the AMS
support for some commodities which, in years of high levels of support, is almost entirely made up of
payments under the marketing assistance loan programme. The chart shows the degree to which
support, as measured by the Current Total AMS, varies with prices. It does not include
counter-cyclical payments which, though price-based, are decoupled from production.
52.
Notifications to the Committee on Agriculture of the Current Total and product-specific AMS
were not meant to be indicators of the value of transfers to producers. The Current Total AMS is the
basis for the Committee on Agriculture to review implementation of commitments in the WTO.
However, for the United States, for products other than dairy and sugar, the product-specific AMS can
be a useful indicator of support as it reflects budgetary outlay.
30
For most commodities local prices are used for the loan repayment rates, except for cotton and rice
where adjusted world prices are used.
31
In its notifications on domestic support, the United States calculates most support for dairy and sugar
as market price support using the "price-gap" methodology. That is, the current total Market Price Support
component of the AMS is calculated by multiplying the difference between the "fixed external reference price"
and the "applied administered price" by the "volume of eligible production". Where: the fixed external
reference price is based on the average international price in 1986-88; the "applied administered price" is the
marketing loan rate for sugar beet and sugar cane, and the support price for manufacturing grade milk; and the
"volume of eligible production" is the total production of each commodity. Support for other commodities is
mostly calculated based on the budgetary outlay for the relevant programmes.
As a result, the AMS figures for sugar and dairy have not varied much from one year to another. In
part, this is because the AMS figures for these two products are based on fixed external prices. However, the
AMS figures for other commodities vary a lot from one year to the next because the budgetary outlay is based
on current market prices and production which vary considerably. For more information see WTO documents
G/AG/N/USA/66 of 19 January 2009 and G/AG/AGST/USA (in document G/AG/AGST/Vol.3 of
22 March 1995).
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 92
Trade Policy Review
Chart IV.1
Product-specific AMS support and market prices for selected commodities, 1995-2007
Wheat
Maize
300
5000
Wheat product-specific AMS
1000
250
4000
IMF price
200
600
150
400
100
200
50
US$ million
800
200
IMF price
3500
US$ per tonne
US$ million
250
Maize product-specific AMS
4500
3000
150
2500
2000
100
US$ per tonne
1200
1500
1000
50
500
Note: Year starting 1 June.
Wheat price for U.S. No. 1 HRW, f.o.b. Gulf of Mexico.
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Soybeans
500
4000
400
Rice product-specific AMS
IMF price
Soybeans productspecific AMS
3500
800
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
Note: Year starting 1 September.
Maize price for U.S. No. 2 yellow, f.o.b. Gulf of Mexico.
Rice
1000
900
1996
0
1995
0
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
0
350
400
IMF price
3000
300
2500
250
2000
200
1500
150
1000
100
500
50
500
400
200
300
100
Note: Year starting 1 August.
Price for 5% broken, nominal price quote, f.o.b. Bangkok.
Note: Year starting 1 September.
Price for soybeans; U.S., c.i.f. Rotterdam.
Note: Product-specific AMS includes de minimis support but does not include counter-cyclical payments.
Source: WTO notifications: G/AG/N/USA/10, 17, 27, 36, 43, 51/Rev.1, 60/Rev.1 and 66.
Annual average prices are based on IMF Commodity Prices for the relevant crop years.
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
0
1998
0
1997
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
0
1996
100
1995
200
US$ per tonne
300
US$ million
600
US$ per tonne
US$ million
700
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 93
53.
Another estimate of transfers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures is the
Producer Support Estimate (PSE) and associated indicators of the OECD. The methodology for
calculating PSEs and associated indicators is different from that used to calculate the AMS and the
two sets of data are not compatible or comparable. Furthermore, the methodology used by the OECD
is evolving and was revised for the 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation report resulting in several
changes, including the estimates of support of specific commodities.32
54.
According to the OECD, the PSE for agriculture in the United States was 7% of gross farm
receipts, which is the third lowest among OECD countries where the average PSE was 21%.33 It is
also lower than in some non-OECD countries for which PSE figures have been calculated.34
However, because the United States has a large agriculture sector this percentage translates into an
absolute level of support of US$23.3 billion, which is the third highest in the OECD.
55.
The PSE is an indicator of support to all agricultural producers. The OECD indicator for
commodity-specific support is the Single Commodity Transfer (SCT) which, for the United States
(and other countries), varies from one product to another reflecting the different programmes affecting
different products. The SCT for each product also varies from one year to another which reflects the
close link between commodity-specific programmes and production and prices (see Table IV.6) for
some products. The high levels of support shown for sugar and milk in some years reflects the
relatively high tariffs in these two sectors as well as the budgetary programmes covering them.
Table IV.6
Total producer support estimate and single commodity transfer values for selected commodities
(US$ million or % of gross farm receipts)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
43,104
16
41,929
16
31,199
11
33,953
10
23,359
7
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
353
4.6
124
1.7
544
6.6
493
3.6
502
2.9
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
2.952
10.8
4,443
16.7
138
0.4
-246
-0.5
727.0
1.5
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
135
7.4
110
6.1
18
0.9
8
0.3
12.0
0.4
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
517
2.8
-87
-0.5
-77
-0.4
152
0.6
1,241.0
4.3
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
1,053
54.2
896
44.4
519
21.4
775
34.8
574
27.0
US$ million
% of gross farm receipts
7,623
27.6
4,833
18.0
3,700
15.6
8,433
23.6
5
0.0
Total PSE
Wheat
Maize
Rice
Soya beans
Sugar
Milk
Source: OECD (2007, 2008, and 2009), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries. Monitoring and Evaluation, Paris.
56.
According to the OECD, marketing loan benefits (used for cereals, oilseeds, cotton, pulses,
and wool) and market price supports (used for sugar and dairy), are among the less efficient and more
32
OECD (2007).
OECD (2009b).
34
OECD (2009a).
33
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 94
Trade Policy Review
trade-distorting forms of support to agricultural producers. The OECD has stated that such policies
are less efficient than alternatives, such as decoupled or area-based payments, because a large part of
the benefits are lost to higher input and resource costs, and that these policies can also distort trade to
a greater extent than their more efficient alternatives.35
(2)
FINANCIAL SERVICES
(i)
General legal framework
57.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization) of 1999 (GLBA) is the
main law regulating the consolidated financial sector.36 The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act
of 2006 introduced changes to U.S. financial service legislation affecting banking, securities, and
insurance. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 (U.S. Code Title 15, Chapter 20), regulation of
insurance services is primarily at the state level. The Federal Reserve is the umbrella regulator for
financial conglomerates that include a bank. The activities of subsidiaries of financial holding
companies (FHCs) are regulated by several different regulators.37 Banking sector supervision is the
responsibility of both federal and state regulators.38
58.
There have been no major changes affecting the basic conditions of market access and
national treatment for foreign financial institutions in the United States since 2008. Initial entry into
the U.S. market is permitted in all states through the establishment or acquisition of a nationally
chartered bank subsidiary by a foreign person. U.S. bank subsidiaries of foreign banks are granted
national treatment. A foreign bank must establish an insured banking subsidiary to accept or maintain
domestic retail deposits of less than US$100,000. Branches and agencies of foreign banks have
similar powers to banks but agencies may not accept deposits from U.S. citizens or residents. At the
state level, there are limitations on the acquisition or establishment of a state-chartered bank, and on
the establishment of branches or agencies.
59.
Insurance companies, agents, and brokers must be licensed under the law of the State in
which the risk they intend to insure is located, but states have taken steps to facilitate multi-state
operations. Foreigners may acquire an insurance company licensed in all states, incorporate
subsidiaries in 47 states, or operate as branches in 36 states and the District of Columbia. A federal
tax on insurance policies covering U.S. risks is imposed at a rate of 1% of gross premiums on all
reinsurance but at 4% of gross premiums with respect to non-life insurance when the insurer is not
subject to U.S. net income tax on the premiums.
(ii)
Recent developments
60.
During the period under review, the U.S. financial sector was impacted by the severe crisis,
which was triggered by a protracted downturn in the housing market and a sharp increase in
delinquencies of sub-prime mortgages leading to a sudden drop in the price of the securities backed
by those mortgages. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was the result of a macroeconomic environment
with a prolonged period of low interest rates, high liquidity, and low volatility, which led financial
35
OECD (2002).
WTO (2008).
37
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the case of national banks; a state banking
agency and the Federal Reserve or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the case of state-chartered
banks; the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the case of securities firms; and a State insurance
commission in the case of insurance companies.
38
The Federal Reserve Board shares responsibility with the OCC, the FDIC, the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), as well as with State regulators.
36
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 95
institutions to underestimate risks; lax credit and risk management practices in many financial
institutions; and shortcomings in financial regulation and supervision.39
61.
Output and employment in the financial services sector declined sharply during the review
period. Real GDP in financial services and insurance declined for five consecutive quarters between
Q4 2007 and Q4 2008 inclusive, before resuming positive growth rates in the first three quarters of
2009, and declining again in the fourth quarter of 2009.40 Employment in the U.S. financial services
sector (finance and insurance) has also been strongly affected. Between early 2008 and March 2010,
total employment in the sector contracted 7% to 5.7 million.41
62.
Having recorded impressive growth rates in 2007 and 2008, U.S. exports and imports of
financial services contracted severely during the last two quarters of 2008 and throughout 2009,
before resuming growth in the first quarter of 2010 (Table IV.7).42 Exports of insurance services
showed positive growth rates in 2008 and 2009, probably due to the major stability of insurance
premiums compared with financial services assets, whose contraction may be reflected in the fall of
fees and commissions included in financial services data. Imports of insurance services declines
slightly in 2009.
Table IV.7
Exports and imports of financial and insurance services, 2008-10
Year-on-year percentage change
2008:I
2008:II
2008:III
2008:IV
2009:I
2009:II
2009:III
2009:IV
2010:I
Exports
Financial services
13.5
4.2
-8.6
-8.6
-16.0
-13.7
-3.3
-1.2
8.3
Insurance services
21.9
31.1
25.0
21.7
19.1
8.0
2.6
4.5
1.3
Imports
Financial services
20.3
5.5
-2.9
-12.7
-30.4
-17.8
-15.7
-7.6
12.8
Insurance services
15.7
18.4
14.5
23.8
9.6
-1.8
-5.6
-7.2
-4.8
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis online information. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov.
(iii)
Policy actions in response to the crisis
63.
During the period under review, developments in financial services policy and regulation
were driven to a large extent by the unprecedented financial crisis that virtually paralysed credit
markets. Through a series of actions by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Treasury Department,
the immediate effects of the crisis were mitigated and some degree of stability returned to the
financial system, allowing policymakers to turn their attention to overall financial regulatory reform.
64.
The immediate measures taken fall into the following categories: (1) guarantees of bank
liabilities; (2) retail deposit guarantees; (3) central bank assistance measures; (4) bank
recapitalization through equity investments by private investors and Government; (5) open-market or
negotiated acquisitions of illiquid or otherwise undesirable assets from weakened financial
institutions; and (6) assistance to individual financial institutions.
39
WTO (2008).
USBEA (2010).
41
Department of Labor online information. Viewed at: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Survey
utputServlet.
42
Figures for financial services supplied through affiliates are only available up to 2007. Nonetheless
the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has recently revised the statistics for services supplied through affiliates
and has for the first time incorporated services provided by bank affiliates, and for U.S. multinationals, services
provided by non-bank affiliates of bank parents.
40
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 96
Trade Policy Review
65.
On 3 October 2008, the U.S. President signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008 (EESA), which provided budgetary authorization of up to US$700 billion to respond to
the crisis. This authorization was utilized through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP),
which enabled the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to
purchase troubled assets from any financial institutions. The purpose of the TARP was to restore the
liquidity and stability of the financial system. The Act defines "financial institution" as including
"any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security
broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States
or any State, territory, or possession of the United States ... but excluding any central bank of, or
institution owned by, a foreign government". Foreign institutions established and regulated in the
United States were therefore, in principle, eligible for relief. In May 2010, the Department of the
Treasury notified Congress that the projected lifetime cost of TARP would total US$105.4 billion.43
66.
To meet the goals of the EESA, the Treasury established several programmes under the
TARP, and defined eligibility guidelines for each programme. According to the application
guidelines for the Capital Purchase Program, the largest single program under TARP, and the TARP
Capital Assistance Program, "applicants must be established and operating in the United States and
may not be controlled by a foreign bank or company".44 Similarly, according to the "summary of
terms" for the TARP Legacy Loans Program, banks or savings associations owned or controlled by a
foreign bank or company are not eligible to participate in this programme.45 According to the U.S.
authorities, this approach was based on the rationale that: U.S. subsidiaries of foreign banks that
needed additional capital should initially look to their parent banks; and the financial regulator of the
country where the parent bank is subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision are best
positioned to determine the overall strength of the financial conglomerate. The U.S. authorities also
note that this principle is well established in international banking supervision and regulation, as set
out, for example, in the Basel Committee’s Concordat.46
67.
In addition to the TARP programmes, temporary liquidity guarantee programmes were
implemented by the FDIC. These are the Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP), which
fully guarantees non-interest-bearing transaction deposit accounts above US$250,000, and the Debt
Guarantee Program (DGP), which guarantees eligible senior unsecured debt issued by eligible
institutions. All insured depository institutions, including insured U.S. branches of foreign banks,
were eligible to participate in the TAGP, while all U.S. established entities that are, or own, an
insured bank were eligible to participate in the Debt Guarantee Program. The standard
insurance amount of US$250,000 per depositor (increased from US$100,000) is in effect until
31 December, 2013.
68.
Substantial liquidity support – well over US$1 trillion – was provided by the Federal Reserve,
both directly to the markets and via programmes such as the Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or
43
U.S. Department of the Treasury (2010), Troubled Assets Relief Program: Monthly 105(a) Report
May 2010, 10 June. Viewed at: http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/May%202010%20105(a)%20Report_
final.pdf.
44
Application Guidelines for TARP Capital Purchase Program.
Viewed at:
http://www.
financialstability.gov/docs/CPP/application-guidelines.pdf; and Application Guidelines for Capital Assistance
Program. Viewed at: http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/CAP_App-Guidelines.pdf.
45
Legacy Loans Program Summary of Terms. Viewed at: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/
eports/legacy_loans_terms.pdf.
46
Principles for the Supervision of Bank’s Foreign Establishments.
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 97
the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF); the Primary Dealer Credit Facility; and
liquidity swaps with foreign central banks.47
(iv)
Financial regulatory reform
69.
On 17 June 2009, the U.S. Administration released the details of its comprehensive financial
regulatory reform proposal, aimed at addressing the regulatory gaps that resulted in the financial
crisis.48 This white paper was soon followed by proposed implementing legislation.
70.
The proposal is structured around five key objectives: (1) promote robust supervision and
regulation of financial firms; (2) establish comprehensive supervision of financial markets; (3)
protect consumers and investors from financial abuses; (4) provide the Government with the tools
needed to manage financial crises; and (5) raise international regulatory standards and improve
international cooperation. The legislation has not been approved by Congress (June 2010).
(3)
TRANSPORT
(i)
Air transport services
(a)
Main features
71.
By many measures the United States continues to have the largest airlines, busiest airports,
and most comprehensive air transport network in the world:

In terms of passengers carried, five of the top ten airlines are based in the United States
(Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and US Airways);

In terms of passenger-kilometres flown five of the top ten airlines are based in the
United States (American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines, and
Southwest Airlines);

The world's two largest air cargo carriers, in terms of tonne-kilometres are based in the United
States (Federal Express and UPS Airlines)49; and

Five of the ten busiest airports in the world are in the United States (Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International, O'Hare International, Los Angeles International, Dallas-Fort Worth
International, and Denver International).50
72.
Air freight is mostly used for perishable and/or high value goods and, in 2007, represented
only 40 billion ton-miles out of a total of 3,491 billion ton-miles for all modes of transport.51
47
The TALF is a joint endeavour of Treasury (which contributed a US$20 billion subordinated loan)
and the Federal Reserve, whose objective was to fund buyers of asset-backed securities. On 31 March 2010
TALF ceased for issued asset-backed securities and legacy commercial mortgage-backed securities.
48
See Financial Regulatory Reform – A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and
Regulation.
49
IATA (2010), and taking into account the merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines
announced in April 2010.
50
EU Infrastructure, "The Busiest Airports in the World", Sam Conrad 8 October 2009. Viewed at:
http://www.euinfrastructure.com/news/Busy-month-for-Heathrow/ [March 2010] and taking into account the
merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines announced in April 2010.
51
Department of Transportation (2008).
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 98
Trade Policy Review
Nevertheless, in value terms, air freight accounted for 23% of imports in 200652 (and presumably a
similar portion in more recent years). However, in 2009, the quantity delivered by air freight was
down 23% from its 2007 peak. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, require that, as of 1 August 2010, each piece of cargo transported on passenger aircraft in the
United States to be screened before being transported. In 2009 50% of such cargo was screened.
According to the FAA, the additional cost of screening and the burden of the additional time needed
will fall on the air cargo industry.53
73.
Commercial aviation in the United States (and elsewhere) faced various difficulties in 2008
and 2009. In FY2008 and 2009, commercial carriers in the United States had net losses of
US$18.6 billion and US$8.1 billion. Costs and passenger revenues both declined in 2009 as a result
of lower fuel prices and reduced fares.54 The airlines' financial problems in 2008 and 2009 probably
reinforced the trends towards: consolidation among airlines, such as the merger between Delta and
Northwest Airlines; concentration of activity in a smaller number of airports, as some hub-and-spoke
carriers have focussed services at fewer hubs; and convergence of unit costs between low-cost and
network airlines.55
74.
The performance of the largest U.S. air carriers (i.e., certificated air carriers that account for at
least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenues) in terms of on-time arrivals improved from 73%
in 2007 to 80% in 2009. The primary causes of delays in 2009 were the national aviation system, the
late arrival of the incoming aircraft, and air-carrier caused delays.56 All were related to congestion,
and the improvement in on-time arrivals during 2007-09 could be because fewer passengers and
planes were in the air (i.e., less congestion) as airlines cut capacity due to the general economic
downturn. According to the authorities, the Department of Transportation is committed to protecting
consumers and ensuring that the quality of air service continues to improve. The U.S. Department of
Transportation plans to pursue enforcement action aggressively, including assessment of civil
penalties, against U.S. airlines that violate a new rule that went into effect in April 2010 that prohibits
them from operating chronically delayed flights or subjecting passengers to lengthy tarmac delays.
75.
All public airports with commercial services are publicly owned, although some are partly or
wholly operated through outsourcing and management contracts.57 This practice is particularly
common in airport services, such as terminal and parking area operations, ground transport, building
maintenance, baggage handling, and construction and engineering. With the exception of security
services, foreign services suppliers may provide services to airports on the same terms and conditions
as domestic suppliers. Security standards for all public airports, and security screening at such
airports are administered, regulated, and enforced by the Transportation Security Administration of
the Department of Homeland Security.
76.
Through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) the FAA provides grants for the
development of public airports, including airports with no scheduled passenger flights, which may be
privately owned.58 The proportion of costs covered by grants from the AIP vary with the type of work
and the size of the airport and can be as high as 95% of eligible costs for small primary, and general
aviation airports. The Program is funded through taxes on passenger ticket sales and aviation fuel.
52
Interagency Working Group on Food Safety (2007).
FAA (2010b).
54
FAA (2010b).
55
Tsoukalas et. al (2008); and Button (2008).
56
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (2010).
57
WTO (2008).
58
Kirk (2009).
53
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 99
Grants for airport improvement require airlines to be able to self-handle and use of airport facilities to
be non-discriminatory.59 US$3.9 billion was authorized for the AIP in FY2009.60
77.
Funds provided under the ARRA, specifically to the Federal Aviation Administration for
airports, require that the steel and manufactured goods used in the project must be produced in the
United States (see Chapter III(3)(iii)).61 A waiver may be sought when procuring a facility or
equipment if the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States is more than
60% of the cost of all components, and final assembly is in the United States.
78.
There are no legal or regulatory barriers to private ownership of airports with commercial
service, but the general legal complexity at federal, state and local level, plus restrictions on the use of
revenues have meant that there has been little interest from the private sector. The Airport
Privatization Pilot Program, which began in 1997, was intended to assess whether privatization is a
feasible way to tap private capital for airport improvement and development. However, the scope of
the programme is limited as it provides for only one large hub airport, and an application (which
remains active) was made in September 2006 by a public body, the City of Chicago, for the Chicago
Midway International Airport. Of the other seven airports considered for the programme:

one is no longer in the programme (Stewart International Airport, Newburgh, NY);

three have withdrawn their applications (San Diego Brown Field, CA; Rafael Hernandez
Airport, Puerto Rico; and New Orleans Lakefront, LA);

one has had its application terminated (Niagara Falls International Airport, NY); and

two have had preliminary applications approved (Luìs Muñoz Marín International Airport in
Puerto Rico, and Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in New Orleans).62
79.
Stewart International Airport (SWF) in Newburgh, NY, is the only airport to receive final
agency approval. National Express Group, a private company from the United Kingdom, operated
SWF Airport from March 2000, until October 2007, when the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey purchased the National Express Group's Airport Lease.
80.
The authorities note that an airport's participation in the Pilot Program is voluntary; and the
decision to submit an application rests with the airport owner. They also point out that there is usually
heightened interest in the Program during periods of economic distress, as local municipalities look to
the Pilot Program in an effort to increase municipal funds without raising taxes. However, overall,
there has not been significant interest in airport privatization in general in the United States for a
number of reasons: (1) local government's reluctance to cede control of the airport to a private entity;
(2) the availability of, and access to tax exempt financing and other low cost financing options, and
(3) airlines' opposition to airport privatization and their perception that the loss of governmental
control may produce higher costs. The authorities also note that the Chicago Midway application
marks the first time airlines have agreed to support airport privatization at an air carrier airport, and
they state that such support (65% of air carriers serving an airport) is necessary for a public sponsor to
recover funds from the sale or lease of the airport.
59
WTO (2008).
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2009, Sec. 4. Viewed at: http://frwebgate.access.
gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1512rds.txt.pdf [April 2010].
61
49 U.S.C. section 50101.
62
FAA (2010a).
60
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 100
(b)
Trade Policy Review
Regulatory framework
81.
There has been no significant change in the regulatory framework for air transport during the
review period. Within the Department of Transportation, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs is responsible for economic policy and regulation, while the
Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for safety issues, regulation of commercial space
aviation, and monitoring air carriers operating in the territory of the United States. The
Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for the
security of air transport in the United States, including regulating and monitoring the implementation
of security standards at U.S. airports, and of U.S. aircraft operators and foreign air carriers operating
to, from, and within the United States.
82.
Anyone wishing to provide air transport services as an air carrier must obtain two separate
authorizations from the DOT: "economic" authority from the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, and "safety" authority from the FAA. The FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO)
established in February 2004 to oversee the U.S. air traffic system. It provides all air traffic services
in the United States. In addition, any authority to operate in U.S. air commerce granted by the
Secretary of Transportation is conditional on the operator also satisfying the security requirements
established by the Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland Security.
83.
U.S. air carriers are still required to be under the actual control of U.S. citizens.63 Non-U.S.
citizens may not own more than 25% of the voting interest in a U.S. air carrier. The Department of
Transportation may, on a case-by-case basis, allow total foreign equity investments (voting and
non-voting) above 25%, as long as actual control remains in the hands of U.S. citizens. In all cases,
the president and two thirds of the board of directors and other managing officers must also be U.S.
citizens. The restrictions on foreign ownership of airlines based in the United States were first
included in the Air Commerce Act of 1926 and set at 75% domestic ownership in the Civil
Aeronautics Act of 1938.64
84.
The FAA's War Risk Aviation Insurance Program provides war risk hull loss and passenger
and third-party liability insurance to the domestic airline industry, as required by the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 as amended by the FAA Extension Act of 2010. The authorities note that the
Program charges premiums and has accumulated reserves to pay claims. They state that the general
procedure used to develop the premium structure for each of the three insurance categories is:

To adopt a plausible accident scenario basis for the severity and frequency of future hostile
acts against aviation (the premiums for all three insurance categories assumed an accident rate
of one catastrophic incident every two years, or equivalently, one-half accident per year);

To estimate the reasonable liability implications for each insurance category under that
accident scenario;

To calculate the aggregate premium level that would be needed (per year and over the term of
the policy) to cover the expected liability under each insurance category; and

To allocate those premiums among the airlines on the basis of fair and relevant factors.
63
64
WTO document WT/TPR/S/200/Rev.1.
Dempsey (2008).
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 101
85.
The United States has GATS commitments with respect to aircraft repairs and maintenance,
and has scheduled MFN exemptions with regard to the sale and marketing of air transport services
and the operation and regulation of CRS services.
86.
Since end 2007 the United States has completed negotiations on "open-skies" agreements
with Australia, Barbados Croatia, Kenya, Laos, Armenia, Zambia, Israel, and Trinidad and Tobago,
and with the European Commission on further liberalization of air transport.65 It also initialled an
MOU with Japan in December 2009, which would, upon signature, implement an open-skies
agreement. The United States also forms part of the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of
Air Transport (MALIAT) concluded between various members of APEC (Brunei, Chile, Cook
Islands, United States, New Zealand, Samoa, Singapore, Tonga, and Mongolia). Altogether, the
United States has negotiated Open Skies agreements with 99 partners, (counting the EU as 27).
87.
The second-stage U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement was signed on 24 June 2010. With
respect to ownership of U.S. and EU airlines, the agreement provides for the possible expansion of
opportunities in the future, contingent on confirmation that reciprocal investment is allowed. The
U.S.-EU Joint Committee, which meets at least once a year, is mandated to review developments and
to improve cooperation, including appropriate recommendations in this regard. Cabotage restrictions
in the United States remain and domestic transport may only be provided by U.S. carriers except in
limited circumstances. Furthermore, the crews engaged in domestic air passenger and freight service
must be U.S. nationals or resident aliens, and other restrictions apply.66
(ii)
Maritime transport
(a)
Main features
88.
In 2008, waterborne commerce in the United States was about 2.3 billion tonnes, down 0.5%
from its peak in 2006, while the share of foreign trade remained fairly constant at about 60%.67 U.S.
foreign trade accounted for 17% of global waterborne trade in 2008. Foreign container trade grew by
35% to 235 million tonnes from 2003 to 2008 but then contracted in 2009 to 214 million tonnes.
Container trade remains concentrated in a few ports; the top four container ports (Los Angeles, Long
Beach, New York/New Jersey, and Savannah) accounted for 60% of container imports in 2009 and
47% of container exports. Container cargo represents only 17% of U.S. international ocean-borne
trade in terms of tonnage but 56% in terms of cargo value.68
89.
Domestic trade accounts for 40% of waterborne trade in the United States. The Great Lakes
represented over 9% of the domestic waterborne trade in 2008 (Chart IV.2).
90.
The trade deficit in freight and port services declined from US$20.7 billion in 2005 to nearly
US$9.8 billion in 2009 as exports of these services increased faster than imports between 2006 and
2008 and then, in 2009, they fell by less than imports.69
91.
In 2008, there were 675 U.S.-owned ocean and Great Lakes vessels of which 238 were under
the United States' flag and 145 had unrestricted coastwise trading privileges (Jones Act vessels – see
65
An "open-skies" agreement, while normally a significant step towards deregulation, is defined as not
having limits on the number of flights or operating points, but this may not be extended to all freedoms.
66
WTO (2008).
67
Department of Transportation (2009) Maritime Administration.
68
Department of Commerce online information, USA Trade Online, U.S. Bureau of Census.
Viewed at: http://www.usatradeonline.gov/, April 27, 2010.
69
BEA (2010b).
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 102
Trade Policy Review
below). The number of ocean-going vessels sailing under the flag of the United States has declined
by 5% since 2003.
Chart IV.2
Waterborne trade in the United States, 2008
(Million tonnes)
Others
(87)
Great Lakes
(85)
Other
(284.9)
Imports
(892)
Inland
(567)
Coal
(102.8)
Iron ore
(18.7)
Container
(235.1)
Coastwise
(182)
Exports
(484)
Grain
(118.9)
Petroleum
(606)
LNG
(10.1)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (2009), U.S. Water Transportation
Statistical Snapshot , viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Water_Transportation_
Statistical_snapshot.pdf
(b)
Regulatory framework
92.
The regulatory framework for maritime transport in the United States has not changed during
the review period. The United States Coast Guard of the Department of Homeland Security is the
primary federal agency responsible for regulating maritime transport, including regulating vessel
safety and security, environmental protection and response, and the licensing of mariners. In addition,
the Maritime Administration (MARAD) of the Department of Transportation is responsible for certain
maritime regulations, programmes that promote the use of waterborne transportation and its
integration with other segments of the transportation system, and the viability of the U.S. merchant
marine. MARAD is also responsible for a variety of programmes involving ships and shipbuilding,
port operations, environment, and safety. It also maintains a reserve fleet of cargo ships for national
emergencies, and operates a training academy for merchant seamen and provides training vessels for
six state maritime academies.
93.
The independent Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is responsible for the regulation of
ocean transportation intermediaries, ocean common carriers, cruise operators, and marine terminal
operators. The FMC also operates a Consumer Affairs and Alternative Dispute Resolution
programme. The FMC is responsible for the implementation of an alternative competition regime for
ocean common carriers and marine terminal operators, whose collaboration may qualify for
exemption from the generally applicable antitrust laws under the Shipping Act. Under the mandates
of the Controlled Carrier Act, Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and the Foreign Shipping
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 103
Practices Act, the FMC also monitors the laws and practices of foreign governments and carriers for
unreasonable practices affecting U.S. ocean-borne foreign commerce.70
94.
The United States did not table an offer in the WTO Negotiations on Maritime Transport
Services, suspended in June 1996. It has not tabled an offer with respect to maritime transport
services in its offer on services in the Doha Development Agenda.71
(c)
Water-borne trade
95.
As reported in previous Trade Policy Reviews, cabotage of goods and passengers is 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 citizens of the United States. According to MARAD, the Jones Act fleets totals 38,000
vessels (including the 145 ocean and Great Lakes vessels referred to above) which represented an
investment of US$48 billion and moves over 1 billion tonnes of cargo annually.72
96.
Requests for waivers of the provisions of the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act
are made to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP is required to
consult with MARAD and, as a matter of practice, also consults with other interested agencies before
a waiver is granted or denied. Waivers of the Jones Act are only granted by the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security only "in the interest of national defence", and consequently, only
in "extremely rare" cases.73 MARAD is responsible for canvassing domestically flagged shipping to
locate suitable vessels. Additionally, MARAD has sole responsibility for the programme for small
passenger vessels to apply for waivers. Since 2006, one anchor-handling vessel was granted a waiver
in April 2010 to operate in waters off Alaska, and waivers have also been granted in response to the
oil spill cleanup arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico.
97.
The United States has bilateral maritime agreements in effect with Brazil (signed September
2005), China (December 2003), Russia (June 2001) and Viet Nam (March 2007). It also has an
exchange of letters with Japan (November 1997) on port services, which has the effect of an
agreement.74
98.
The United States administers a number of maritime transport programmes related to national
defence:

The Maritime Security Program (MSP) provides a fixed payment to operators of domestically
flagged vessels under the Maritime Security Act of 2003. Annual spending of up to
US$156 million was authorized for FY2006-08, US$174 for 2009-11; and US$186 for
FY2012-1575; In FY2009, 59 vessels received MSP payments totalling US$166.5 million, or
an average of US$2.8 million per vessel;
70
FMC online information. Viewed at: http://www.fmc.gov.
WTO document TN/S/O/USA, 9 April 2003.
72
MARAD (2008).
73
MARAD online information. Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ ships_shipping_landing_page/
domestic_shipping/Domestic_Shipping.htm.
74
MARAD online information. Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/about_us_landing_page/
international_activities/international_agreements/International_Agreements.htm [March 2010].
75
MARAD online information. Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/
domestic_shipping/Domestic_Shipping.htm [March 2010].
71
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 104
Trade Policy Review

The Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) programme provides the Department of
Defense with assured access to commercial intermodal capacity during time of war or
national emergency. VISA participants receive priority for award of DOD peacetime ocean
freight contracts; and76

The Cargo Preference Act of 1904 requires all items procured for or owned by defence
agencies to be carried exclusively on U.S.-flagged vessels.
99.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 MARAD received
US$100 million for the Small Shipyards Grant Program, up from US$10 million in 2008. In
August 2009, the Department of Transportation announced 70 grants worth US$98 million under the
Program which provides grants of up to 75% of the cost of a wide variety of infrastructure and
training projects.77 Port infrastructure projects are also eligible for projects under the Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery.78
100.
In addition, existing legislation applies preferences to using domestically flagged vessels
transporting goods under government programmes:

The Cargo Preference Act of 1954 requires that at least 50% of the gross tonnage of all
government-generated cargo be transported on privately owned, domestically flagged
commercial vessels, to the extent such vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates. The
Act also requires that shipments from or to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve use domestically
flagged tankers for at least 50% of oil transport;

The Food Security Act of 1985, requires that 75% of agricultural cargoes under certain USDA
and USAID foreign assistance be carried on domestically flagged vessels: It also established
the ocean freight differential (OFD) programme, which reimburses USDA and USAID for the
additional cost of using these vessels; and

Public Resolution No. 17 of 1934 requires that exports of goods that benefit from export loans
or credit guarantees from the Export Import Bank, must be carried in U.S. vessels, although
the vessels of a recipient country may be granted access to 50% of those cargoes, where there
is no discriminatory treatment against U.S.-flag carriers. Waivers may be granted, subject to
reciprocal treatment for U.S.-flag vessels by the recipient country.79
101.
The carriage of goods for international trade by liner services has traditionally been exempt
from antitrust rules, and subject to regulation. Under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) of
1998, agreements among liner operators and marine terminal operators to discuss, fix, or regulate
transportation rates, and other conditions of service, or cooperate on operational matters must be filed
with, and examined by the Federal Maritime Commission. The Act also requires ocean carriers to
publish tariff rates and charges for carriage for trade with foreign countries. The FMC also reviews
the rates of government-controlled ocean carriers to ensure that the commercial carriers with whom
they compete are not unfairly disadvantaged.
76
MARAD online information. Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/
national_security/vol_intermodal_sealift_agreement/vol_intermodal_sealift_agreement.htm [March 2010].
77
MARAD online information. Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/about_us_landing_page/
marad_recovery_ act/recovery.htm. [March 2010].
78
Department of Transportation (2009).
79
MARAD online information. Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/
cargo_preference/Cargo_Preference_Landing_Page.htm [March 2010].
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 105
102.
Under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 the FMC is required to monitor and
investigate conditions arising from foreign government or business practices in the U.S. foreign
shipping trades. The Commission is authorized to take action to address "unfavourable shipping
conditions in U.S. foreign commerce and may impose penalties". No action was taken in FY2009.80
While the FMC continues to monitor potentially restrictive foreign shipping laws and practices, the
only current active item is Docket 96-20, Port Restrictions and Requirements in the U.S./Japan Trade.
103.
Although the European Union no longer applies exemptions to competition law for liner
shipping, the United States has not indicated that it intends to move in a similar direction.
(4)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
(i)
Market structure81
104.
The telecommunications market in the United States is the largest in the world by revenue; at
US$393 billion in 2007, it grew by 3% per year between 2004 and 2007. Annual investment also
increased steadily since in the same period, reaching US$74.5 billion in 2007. Although this
represented more than 40% of all investment in telecommunications in OECD countries, it is lower
than the peak of US$113 billion in 2000. As in other countries, revenue from mobile services and
data continued to grow while fixed-line voice revenues declined.
105.
In 2007, there were 1,248 fixed-line operators, 177 mobile operators, 33,736 cable TV
systems, and 74.7 million broadband subscribers. Despite the low fixed-line charges in the
United States, analogue and ISDN lines continued to decline, falling by 10% in 2005-07 to
151 million, as broadband and mobile carrying both data and voice replaced them. Mobile phone
subscriptions continue to increase and reached just over 91 per 100 inhabitants in 2009. Mobile
broadband penetration (3G and 4G) has been increasing rapidly with over 98% of the population
served by one or more mobile broadband providers82 and over 28% of subscribers reported to have 3G
devices in September 2008.83
106.
Broadband connections continue to increase. The authorities note that 64% of households
had broadband access in February 2010, up from 51% in 2007.84 According to the OECD, in 2008,
the primary access technologies for broadband were by cable and DSL although fibre is gaining
market share. As in other countries, radio, television, internet and voice telephone services are
merging, although for many consumers and suppliers they remain separate products. Voice over
internet protocol (VoIP), video streaming, broadband by cable, wireless internet, and other
developments mean that "broadcasters, telecommunication operators (fixed and mobile), Internet
service providers, content aggregators, advertisers and users are all active parts of a new, converged
market"85, which is also drawing in other data and entertainment providers.
107.
Due to the digitization of all terrestrial broadcasting in the United States, additional spectrum
has been made available for wireless telecommunications services. The first U.S. auction of spectrum
for commercial mobile wireless services, as a result of the digital television transition, took place in
2000. There have been subsequent auctions of licences in additional spectrum blocks subject to the
digital transition. Since June 2009, all full-power over-the-air television broadcasts in the
80
FMC (2010).
Unless otherwise indicated the data in this section are from OECD (2009c).
82
FCC (2010a).
83
Sullivan, E (2008).
84
Department of Commerce (2010).
85
OECD (2009c), p. 16.
81
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 106
Trade Policy Review
United States have been digital-only using the ATSC standard.86 There is no television licence fee for
households to own a television in the United States.
108.
In 2007, cable was the main type of distribution for television, accounting for 57.5% of
households with a television. Cable is also used to deliver broadband communications, highlighting
the convergence of different telecoms services. However, direct broadcast satellite (DBS) continued
to make inroads, and accounted for 27% of households. Terrestrial made up the remainder.
(ii)
GATS commitments
109.
The United States' commitments on basic telecommunications attached to the Fourth Protocol
of the GATS cover most services.87 Excluded from the commitments are one-way satellite
transmissions direct-to-home (DTH), direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services, and digital audio radio
services (DARS).
110.
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).88 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 to
a 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".89 The purpose of
this MFN exemption is to "encourage the allowance of advertising expenses internationally".
(iii)
Regulatory and policy authority
111.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for "regulating interstate and
international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction
covers the 50 states, the District of Colombia, and U.S. possessions."90 The FCC was established by
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as an independent government agency. Intra-state
basic telecoms services continue to be regulated by the state authorities.
112.
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.91 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.92
113.
The United States Trade Representative is responsible for developing and coordinating trade
policy, including the negotiation and enforcement of specific provisions relating to
telecommunications in the trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
86
For more about the Advanced Television Systems Committee see: http://www.atsc.org/cms/
[February 2010].
87
WTO (2008); and WTO documents GATS/SC/90/Suppl.2, 11 April 1997 and S/DCS/W/USA,
27 February 2003.
88
WTO document GATS/EL/90/Suppl.2, 11 April 1997.
89
WTO document GATS/EL/90, 15 April 1994.
90
For more information on the Federal Communications Commission see: http://www.fcc.gov/
aboutus.html [June 2010].
91
For more information on the NTIA see: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/about.html [February 2010].
92
For more information on the International Communication and Information Policy Group
see: http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/abt/index.htm [February 2010].
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 107
114.
The principle legislation covering telecommunications is the Communications Act of 1934
and its amendments. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a major reform that sought to
improve competition by: reducing barriers to entry for telecomms services; obliging incumbents to
permit new entrants to connect with their networks; allowing the removal of restrictions on the
provision of long-distance services by regional Bell operating companies when certain conditions had
been met; and adopting rules for intercarrier compensation.93
115.
The issue of intercarrier compensation continues to be a subject of discussion. In
November 2008, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comments on
proposals to comprehensively reform rules governing payments between service providers
(intercarrier compensation) for the origination and termination of communications. The National
Broadband Plan (NBP), delivered to Congress in March 2010 and under review by the Executive
Branch before the NBP's recommendations are formally adopted, also recognizes the need to
comprehensively reform the intercarrier compensation system. In April 2010, the FCC announced its
agenda for implementing key recommendations in the National Broadband Plan, which includes an
intercarrier compensation Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expected in the fourth quarter of 2010.
116.
Since the last TPR Report on the United States in 2008, there have been no major changes to
the regulatory authority or legal framework for telecoms. Section 310 of the Communications Act,
restricts the 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% foreign ownership.
However, the FCC may grant a licence to a U.S. company that is controlled by a holding company in
which foreign individuals, corporations, or governments own or vote up to 100% of the capital stock.
The FCC gives preference to foreign investments by other WTO Members, who are treated with a
refutable presumption that foreign investment from them does not pose competitive concerns in the
U.S. market. In all cases, the FCC is authorized to attach conditions to a licence, or to deny a licence,
if it is in the public interest to do so.
117.
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
to provide international telecoms services or to take control of an existing provider of domestic or
international telecoms services.94
118.
The FCC has also proposed creating rules to ensure net neutrality, that is, all content on the
Internet is equally accessible and there is no discrimination among different contents.95
119.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) requires the FCC
to develop a plan to deliver broadband to everyone in the United States.96 The purpose of the FCC's
plan, which was submitted to Congress in March 2010 and under review by the Executive Branch
before the National Broad Band Plan's recommendations are formally adopted, is to "include a
detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximizing use of broadband."97 The Recovery Act
also makes available US$4.7 billion to the NTIA for the Broadband Technology Opportunities
93
The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf [February 2010].
94
OECD (2009c).
95
FCC (2009), Notice of Proposed Rule Making, October. Viewed at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf [July 2010].
96
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2000, Title VI – Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program, Section 6000. Viewed at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_
Act_of_2009 [February 2010].
97
FCC (2010b).
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 108
Trade Policy Review
Program (BTOP) that will support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand
public computer centers, and encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service. NTIA will also
develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability.
120.
In addition, the Recovery Act states that up to US$350 million may be used to implement the
Broadband Data Improvement Act (Public Law No. 110-385) and to develop and maintain a
broadband inventory map. It also permits the NTIA to transfer funds to the FCC for the purposes of
creating a national broadband plan. The Recovery Act also allocates US$2.5 billion to the
Department of Agriculture to accelerate broadband deployment in rural areas of the country through
the Broadband Initiative Program (BIP). Under the BIP, the Department of Agriculture's Rural
Utilities Service will award grants, loans, and loan/grant combinations to fund broadband
infrastructure throughout the country.
121.
The authorities stated that, in June 2010, the President signed a Presidential Memorandum
committing the United States government to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for wireless
technology by the end of the decade. This would nearly double the total amount of spectrum
available for wireless technologies. This is also consistent with the FCC’s recommendation in the
National Broadband Plan that it should make 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for
broadband within 10 years. Amongst other things, the Presidential Memorandum requires that the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in collaboration with the
FCC, complete a plan and timetable by 1 October 2010 for identifying and making available this
additional 500 megahertz of spectrum over the next 10 years.98
(iv)
International settlements policy
122.
The FCC's International Settlements Policy refers to the settlement between carriers of
charges for international telecommunications traffic. The Policy originated in the 1930s and was
incorporated into the FCC's rules in the 1980s. It was designed to create a unified bargaining position
between domestic and foreign carriers at a time when many countries had monopoly service
providers. Under the Policy, agreements between domestic and foreign carriers must not discriminate
among domestic carriers; a domestic carrier must receive the same proportion of incoming traffic as
it provides in outbound traffic; and the accounting rate is divided equally between the domestic and
the foreign carrier. In 1997, the FCC issued an Order which requires U.S. carriers to negotiate
settlement rates cannot exceed benchmark rates set out in the Order. Since the start of 2004, the FCC
stopped applying the Policy to routes for which U.S. carriers had negotiated benchmark compliant
rates.99 The authorities state that, as of May 2010, 165 international routes have been exempted from
the International Settlements Policy and 38 routes remain subject to it. Separately, the Commission
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 the
Policy and certain other FCC rules on switched services over private lines and U.S. international
common carriers and cable landing licensees.100
123.
A petition from U.S. carriers to remove the Policy from the 38 routes to which the policy
continues to apply is currently before the Commission. Commission staff are preparing
recommendations to the Commission on the petition and possible changes to related Commission
rules. In addition, in 2004 the Commission initiated a Notice of Inquiry on the effect of mobile
98
White House (2010), Presidential Memorandum: Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution,
Office of the Press Secretary.
Viewed at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentialmemorandum-unleashing-wireless-broadband-revolution [July 2010].
99
FCC (2008a).
100
FCC (2007b).
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 109
termination rates on U.S. customers. The proceeding resulted in internal staff analysis with
continuing Commission review of the issue.
(v)
Satellite services
124.
The Domestic and International Satellite Consolidation Order (DISCO II) was intended to
meet the United States' commitments in the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services
as they relate to access to satellites.101 Under the Order, an earth station operator may apply for a
licence to access a foreign satellite or the satellite operator may file a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
requesting authority to serve customers in the United States. Foreign operators may also ask that their
satellites operating in the conventional C-, Ku-, or Ka-bands be included in the Permitted Space
Station List. Once a foreign satellite is on the Permitted List, all U.S. earth stations with "routine"
technical parameters may access the satellite. There are 29 foreign satellites on the Permitted Space
Station List; and 21 other foreign satellites are authorized to provide service in the United States.
125.
All requests under the DISCO II Order are examined to ensure they are consistent with the
public interest provisions of the Communications Act, which include competition, spectrum
availability, eligibility requirements such as legal, technical, and financial qualifications, operating
requirements, and national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns.
126.
The United States excluded direct-to-home (DTH), direct broadcast services (DBS) and
digital audio services (DARS) from its commitments under the Agreement on Basic
Telecommunications in the WTO. For these services, the FCC applies an ECO-Sat (effective
competitive opportunities for satellites) analysis, which requires the applicant to show that satellite
systems licensed in the United States may provide a similar service in the applicant's home market. If
this is not the case, and unless the Commission determines that there is a strong public interest reason
in favour of the service, the FCC will not permit a foreign satellite system to provide these services to
the United States' market.102 The United States has bilateral agreements covering some of these
GATS-excluded services with Mexico (DARS and DTH), Argentina (DTH and DBS), and Canada
(DARS).103 In total, the FCC has allowed 11 foreign satellites to provide DTH, DBS and/or SDARS
to the U.S. market.
(vi)
Media ownership rules
127.
In its last Quadrennial Regulatory Review of its broadcast ownership rules, the FCC
maintained certain restrictions on media ownership such as the prohibition on mergers between the
top four television broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) and restrictions on the numbers of
television and radio stations any entity may own in a single market.104 The Commission changed its
rules in order to permit the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcasters in certain cases,
depending on the size of the market and the market share of the entities proposing to merge.
However, the changes to those rules are currently subject to a court challenge.
128.
In August 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit struck down
the FCC rule that set a 30% limit on the number of MVPD subscribers a cable operator may serve
nationwide. Because the rule has been vacated by the court, the FCC will need to develop a new rule.
101
FCC (1997).
FCC (2007a).
103
FCC (2009)
104
WTO document WT/TPR/S/200/Rev.1; and FCC (2008).
102
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 110
Trade Policy Review
129.
In November 2009, the FCC initiated the 2010 Quadrennial Review of broadcast ownership
rules with a series of workshops intended to get public input to its future decision on what, if any,
changes should be made to its media ownership rules.105
(5)
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES
(i)
Introduction
130.
The surplus in international trade in business, professional, and technical services106 continued
to grow in 2007-08. The main exports are management and consulting services, followed by research
and development, equipment services (installation, maintenance, and repair), and legal services. The
main imports are the same as the main exports, except for legal services.
131.
As noted in the previous Trade Policies Review of the United States, individual states have
competence for the regulation, licensing, and oversight of the professions practised within their
jurisdictions and the federal government does not itself evaluate diplomas or credits or recognize
qualifications.107 Although there is no federal-level licensure that supersedes state regulation, and the
different regulatory systems may create different market access conditions among the states, some
professions are subject to national qualifying examinations recognized in most states as part of the
licensing process. Furthermore, there is considerable convergence among states for some
professions.108 In cases, such as accounting, architecture, and engineering services, there are single
exams by professional bodies that are recognized nationally. In many cases, the states also use
independent institutions, including professional associations, to set and enforce regulations and
standards.109
132.
The H-1B visa programme allows for the entry of foreign professionals in "speciality
occupations." The duration of stay is three years, extendible to six, and the annual cap on H-1B
admissions is 65,000 per fiscal year plus an additional 20,000 foreign nationals holding a master's
degree or higher from a U.S. university. In addition, H-1B workers who are petitioned for or
employed at an institution of higher education or its affiliated or related non-profit entities or a
non-profit research organization, or a government research organization are not subject to this limit.
In recent years demand for H-1B visas has been strong and the caps were reached shortly after the
applications process was opened on 1 April each year; for example, on 8 April 2008, the USCIS
105
FCC (2010c).
There is no internationally recognized definition of the term "professional services". In the
United States' BEA statistics the term "business, professional, and technical services" includes: computer
services; management and consulting services; research and development and testing services; operational
leasing; accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services; advertising; architectural, engineering, and other
technical services; construction; industrial engineering; installation, maintenance, and repair of equipment;
legal services; medical services; mining; sports and performing arts; trade-related services; training services;
and other.
107
Department of Education (2007).
108
WTO (2008).
109
Williams and Nersessian (2007).
106
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 111
announced that the cap for the 2009 fiscal year had already been reached.110 However, interest waned
in 2009 and the caps for the 2010 fiscal year were not reached until December 2009.111
133.
The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade agreements include provisions that allow
non-immigrant professionals to enter the United States temporarily to engage in business activities.
The numbers are limited to 1,400 for Chile112, and 5,400 for Singapore.113 The H1B1 admission
category was introduced in 2004 to implement the temporary entry provisions for these agreements.
In addition, citizens of Mexico or Canada may enter the United States temporarily to work in a
professional occupation recognized under the terms of the NAFTA without numerical limitations.
Chart IV.3
Exports and imports of business, professional and technical services, 1997-2008
US$ million
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Exports
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Imports
Source: BEA (2010), International Economic Accounts, February. Viewed at:
http://www.bea.gov/international/international_services.htm#detailedstatisticsfor.
110
USCIS online information. "USCIS Reaches FY 2009 H-1B Cap". Viewed at: http://www.uscis.
gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c5b6628090e29110VgnVCM
1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD [March 2010].
111
USCIS online information. "USCIS Reaches FY 2010 H-1B Cap". Viewed at: http://www.uscis.
gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=153a1638367b5210VgnVCM
100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b56db6f2cae63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD [June 2010].
112
Chile-United States Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 14. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/
trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/chile-fta/final-text [March 2010].
113
United State-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 11. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/
default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/singapore/asset_upload_file708_4036.pdf [March 2010].
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 112
(ii)
Trade Policy Review
Accounting services
134.
Although the United States has an overall surplus in trade in the business, professional, and
technical services category, it has a deficit in the accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping sub-category
(Chart IV.5). However, trade is a small part of the total value of the accounting and bookkeeping
sector, which had a gross output of about US$128 billion in 2008 with export revenues of
US$1.4 billion. There are thousands of accountancy firms in the United States, many of which are
part of one of the Big 4 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, and
KPMG) each of which has nearly 100 offices around the country.
135.
Issuing reports on financial statements and other attestations and financial compilation
services are reserved for accountants and auditors who must be licensed by, or have a practice
privilege from, the regulatory authorities of each state where they wish to practise. Auditors for all
companies are regulated by the State Boards of Accountancy, and auditors with public company
clients (defined as "issuers" under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), are also regulated by the
SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB is a privatesector entity created under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to oversee auditors of public companies.
The Board has five members appointed by the SEC, and is funded mainly by annual fees on public
companies in proportion to their market capitalization.114
136.
At the federal level, the Office of the Chief Accountant (OCA) in the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) is responsible for establishing and enforcing accounting and auditing standards.
The Office works with the private-sector accounting bodies, such as the Financial Accounting
Standards Board and the PCAOB as well as with international accounting, auditing, and regulatory
bodies. In this context, state regulators are responsible for private-company standard setting, for
which they look to the FASB and AICPA for support. At state level, each state (plus the District of
Colombia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands) has regulatory authority to adopt standards and license individuals and firms to practise
public accounting. The state boards have joined to coordinate their efforts at the national level via the
National Association of State Boards of Accounting (NASBA). The NASBA seeks to improve
uniformity of accounting standards as well as qualification and licensing requirements among the
states.115
137.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) is by far the largest
professional accountants association in the United States. It works with state boards and NASBA in
developing the Uniform Certified Public Accountancy (CPA) Examination. Passing the Uniform
CPA Examination is essential for CPA status, and CPA status is needed to practise accounting in all
states of the United States. In addition, candidates must have a required number of hours of
accountancy and related education (normally 150 hours) and work experience (minimally one year)
(the so-called "3 Es" of exam, education, and experience).116
114
PCAOB online information, About the PCAOB. Viewed at: http://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx.
NASBA (2010b).
116
For information on specific licensing requirements of each State, see NASBA Accountancy
Licensing Library at: http://all.nasbatools.com/jurisdiction/list_jurisdiction [April 2010].
115
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 113
Chart IV.4
Trade in accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping, 2006-2008
US$ million
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2006
2007
Exports
2008
Imports
Source: BEA (2010), International Economic Accounts, February. Viewed at:
http://www.bea.gov/international/international_services.htm#detailedstatisticsfor.
138.
The AICPA and NASBA, through the International Qualifications Appraisal Board, have
negotiated mutual recognition agreements with accountancy bodies in several countries, including:
the Certified Practicing Accountants of Australia; the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia;
the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants; the Instituto Mexicano de Contadores Públicos;
Chartered Accountants Ireland; and the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Professionals in good standing with these institutions may apply to sit the International Qualification
Examination (IQEX) in lieu of taking the Uniform CPA Examination.117 Successful candidates may
apply for licensure as a CPA in those states that have adopted the mutual recognition agreements.
139.
Since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which increased accountancy requirements, there have
been no major changes in federal legislation affecting corporate accounting.118 However, the
United States standard setters are in the process of converging U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) developed by the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The SEC is engaged in a "work plan" that could
move public company accounting into convergence with IFRS by 2015. The move to the
principle-based IFRS would represent a significant shift for the accountants and industry, which is
117
118
NASBA (2010a).
WTO (2008).
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 114
Trade Policy Review
why the standard setters have been working to harmonize the two systems for some time and the
AICPA has been working to try to smooth the transition.119
(iii)
Legal services
140.
The United States continues to run a large, and growing, trade surplus in legal services
(Chart IV.6), although trade is only a small portion of gross output of legal services, which was
US$252 billion in 2008 with exports of US$7.3 billion. There are about 180,000 law offices in the
United States and, although some are large firms, the industry is quite fragmented with the 50 largest
firms generating less than 15% of revenue. In 2008, there were over a million lawyers in the
United States; about three quarters were in private practice.120 The American Bar Association
(ABA), the American Law Institute, and other organizations represent lawyers as a profession.
Chart IV.5
Trade in legal services, 2006-2008
US$ million
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2006
2007
Exports
2008
Imports
Source: BEA (2010), International Economic Accounts, February. Viewed at:
http://www.bea.gov/international/international_services.htm#detailedstatisticsfor.
119
120
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (2010).
American Bar Association (2009).
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 115
141.
Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, each state of the United States has sovereignty
for its court system. Therefore, each state has the authority to set its own standards for qualifications
to practise law. In most cases, after finishing law school, the state's bar exam and the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) must be passed.121 Other requirements must also be
met before a legal service provider may call her/himself a lawyer, attorney, or counsellor and be
admitted to legal practice. Legal services in the United States must be supplied by natural persons.
142.
Many states also provide limited rights to practise law for certain categories, including
foreign legal consultants. There are 31 jurisdictions with foreign legal consultant (FLC) rules (these
31 jurisdictions represent 88% of the U.S. market for legal services as measured by GDP).122 The
FLC rules vary considerably from one state to another.123 In some states, FLCs are only entitled to
provide advice on legal matters relating to the country where they hold a legal qualification; in some
other states they may also provide advice on international law and/or third-country law, and in other
states an FLC can also provide advice on U.S. or state law if they rely on a local lawyer. In some
cases, the restrictions and requirements may be quite severe; for example, New Jersey requires that
an FLC work in association with a New Jersey attorney who assumes full responsibility for the FLC;
and North Carolina prohibits an FLC from being hired as a partner, and requires that s/he be
supervised by a North Carolina attorney.124
143.
Foreign law firms may establish legal subsidiaries in the United States, with the same rights
as U.S. firms, including the right to hire domestic lawyers. These subsidiaries may operate by using
local domestic lawyers or using foreign lawyers who have registered as FLCs or have qualified as
domestic U.S. lawyers. In 2008 and 2009, 3,874 foreign applicants (in 25 jurisdictions) successfully
passed a U.S. bar exam.
144.
The United States has made GATS commitments on market access and national treatment for
the provision of foreign legal consultancy services in 16 jurisdictions.125
121
National Conference of Bar Examiners (2010).
National Conference of Bar Examiners (2010). Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission
Requirements 2010. Viewed at: http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Comp_Guide/Comp
Guide_2010.pdf [June 2010].
123
American Bar Association (2009b).
124
Silver and DeBruin (2006).
125
Alaska, California, Connecticut, District of Colombia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.
122
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 117
REFERENCES
American Bar Association (2009a), Lawyer Demographics.
marketresearch/PublicDocuments/Lawyer_Demographics.pdf.
Viewed at:
http://new.abanet.org/
American Bar Association (2009b), Summary of State Action on ABA MJP Recommendations 8 & 9).
Viewed at: http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/8_and_9_status_chart.pdf [April 2010].
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (2010), IFRS Resources.
http://www.ifrs.com/index.html [March 2010].
Viewed at:
Antitrust Modernization Commission (2007), Report and Recommendations, April.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/report_recommendation/toc.htm.
Viewed at:
Baughman, Laura M., and Joseph F. François (2009), Economic Analysis of the Cost of Buy American
Rules, September. Viewed at: http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/100217buyamerican.
htm.
BEA (2010a), Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter 2009 (Third Estimate), BEA 10-11,
26 March 2010. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp.
BEA (2010b), U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/
international/bp_web/simple.cfm?anon=71&table_id=22&area_id=1 [June 2010].
Button, K. (2008), The Impacts of Globalisation on International Air Transport Activity Past trends
and future perspectives, paper prepared for the OECD/ITF Global Forum on Transport and
Environment in a Globalising World, November.
CBO (2010), The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020, January. Viewed at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Frontmatter.shtml.
CBP (2004), What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Entry, March.
Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs.
CBP (2005), What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Customs Brokers,
January. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs.
CBP (2008), C-TPAT: A Guide to Program Benefits. Viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/
cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/what_ctpat/ctpat_benefits.ctt/ctpat_benefits.pdf.
Congressional Oversight Panel (2009), Testimony of Ron Bloom before the Congressional Oversight
Panel: Regarding the Treasury's Automotive Industry Financing Program, 27 July. Viewed at:
http://www.cop.senate.gov/documents/testimony-072709-bloom.pdf.
Council of Economic Advisers (2010), Economic Report of the President, February,
Washington, D.C.
CPSC (2010), Report to Congress Pursuant to the Statement of Managers Accompanying P.L. 111117, 15 January. Viewed at: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsiareport01152010.pdf.
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 118
Trade Policy Review
Dempsey, P. S. (2008), Capital and Market Access in International Aviation: Nationality
Requirements and Cabotage Restrictions, McGill University Institute of Air & Space Law.
Department of Commerce, (2010), Digital Nation 21st Century America's Progress Toward Universal
Broadband Internet Access, An NTIA Research Preview, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration February. Viewed at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA
_internet _use_report_ Feb2010.pdf.
Department of Defense, American Forces Press Service, "Gates Proposes Revamp of Export System",
20 April 2010. Viewed at: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58830 [April 2010].
Department of Justice (2008), Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of
the Sherman Act, September. Viewed at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/reports/236681.htm.
Department of State (2010a), Consent Agreements. Viewed at: http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/
consent_agreements.html.
Department of State (2010b), Country Policies and Embargoes. Viewed at: http://pmddtc.state.
gov/embargoed_countries/index.html [April 2010].
Department of State (2010c), Defence Trade Controls, List of Statutorily Debarred Parties,
July 1988-March 2010.
Viewed at:
http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/documents/debar.pdf
[April 2010].
Department of Transportation (2008), Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics
Annual Report 2008. Washington, D.C. Viewed at: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_
statistics_ annual_report/2008/pdf/entire.pdf [March 2010].
Department of Transportation (2009a), DOT Information Related to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Viewed at: http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/ [March
2010].
Department of Transportation (2009b), U.S. Water Transportation, Statistical Snapshot, Maritime
Administration, Washington, D.C., July.
Ex-Im Bank (2007), Report to the U.S. Congress on Export Credit Competition and the Export-Import
Bank of the United States, June. Viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/about/reports/compet/documents/
2006CompetitivenessReport.pdf.
Ex-Im Bank (2009), Actions in Response to the Financial Crisis – Direct Lending, Office of the
Inspector General Evaluation Report OIG-EV-09-02, September, Washington, D.C.
Ex-Im Bank (various years), Annual Report. Viewed at:
index.cfm.
http://www.exim.gov/about/reports/ar/
FAA (2010a), Airport Privatization Pilot Program. January.
airports/airport_compliance/privatization/[March 2010].
Viewed at:
http://www.faa.gov/
FAA (2010b), FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2010-2030. March. Viewed at:
gov/data_research/ aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/ [March 2010].
http://www.faa.
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 119
FCC (1997), Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed
Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States. FCC
97-399,
Viewed
at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1997/fcc97399.txt
[February 2010].
FCC (2007a), Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to
Domestic and International Satellite Communications Services, FCC 07-34, 26 March. Viewed at:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19437053/FCC-Seeks-Comment-to-Ensure-All-Cable-Customers-Rece
ive-Programming-After-the-Digital-Television-Transition-5407-FCC [February 2010].
FCC (2007b), The International Bureau Revises and Reissues the Commission's List of Foreign
Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign
Telecommunications Markets, Public Notice DA 07-233, 26 January.
Viewed at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-07-233A1.pdf [June 2010].
FCC (2008a), International Settlements Policy and U.S.-Internatioinal Accounting Rates,
15 November. Viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/account.html [February 2010].
FCC (2008b), 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission's Broadcast
Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership
Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers, Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple
Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets, Definition of Radio Markets, Ways to
Further Section 257 Mandate and To Build on Earlier Studies, Public Interest Obligations of TV
Broadcast Licensees, MB Docket Nos. 06-121, 02-277, 01-235, 01-317, 00-244, 04-228, 99-360,
February.
Viewed at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-216A1.pdf
[February 2010].
FCC (2009), International Agreements, December. Viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/
[February 2010].
FCC (2010a), Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with respect to Mobile
Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Fourteenth Report, May.
Viewed at:
http://hraunfoss. fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-81A1.doc [June 2010].
FCC (2010b), National Broadband Plan, Connecting America. Viewed at: http://www.broadband.
gov/plan/ [June 2010].
FCC (2010c), 2010 Review of Media Ownership Rules, MB Docket No. 09-182, January. Viewed at:
http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/.
FDA (2009a), Food Facility Registration, FDA Actions on Bioterrorism Act of 2002 Legislation,
August. Viewed at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/Bioterrorism/FoodFacilityRegistration/
default.htm.
FDA (2009b), Guidance for Industry, Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing
Heritable Recombinant DNA Constructs. Final Guidance, January. Viewed at: http://www.fda.gov/
downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.
pdf [March 2010].
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 120
Trade Policy Review
Federal Procurement Data System (2007), Federal Procurement Report FY 2007.
https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/reports.
Viewed at:
FMC (2010), 48th Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009. March. Viewed at: http://www.fmc.gov/
userfiles/pages/file/Annual_Report_FY_2009.pdf.
FTC (2003), Report of the State Action Task Force, September. Viewed at: http://www.ftc.gov/
os/2003/09/stateactionreport.pdf.
FTC (2010), The FTC in 2010, April. Viewed at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/annualreports/index.shtm.
GAO (2007), Foreign Assistance, Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness of
U.S. Food Aid, GAO-07-560, Washington, D.C. April. Viewed at: http://www.gao.gov/new.
items/d07560. pdf [February 2010].
GAO (2009a), Sovereign Wealth Funds: Laws Limiting Foreign Investment Affect Certain U.S.
Assets and Agencies Have Various Enforcement Processes, GAO-09-608, May, Washington, D.C.
GAO (2009b), Troubled Asset Relief Program: Continued Stewardship Needed as Treasury Develops
Strategies for Monitoring and Divesting Financial Interests in Chrysler and GM, GAO-10-151,
November, Washington, D.C. Viewed at: http://www.gao.gov.
GAO (2009c), Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and
Use, GAO-09-446, August, Washington, D.C. Viewed at: http://www.gao.gov.
GAO (2010), Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen CPSC's
Oversight of Imported Products, GAO-09-803, August, Washington, D.C.
Gupta, S., and L. F. Mills (2003), "Does Disconformity in State Corporate Income Tax Systems
Affect Compliance Cost Burdens?", National Tax Journal LVI(2), June.
IATA (2010), Facts and Figures, Ranking Tables from WATS for 2008 (53rd Edition). Viewed at:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/watsrankings.htm [March 2010] and taking into account
the merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines announced in April 2010.
IMF (2009), United States: 2009 Article IV Consultation—Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and
Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion, IMF Country Report No. 09/228, July,
Washington, D.C.
IMF (2010), World Economic Outlook, April, Washington, D.C.
Interagency Working Group on Food Safety (2007), Protecting American Consumers Every Step of
the Way. A strategic framework for continual improvement in import safety. A Report to the
President, 10 September. Viewed at: http://www.importsafety.gov/report/report.pdf.
ITDS (2009), Report to Congress on the International Trade Data System, September. Viewed at:
http://www.itds.gov/xp/itds/toolbox/library/resource_documents/sep09_reports.
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 121
Joint Committee on Taxation (2009a), Estimated Budget Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained
in the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1, The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of
2009", JCX 19-09, 12 February. Viewed at: http://www.jct.gov/publications.html.
Joint Committee on Taxation (2009b), Tax Expenditures for Energy Production and Conservation,
JCX-25-09R, 21 April. Viewed at: http://www.jct.gov/publications.html.
Kirk (2009), Airport Improvement Program (AIP):
Reauthorization Issues for Congress,
Congressional Research Service, May.
Viewed at:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40608.pdf
[April 2010].
Koncz-Bruner, and Flatness (2009), "U.S. International Services Cross-Border Trade in 2008 and
Services Supplied Through Affiliates in 2007", October.
MARAD (2008), The Maritime Administration Annual Report to Congress 2007. Washington D.C.
Viewed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MReport_2007_v8_final.pdf.
McNichol, Elizabeth, and Nicholas Johnson (2010), Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets;
State Responses Could Slow Recovery, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 25 February.
Viewed at: http://www.cbpp.org /cms/?fa=view&id=711.
NASBA (2010a), Mutual Recognition Agreements. Viewed at: http://www.nasba.org/nasbaweb/
NASBAWeb.nsf/NWL/80905496B87DA4798625759A00791EC0?OpenDocument [April 2010].
NASBA (2010b), Opening Doors 2009 Annual Report. Viewed at: http://www.nasba.org/
862571B900737CED/23949EF6C54D2EBE8625766A00744E72/$file/2009_AnnualReport_POST.
pdf [March 2010].
OECD (2002), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries. A Positive Reform Agenda, Paris.
OECD (2006), The Development Effectiveness of Food Aid, Does Tying Matter?, Paris.
OECD (2007), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries Monitoring and Evaluation 2007, Paris.
OECD (2009a), Agricultural Policies in Emerging Economies Monitoring and Evaluation, Paris.
OECD (2009b), Agriculture Policies in OECD Countries Monitoring and Evaluation 2009, Paris
OECD (2009c), Information and Communications Technologies, OECD Communications Outlook
2009, Paris, August.
PCAOB (2010), About the PCAOB. Viewed at: http://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (2010), Airline On-Time Statistics and Delay
Causes, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Viewed at:
http://www.transtats.bts.
gov/OT_Delay/OT_DelayCause1.asp?pn=1 [March 2010].
Shapiro, R. J. and K. A. Hassett (2005) The Economic Value of Intellectual Property, Sonecon, July.
Viewed at:
http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/IntellectualPropertyReport-October2005.pdf
[April 2010].
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 122
Trade Policy Review
Shenai, N. (2010), Export Control Reform 2010: Transforming the Legal Architecture of Dual-Use
and Defense Trade Controls, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, AEI Working
Paper #163, 2 February. Viewed at: http://www.aei.org/paper/100078 [April 2010].
Silver, C. and N. DeBruin (2006), Comparative Analysis of United States Rules Licensing Legal
Consultants, May. Viewed at: http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/silver_flc_chart.pdf [April 2010].
Sullivan, E (2008), U.S. Sees 80 Percent Growth in 3G subscribers, TMCnet, 4 September.
Viewed at:
http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/ip-communications/articles/38872-us-sees-80-percentgrowth-3gsubscribers.htm [July 2010].
Tsoukalas, G., P. Belobaba, W. Swelbar (2008), Cost Convergence in the U.S. Airline Industry:
An Analysis of Unit Costs 1995-2006, MIT Global Airline Industry Program, December 2007, revised
April 2008.
USBEA (2010), Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter 2009 (Third Estimate), BEA 10-11,
26 March. Viewed at: http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp.
USCIS (2009), USCIS Reaches FY 2010 H-1B Cap. Viewed at: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/
uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=153a1638367b5210VgnVCM1000
00082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b56db6f2cae63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD
[June 2010]
USDA (2008), Industry Marketing and Promotion, Marketing Order Commodity Index. Viewed at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=ViewI
nformationonAllFederalMarketingOrders&rightNav1=ViewInformationonAllFederalMarketingOrder
s&topNav=&leftNav=&page=FVMarketingOrderIndex&resultType=&acct=fvmktord
[February 2010].
USDA (2010), FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan.
USDA AMS (2008), Commodity Purchasing. Viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/
ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateQ&navID=CommodityPurchasing&leftNav=Commod
ityPurchasing&page=CommodityPurchasing&acct=AMSPW [February 2010].
USDA APHIS (2007), Strategic Plan (2007-2012), July.
Viewed at:
http://www.aphis.
usda.gov/about_aphis/downloads/strategic_plan/APHIS_SP_final_july07.doc [March 2010].
USDA APHIS (2008), APHIS' Quarantine 56 Revision.
Viewed at:
http://www.aphis.
usda.gov/publications/ plant_health/content/printable_version/fs_q56reg.pdf [May 2010].
USDA APHIS (2009), Current In-Progress PPQ Risk Analyses as of December 20009. Viewed at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/downloads/PRAlist.pdf [March 2010].
USDA FAS (2009), Local and Regional Procurement Project. Viewed at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/
excredits/FoodAid/LRP/LRP.asp [February 2010].
USDA FNS (2009), Schools/Child Nutrition Commodity Programs, September.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/schcnp/pfs-schcnp.pdf [May 2010].
Viewed at:
United States
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 123
USDA FSIS (2009a), Notice of Enforcement by the United States Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service Regarding Imported Food Products Containing a Small Amount of
Meat, Poultry, or Processed Egg Product Ingredients.
Viewed at:
http://www.fsis.usda.
gov/pdf/Notice_of_Enforcement_Regarding_Imported_Food_Products.pdf [March 2010].
USDA FSIS (2009b), Regulations & Policies, Import Information, Apply for Initial Equivalence,
December.
Viewed at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Apply_for_Initial_
Equivalence/index. asp [March 2010].
USDA FSIS (2010), Quarterly Enforcement Report, July 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009.
Viewed at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q4_FY09_Tables_1-8.pdf#page=2.
USITC (2009a), Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From China, Investigation No. TA421-7, Publication 4085, July, Washington, D.C.
USITC (2009b), The Year in Trade 2008: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, July,
Washington, D.C.
USITC (2009c), Use of the "First Sale Rule" for Customs Valuation of U.S. Imports, December,
Washington, D.C.
USNEI (2007), Department of Education, Network for Education Information, Recognition of
Foreign Qualifications: Professional Recognition. Viewed at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ous/international/usnei/us/profrecog.doc.
USPTO (2009), Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2009, November. Viewed at:
http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/index.jsp [April 2010].
USPTO (2010), Office of the Administrator for External Affairs – Geographical Indications (GI)
Protection.
Viewed at:
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/geographical/protection/index.jsp
[April 2010].
USTR (2009), 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report of the President of the
United States on the Trade Agreements Program, February, Washington, D.C. Viewed at:
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2009/2009-trade-policy-agendaand-2008-annual-report.
USTR (2010a), Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/acta
[April 2010].
USTR (2010b), 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report of the President of the
United States on the Trade Agreements Program, March. Viewed at: http://www.ustr.gov/2010trade-policy-agenda.
Williams, S. and D. Nersessian (2007), Overview of the Professional Services Industry and the Legal
Profession, Harvard Law School Center.
World Bank (2009), Doing Business 2010, Washington, D.C. Viewed at: http://www.doingbusiness.
org/features/Highlights2010.aspx [April 2010].
WT/TPR/S/235
Page 124
Trade Policy Review
World Food Programme (2010), Food Aid Information System, Reports, Quantities
Delivered Report (3D).
Viewed at:
http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/quantities-delivered-report
[February 2010].
WTO (2006), Trade Policy Review: United States, Geneva.
WTO (2008), Trade Policy Review: United States, Geneva.