[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52027-52030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24676]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52028]]
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Report on Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities Pursuant
to Section 310 of the Trade Act of 1974
AGENCY: Office of United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) transmitted on September 28, 1995, the report
published herein to the Committee on Finance of the United States
Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House
of Representatives identifying trade expansion priorities pursuant to
the provisions in section 310 of the Trade Act of 1974 (``Super 301'')
(19 U.S.C. 2420). Section 310 was last amended by section 314(f) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irving Williamson, Chairman, Section
301 Committee, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20506, (202) 395-3432.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the USTR report is as follows:
Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities Pursuant to Section 310 of
the Trade Act of 1974
This report is submitted pursuant to the provisions in section 310
of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 310 requires the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) to ``review United States trade expansion
priorities and identify priority foreign country practices, the
elimination of which is likely to have the most significant potential
to increase United States exports, either directly or through the
establishment of a beneficial precedent.''
In identifying priority foreign country practices, the USTR must
take into account all relevant factors, including:
(a) The major barriers and trade distorting practices described in
the National Trade Estimate Report;
The trade agreements to which a country is a party and its
compliance with those agreements;
The medium- and long-term implications of foreign government
procurement plans; and
The international competitive position and export potential of U.S.
products and services.
Section 310 permits the USTR to include, if appropriate, ``a
description of foreign country practices that may in the future warrant
identification as priority foreign country practices that may in the
future warrant identification as priority foreign country practices.''
The USTR may also include ``a statement about other foreign country
practices that were not identified because they are already being
addressed by provisions of United States trade law, by existing
bilateral trade agreements, or as part of trade negotiations with other
countries and progress is being made toward the elimination of such
practices.''
Trade Expansion Priorities
We remain committed to ensuring that our trade policies support our
effort to promote U.S. economic growth, competitiveness, and high-wage
jobs. The principal components of U.S. trade policy remain enforcement
of U.S. trade laws and U.S. rights under trade agreements and securing
increasing and reciprocal access to the markets of our trading
partners.
We are dedicated to achieving our trade policy goals by using all
mechanisms at our disposal: multilateral fora such as the World Trade
Organization (WTO); regional or bilateral agreements; and our trade
laws.
In the multilateral context, the United States will continue to
push for full and rapid implementation of the results of the Uruguay
Round. The Round produced the most comprehensive trade agreement in
history and provided for significant reductions in tariff and non-
tariff barriers, the establishment of the WTO and a new and effective
dispute resolution mechanism. We will continue to make maximum use of
the WTO to require our trading partners to accept their share of
responsibility for global growth and maintenance of the global trading
system and to open their markets to competitive U.S. exports.
In the regional and bilateral context, we are continuing our
pursuit of U.S. trade interests under the historic North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the NAFTA dispute settlement procedures,
and are committed to negotiating Chile's accession to the NAFTA. In the
Americas, we are committed to achieving a Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA) by 2005. In the Pacific, we are pursuing market opening
objectives under the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.
With Europe, we are exploring market opening through the Trans Atlantic
Agreement (TAA) initiative.
Finally, we will continue to make maximum use of our trade laws to
advance U.S. interests. Section 301 remains a key tool for enforcing
U.S. rights under existing trade agreements and, where necessary, for
addressing foreign unfair trade barriers not covered by trade
agreements. In this regard, we have used the review of our trade
expansion priorities required by Super 301 to ensure that we are
pursuing effectively the elimination of trade barriers that inhibit the
growth of U.S. exports and the growth in employment resulting from
increased exports.
Priority Foreign Country Practices
As a result of the review of the United States trade expansion
priorities under section 310 and recent negotiations, the USTR has
decided not to identify any priority foreign country practices at this
time.
Other Practices
A. The following practices may in the future warrant identification
as priority foreign country practices:
Japan Market Access for Paper & Paper Products: In the
April 1992 U.S.-Japan paper agreement, Japan, agreed to take GATT-
consistent measures to increase substantially market access in Japan
for foreign paper and paperboard products. Nevertheless, structural
barriers such as exclusionary business practices and a closed
distribution system continue to impede U.S. paper companies' access to
the Japanese paper and paper products market. In addition, the U.S.
remains concerned about lax Japanese implementation of the measures
contained in the paper agreement and inadequate enforcement of Japan's
Anti-Monopoly Act. The United States and Japan have consulted on ways
to strengthen and enhance implementation of the agreement. Further
consultations are planned later this year with a view to reaching
agreement on ways to strengthen and enhance implementation.
Japan Market Access for Wood Products: In the 1990 U.S.-
Japan Wood Products Agreement, Japan agreed to reduce tariffs
substantially, to reduce subsidies, to speed up product certification,
and to adopt performance-based standards and building codes. Although
Japan has made progress in implementing the agreement, barriers
continue to impede market access. Tariffs, although reduced in the
Uruguay Round, remains a significant impediment. Adoption of
performance-based standards and building codes continues to be slow,
and Japan still maintains a parallel unliberalized set of building
standards for housing loans. Subsidies to the wood products industry
still appear to be rising. The United States has consulted with Japan
on these issues, and further consultations are planned later this year
with a view to reaching agreement on ways to strengthen and enhance
implementation.
[[Page 52029]]
China Market Access for Agricultural Products: China
continues to apply to U.S. exports of citrus fruit and Pacific
Northwest wheat phytosanitary standards that are not based on
scientific principles and which act as a virtual ban on these exports.
Under the 1992 U.S.-China Market Access Memorandum of Understanding,
China committed to remove by October 1993 any unscientific
phytosanitary standards on a number of agricultural items, including
citrus and wheat. China is a major potential market for U.S. citrus and
what producers. Despite further commitments on the part of China and
repeated efforts by the U.S. to negotiate a resolution of these issues,
China has yet to remove these unscientific restrictions. The United
States and China are continuing bilateral discussions.
B. The following practices were determined not to be appropriate
for identification because they are already being addressed by other
provisions of U.S. trade law, existing bilateral or multilateral
agreements, or in trade negotiations with other countries, and progress
is being made in addressing them. These practices do, however, remain
significant trade negotiating objectives of the United States.
Korea Market Access for Autos: The United States has had
serious concerns regarding access to the Korean market for automobiles.
Korea has maintained a number of barriers to market access for foreign
autos, including taxes that particularly burden imports, measures which
have created anti-import sentiments, and standards barriers. As a
result of recent negotiations, the United States has reached agreement
with Korea on measures to improve access to the Korean auto market and
will be consulting with Korea on further steps to open that market to
foreign competition. The United States will monitor closely progress in
implementing the agreement and the results of ongoing consultations
with a report due to the USTR on June 1, 1996.
Korea Market Access for Medical Devices: Korean Government
regulations impede market access for U.S. medical devices. The
regulations require unwarranted local testing for certain products. For
example, for eleven categories of medical devices that Korea classifies
as ``sensitive,'' testing is required for each piece, even if the
product has been previously imported. Korea also requires disclosure of
proprietary and other product information without adequate protection
from disclosure to local competitors. Competition from imports is
further limited by a requirement that a local medical equipment trade
association monitor each import shipment for product, volume and price
information. The United States is continuing to negotiate with Korea to
resolve outstanding issues.
Korea Market Access for Agricultural Products: The United
States has reached agreement with Korea to address the adverse impact
of government-mandated shelf-life standards on imports of meat and
other agricultural products, but market access barriers to other
agricultural products, including citrus and almonds, continue to exist.
Korea has designated a cooperative, which produces and markets Korea's
only citrus product, to manage the tariff rate quota on U.S. oranges.
Consumer acceptance of U.S. fruit is discouraged because the
cooperative allows entry of only low-quality fruit. Also, market access
is inhibited by Korean delays in clearing incoming agricultural
products. Cumbersome commercial import procedures, such as government-
required approval on letters of credit, have a further adverse effect
on market access for almonds and other agricultural products.
EU Utilities--Telecommunications Procurement: The European
Union (EU) member states continue to apply discriminatory requirements
under the EU Utilities Directive to procurements of telecommunications
equipment. The Directive requires telecommunications utilities to
penalize bids of equipment with less than 50 percent EU content by a 3
percent margin and allows them to reject such bids altogether at their
discretion. In 1993, the United States implemented sanctions against
the EU under Title VII of the 1988 Trade Act. These sanctions remain in
force and were recently extended to the three new member states--
Austria, Finland and Sweden. The United States continues to work toward
a liberalized telecommunications market in the EU through fora such as
the WTO Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications Services.
German Market Access for Power Generation Equipment: Power
generation utilities in EU member states are covered by the 1993 U.S.-
EU Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Government Procurement, which
expires at the end of 1995, and the U.S.-EU Marrakesh Agreement on
Government Procurement, which will be implemented through the new WTO
Government Procurement Code beginning January 1, 1996. Germany has
failed to fully adhere to its obligations under two EU directives that
implement EU obligations under the 1993 MOU (the Utilities Directive
and the Remedies for Utilities Directive) with respect to a steam
turbine procurement associated with the Lippendorf project undertaken
by the German utility, VEAG. A German review body, the BVS, concluded
on September 14 that the contract for the steam turbine procurement had
been awarded illegally but declined to overturn the contract.
Therefore, the United States will continue to monitor developments in
the case and Germany efforts to provide transparent award procedures
and rapid and effective remedy procedures for other pending and future
procurements. The United States also will work with the EU Commission
to ensure that the WTO Government Procurement Agreement is fully
implemented when it enters into force on January 1, 1996.
EU Ecolabeling Directive: The EU Ecolabeling Directive
sets forth a scheme whereby EU member states will develop voluntary
criteria for granting environmental labels with respect to products in
specific sectors. Without objecting to the concept of Ecolabeling, the
United States has expressed concern about potential adverse impacts on
U.S. exports. In particular, the United States is concerned that the
process for developing criteria in certain industry sectors has been
insufficiently transparent and has failed to provide for adequate
participation by U.S. and other non-EU interests. The United States has
also urged that the criteria not reflect a single approach to
environmental protection without adequate attention having been given
to other potentially comparable approaches and that the EU Ecolabeling
program provide sufficient and accurate information to consumers
regarding the relative environmental impacts of competing products. The
United States is currently negotiating with the EU to ensure that the
foregoing concerns are adequately addressed.
WTO and NAFTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings: The United
States continues to make vigorous use of the dispute settlement
provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to address significant foreign trade
barriers.
The United States is addressing the following barriers in the WTO:
EU/Bananas--The EU has implemented as part of its single market
exercise a banana import regime that discriminates against U.S. banana
marketing firms in favor of EU firms. Moreover, in April 1994, the EU
reached agreement with four Latin American banana exporting countries
on a Framework Agreement on Bananas that
[[Page 52030]]
contains provisions that further discriminate against U.S. firms.
EU/Grains--The EU has implemented its Uruguay Round market access
commitments on grains using a reference price rather than transaction
value. This system does not allow for quality differences and is
protective in effect.
EU/Scallops--Until recently, scallops of all species have been sold
in France under the traditional name ``coquilles St. Jacques.'' French
legislation now requires that scallops of certain species occurring
outside French waters be sold under the unappealing name ``petoncles.''
Japan/Alcohol--Japan imposes specific excise taxes on distilled
spirits at significantly lower rates on the domestic spirit shochu than
on whiskey or other Western-type spirits.
Korea/Residue Testing Requirements--Korean residue testing
requirements have delayed imports of perishable agricultural products.
The U.S. is addressing the following barriers under NAFTA:
Canada/Dairy & Poultry--In the Uruguay Round, Canada tariffied its
supply-management import quotas on dairy, poultry, eggs and barley.
Canada has been applying these tariffs on imports from the U.S. in
spite of the prohibition in NAFTA against imposition of new or
increased tariffs.
Mexico/Small Package Delivery--Mexico has denied a U.S. firm the
ability to operate large trucks in its small package delivery service
even though Mexican firms engaged in the same business can do so and
Mexico in the NAFTA agreed to accord U.S. firms national treatment in
this service sector.
WTO Accession Negotiations: The United States will
continue to seek market openings for goods and services in negotiations
with the 28 countries and customs territories currently seeking
membership in the WTO. As part of their accession package, all
countries must agree to subject their trade practices to the
disciplines of the WTO. The agreement establishing the WTO also
requires that all members provide market access commitments for
industrial and agricultural goods, and services. The United States is
committed to gaining appropriate market access commitments and
adherence to WTO disciplines from every membership applicant.
Irving A. Williamson,
Chairman, Section 301 Committee.
[FR Doc. 95-24676 Filed 10-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M