[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33285-33287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11043]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Docket No. USTR-2026-0364]
Initiation of Section 301 Investigation and Request for Public
Comments: Vietnam's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to
Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement
AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
ACTION: Initiation of investigation; proposed determination; and
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (Trade Act), the U.S. Trade Representative (Trade
Representative) identified Vietnam as a priority foreign country due to
Vietnam's denial of adequate and effective protection of intellectual
property (IP) rights and its denial of fair and equitable market access
to persons that rely on IP protection. Pursuant to section 302(b)(2) of
the Trade Act, the Trade Representative is initiating a Section 301
investigation of the acts, policies, and practices of the Government of
Vietnam related to IP protection and enforcement that resulted in the
identification of Vietnam as a priority foreign country. The Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) proposes to determine that these
acts, policies, and practices are actionable under section 301(b). USTR
invites interested persons to submit written comments concerning the
issues covered in the investigation.
DATES:
April 30, 2026: The Trade Representative identified Vietnam as a
priority foreign country in the 2026 Special 301 Report.
May 29, 2026: The Trade Representative initiated a Section 301
investigation.
May 29, 2026: USTR will open the docket for submission of written
comments.
July 2, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. EDT: To be assured of consideration,
submit written comments by this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit documents in response to this notice through the
online USTR portal: https://comments.ustr.gov/s/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For procedural questions concerning
comments, contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725.
Direct all other questions regarding this notice to Megan Grimball,
Chair of the Section 301 Committee, or Christina Olson, Senior
Associate General Counsel, at (202) 395-5725.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Identification of Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country
Section 182 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2242) (``Special 301'')
authorizes the Trade Representative to identify foreign countries that
deny adequate and effective protection of IP rights or that deny fair
and equitable market access to persons that rely on IP protection. In
making Special 301 determinations, USTR chairs the Special 301
committee of the statutory, interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC), which reviews information from many sources, including written
submissions from the public and a public hearing, and makes
recommendations to the Trade Representative on Special 301 country
identifications.
Under section 182(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C 2242), the Trade
Representative shall only identify as ``priority foreign countries''
those foreign countries (1) that ``have the most onerous or egregious
acts, policies, or practices''; (2) whose acts, policies, and practices
``have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the
relevant United States products''; and (3) that ``are not entering into
good faith negotiations, or making significant progress in bilateral or
multilateral negotiations,'' to provide adequate and effective
protection for IP rights. Section 182 provides that identification of
priority foreign countries shall take into account the history of IP
laws and practices of the foreign country, including any previous
identifications as a priority foreign country, and the history of
efforts of the United States to achieve adequate and effective
protection and enforcement of IP rights.
In the April 30, 2026, Special 301 Report, the Trade Representative
identified Vietnam as a priority foreign country. The 2026 Special 301
review found that Vietnam has demonstrated a persistent failure to
resolve long-standing concerns about IP protection and enforcement.
USTR first approached Vietnam in 2020 with a proposal for an IP Work
Plan to address issues identified in the 2020 Special 301 Report, which
Vietnam minimally engaged on. USTR supplemented its outreach to address
these long-standing IP protection and enforcement concerns by sending
Vietnam a revised IP Work Plan proposal in 2023. However, Vietnam
failed to make meaningful progress on these issues in subsequent
bilateral engagement, as well as in recent negotiations for an
Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade. The 2026 Special 301
Report also finds that Vietnam's weak IP protection and enforcement
harms the industries reliant on IP protection both in Vietnam's market
and in other markets as well.
A full discussion of the basis for Vietnam's designation as a
priority foreign country is set out in the April 30, 2026, Special 301
Report, which may be found at https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/2026/2026%20Special%20301%20Report.pdf. A summary
of the basis for identification is set out below.
The first ground for the Trade Representative's identification of
Vietnam as a priority foreign country is the failure to provide
persistent and effective enforcement to combat online
[[Page 33286]]
piracy. The United States has repeatedly raised strong concerns about
Vietnam's role in online piracy worldwide. Vietnam remains a
significant source of online piracy and continues to host popular
English-language copyright infringement sites and services that target
a global audience. Some of these sites provide piracy services,
including extensive libraries of pirated movies and TV shows. A locally
popular cyberlocker offering such services operates within Vietnam. The
operators of these sites and services likely based themselves in
Vietnam because Vietnam's IP enforcement efforts have historically
lacked the follow-through and substantial penalties needed to deter
infringement. Stakeholders report that Vietnam has the highest
incidence of online piracy in the Asia-Pacific region, has high levels
of music piracy, and is ranked eighth in the world for piracy of
certain mobile video games.
Despite Vietnam having criminal laws that provide for substantial
fines and years of incarceration for copyright infringement, the
defendants in recent criminal prosecutions received suspended sentences
and were only ordered to pay relatively low financial penalties. Other
obstacles to effective criminal enforcement in Vietnam include the lack
of clarity regarding the threshold for criminal enforcement under
amendments to the 2015 Penal Code, including the proof required to meet
that threshold, and regarding how to handle intangible evidence, such
as digital assets and domain names. Vietnam's continued reliance on
administrative enforcement actions over civil or criminal enforcement
has been another long-standing concern, particularly as administrative
enforcement does not have the same deterrent effect as civil remedies
and criminal penalties. Right holders face informal pressure from
enforcement authorities to submit complaints for administrative
enforcement proceedings instead of directly pursuing civil enforcement
or obtaining a referral for criminal enforcement.
The second ground for Vietnam's identification as a priority
foreign country is the failure to provide sufficient enforcement
against widespread counterfeiting. Counterfeit goods--both locally
manufactured and imported--remain widely available and openly sold in
physical markets, which persist in major urban and tourist centers.
Counterfeit goods are widespread and increasingly sold through e-
commerce platforms and through the use of livestream videos.
Stakeholders report the dangerous spread of fraudulent listings on e-
commerce platforms for counterfeit products with health and safety
risks, such as counterfeit milk, food, and supplements.
In 2025, Vietnam underwent a significant reorganization of its
government, and stakeholders report that this transition has resulted
in gaps in enforcement that counterfeit sellers have exploited. Even
with multiple enforcement campaigns, administrative enforcement in
physical markets and online markets decreased in 2025, with the number
of violations found by Vietnamese authorities involving IP-infringing
goods and goods of unknown origin or inferior quality declining by 50
percent compared to 2024. Vietnam's continued reliance on
administrative enforcement actions over civil or criminal enforcement
has been a long-standing concern, particularly as administrative
enforcement does not have the same deterrent effect as civil remedies
and criminal penalties. Weak enforcement against counterfeiting has
also been due to poor coordination among ministries and agencies
responsible for enforcement, delays in initiating enforcement actions,
and the lack of familiarity with trademark law among police,
prosecutors, and judges.
The third ground for Vietnam's identification is the lack of
effective border enforcement, including failure to utilize ex officio
authority for IP seizures and lack of ex officio authority over in-
transit goods. Vietnam's Department of Customs has demonstrated a lack
of consistency in enforcement at the border over the years, and some
stakeholders report a lack of transparency and communication. Notably,
the Department of Customs has possessed ex officio authority to suspend
customs procedures for suspected pirated and counterfeit goods at the
border since the 2022 amendments to the Intellectual Property Law but
has rarely exercised that authority. Moreover, Vietnam's laws and
decrees do not provide this authority with respect to in-transit goods.
The fourth ground is the lack of enforcement actions against
unlicensed software use. Vietnam has been recognized by stakeholders as
a rapidly growing technology hub in the region. At the same time,
Vietnamese authorities reportedly have not conducted significant
enforcement against the use of unlicensed software by corporate end
users in the past three years. The lack of deterrence has resulted in
widespread use of unlicensed software.
The fifth ground is the lack of criminal measures against cable and
satellite signal theft. Although Article 35 of Vietnam's Intellectual
Property Law was amended in 2022 to define infringement of related
rights with respect to the unauthorized decoding of encrypted program-
carrying satellite signals, the corresponding provision in Vietnam's
Criminal Law has not been amended to provide criminal penalties with
respect to such signals. The Intellectual Property Law and Criminal Law
also do not expressly address cable signal theft.
II. Initiation of Section 301 Investigation
Under Section 302(b)(2) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)),
the Trade Representative shall initiate an investigation under Chapter
1 of Title III of the Trade Act (commonly referred to as ``Section
301'') with respect to any act, policy, or practice that was the basis
of the identification of a country as a priority foreign country under
section 182 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2242). Section 302(b)(2)
provides exceptions where such acts, policies, and practices are
already subject to investigation or action under Section 301, or where
an investigation would not be in the national economic interest.
Pursuant to Section 302(b)(2), and taking into account the advice
of the Special 301 committee of the TPSC and appropriate advisory
committees, on May 29, 2026, the Trade Representative initiated a
Section 301 investigation of the acts, policies, and practices of
Vietnam related to IP protection and enforcement that resulted in the
priority foreign country identification.
The investigation will examine whether these acts, policies, and
practices of Vietnam are actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade
Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b)), and, if so, what action the Trade
Representative should take under Section 301(b). Acts, policies, or
practices of a foreign country are actionable under section 301(b) if
they are unreasonable or discriminatory, and burden or restrict U.S.
commerce. Under section 301(d)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C.
2411(d)(3)(B)(i)(II)), unreasonable acts, policies, or practices
include any act, policy, or practice which denies fair and equitable
provision of adequate and effective protection of IP rights,
notwithstanding the fact that the foreign country may be in compliance
with the specific obligations of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). Furthermore, under
section 301(d)(3)(B)(i)(III) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C.
2411(d)(3)(B)(i)(III)), unreasonable acts, policies, or practices
[[Page 33287]]
also include those which deny fair and equitable nondiscriminatory
market access opportunities for persons that rely upon IP protection.
Pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2413(a)),
USTR is requesting consultations with the Government of Vietnam.
Because the issues under investigation do not involve a trade
agreement, the request for consultations does not involve formal
dispute settlement procedures under a trade agreement.
If the Trade Representative determines that unreasonable or
discriminatory acts, policies, and practices exist that burden or
restrict U.S. commerce, the Trade Representative also will determine
under Section 304(a)(1)(B) (19 U.S.C. 2414(a)(1)(B)) what action, if
any, to take.
Section 304(a)(3)(A) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(a)(3)(A))
provides that in an investigation initiated pursuant to a priority
foreign country designation, and not involving a trade agreement, the
Trade Representative shall make the determinations under section
304(a)(1)(A) and (B) no later than six months after the date of
initiation. Under Section 304(a)(3)(B) (19 U.S.C. 2414(a)(3)(B)), in
certain circumstances the Trade Representative may extend the
investigation for an additional three months.
III. Proposed Determination on Actionability
In light of Vietnam's persistent failure to resolve long-standing
concerns about IP protection and enforcement, and its identification as
a priority foreign country in the Special 301 process, the Trade
Representative proposes to determine that the acts, policies, and
practices of the Government of Vietnam related to IP protection and
enforcement that resulted in the identification of Vietnam as a
priority foreign country are actionable under section 301(b) (19 U.S.C.
2411(b)).
IV. Request for Public Comments
USTR invites comments regarding:
The acts, policies, and practices described in Section I
above.
Information on other acts, policies, and practices of
Vietnam related to the denial of adequate and effective protection of
IP rights and the denial of fair and equitable market access to persons
that rely on IP protection.
Whether the acts, policies, and practices of Vietnam are
unreasonable or discriminatory.
Whether the acts, policies, and practices of Vietnam
burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and if so, the nature and level of
burden or restriction on U.S. commerce.
Whether the acts, policies, and practices of Vietnam are
actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade Act, and what action, if
any, should be taken, including tariff and non-tariff actions.
To be assured of consideration, USTR must receive written comments
by 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 2, 2026. Additional instructions on how to
submit written comments are provided below in Part V.
V. Submissions Instructions
Interested persons must submit written comments using the
appropriate docket on the portal at https://comments.ustr.gov/s/. To
make a submission, use the docket on the portal entitled `Request for
Comments on the Section 301 Investigation Regarding Vietnam's
Identification as a Priority Foreign Country,' docket number USTR-2026-
0364.
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. The
first screen allows you to enter identification and contact
information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade
associations, or customs brokers should identify the full legal name of
the organization they represent and identify the primary point of
contact for the submission. Information fields are optional. However,
USTR may not consider your comment if insufficient information is
provided. Fields with a gray Business Confidential Information (BCI)
notation are for BCI information that will not be made publicly
available. Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by
the public. After entering the identification and contact information,
you can complete the remainder of the comment, or any portion of it, by
clicking `Next.' You may upload documents at the end of the form and
indicate whether USTR should treat the documents as business
confidential or public information. Any page containing BCI must be
clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the
submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or
other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request
business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that the
information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties
uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version
of their comments. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect
BCI or otherwise protect business interests, please contact the USTR
Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725 to discuss whether
alternative arrangements are possible. USTR will post attachments
uploaded to the docket for public inspection, except for properly
designated BCI. You can view submissions on USTR's electronic portal at
https://comments.ustr.gov/s/.
Jennifer Thornton,
General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2026-11043 Filed 6-2-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3390-F4-P