Guatemala Cargo Preference(301-1)

Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.filed a petition on July 1,1975, alleging thatGuatemala's requirement'mandating certain cargo toGuatemala or associated linecarriers' constituted adiscriminatory shippingpractice (40 FR 29134).

STR completed publichearings on Sept. 26, 1975.Following bilateralnegotiations betweenpetitioner and NationalShipping Line of Guatemala,petitioner withdrew thepetition. STR terminated theinvestigation on June 29,1976 (41 FR 26758).

Canada Egg Quota (301-2) United Egg Producers andAmerican Farm BureauFederation filed petitions onJuly 17 and 21, 1975,alleging that a Canadianquota on the importation ofUS eggs constituted an unfairtrade practice (40 FR 33749).

As a result of bilateralnegotiations, Canadaapproximately doubled itsquota for imports of US eggs.STR terminated theinvestigation on March 14,1976 (41 FR 9430).

EC Supplementary Levies onEgg Imports (301-3)

Seymour Foods, Inc. filed apetition on Aug. 7, 1975,alleging that changes in theEC's supplementary levies onimports of egg albuminimpaired the ability of USexporters to contract for salesin the EC (40 FR 34649).

Following informalconsultations, supplementarylevies were replaced withincreased import charges.However, since US exportsof egg albumin steadilyincreased, the Section 301Committee determined thatno further action wasnecessary. STR terminatedthe investigation on July 21,1980 (45 FR 48758).

EC Minimum Import Price &License/Surety DepositSystems on Canned Fruits,Juices and Vegetables (301-4)

The National CannersAssociation filed a petitionon Sept. 22, 1975, allegingthat the EC's minimumimport prices and an importlicense/surety deposit systemwith respect to canned fruits,juices and vegetablesconstituted an unfair tradepractice (40 FR 44635).

STR initiated an investigationand held public hearings onNov. 17, 1975. Consultationsunder GATT Art. XXIII:1(c)were held March 29, 1976. AGATT panel was appointedunder Art. XXIII:2. As aresult of the panel's report,the EC discontinued use ofminimum import pricemechanism. STR terminatedthe investigation on Jan. 5,1979 (44 FR 1504).

EC Subsidies of Malt Exports(301-5)

Great Western MaltingCompany filed a petition onNov. 13, 1975, alleging ECsubsidies on malt to thirdcountries (40 FR 54311).

In 1976, the EC reduced thesubsidy. STR terminated theinvestigation on the advice ofthe Section 301 Committeeand with petitioner'sagreement on June 19, 1980(FR 41558).

EC Export Subsidies onWheat Flour (301-6)

Millers' National Federationfiled a petition on Dec. 1,1975, alleging violation bythe EC of GATT Art. XVI:3in using export subsidies togain more than an equitableshare of world export trade inwheat flour (40 FR 57249).

STR initiated an investigationon Dec. 8, 1975.Consultations under GATTArt. XXII:1 were held in1977 and 1980, and technicaldiscussions followed in 1981.On Aug. 1, 1980, thePresident directed USTR topursue dispute settlement (45FR 51169). The SubsidiesCode dispute settlementprocess was initiated on Sept.29, 1981. The Subsidies Codepanel (established on Jan. 22,1982) issued its conclusionson Feb. 24, 1983. The CodeCommittee considered thepanel report on April 22, May19, June 10, and Nov. 17,1983. The issues raised bythe panel report are thesubject of Uruguay Roundnegotiations.

EC Variable Levy on SugarAdded to Canned Fruits andJuices (301-7)

The National CannersAssociation filed a petitionon March 30, 1976, allegingthat sudden changes in thevariable levy assessed onsugars added to canned fruitsand juices by the ECconstitute unjustifiable andunreasonable importrestrictions and impair thevalue of GATT-bound tariffrates to the US (41 FR15384).

Following consultationsduring the MTN, the partiesreached an agreement on July11, 1979, which changed thevariable levy to a fixed 2%levy on sugar added. USTRterminated the investigationwith the advice of the Section301 Committee andpetitioner's agreement onJune 18, 1980 (45 FR 41254).

EC Livestock Feed MixingRequirement (301-8)

The National SoybeanProcessors Association andthe American SoybeanAssociation filed a petitionon March 30, 1976, allegingthat the EC's requirement thatlivestock feed be mixed withdomestic nonfat milkconstituted an unfair tradepractice since it displacedother protein sources such assoybeans and cake importedprimarily from the US (41 FR15384).

STR initiated aninvestigation, and held apublic hearing on June 22,1976. The GATT panelappointed under Art. XXIII:2met in February and March1977. In the interim, the ECterminated its system. STRterminated the investigationon Jan 5, 1979 (44 FR 1504).

Republic of China Tariffs onMajor Home Appliances(301-9)

Charles C. Rehfeldt,Executive Vice-President ofLai Fu Trading Co., Ltd.,filed a petition on March 15,1976, alleging unfair tradepractices by the Republic ofChina, in the form ofconfiscatory tariff levels onimports of major homeappliances (41 FR 15452).

STR held public hearings onMay 18, 1976. The Republicof China reduced subjectduties. STR terminated theinvestigation on Dec. 1, 1977(42 FR 61103).

EC and Japan Diversion ofSteel to US (301-10)

The American Iron and SteelInstitute filed a petition onOct. 6, 1976, alleging that theEC and Japan had engaged inan unfair trade practice byagreeing to divert significantquantities of Japanese steelexports to the US (41 FR45628).

STR held public hearings onDec. 9, 1976. STR terminatedthe investigation on Jan. 30,1978, on the ground thatthere was not sufficientjustification to the claim thatthe EC-Japan agreementcreated an unfair burden onthe US (43 FR 3962).

EC Citrus Tariff Preferencesfor Certain MediterraneanCountries (301-11)

Florida Citrus Commission etal. filed petitions on Nov. 12,1976, alleging that the EC'spreferential tariffs on orangeand grapefruit juices andfresh citrus fruits from certainMediterranean countries havean adverse effect on US citrusexports to the EC (41 FR52567).

STR initiated an investigationon Nov. 30, 1976, and heldpublic hearings on Jan. 25,1977. During the MTN, theUS obtained duty reductionson fresh grapefruit only.GATT Art. XXII:1consultations were held inOctober 1980, followed byinformal discussions. Formalconsultations under GATTArt. XXIII:1 were held April20, 1982. Conciliation effortsin September 1982 failed. OnNov. 2, 1982, the GATTCouncil agreed to establish apanel. The panel compositionand terms of reference of thepanel took some months toresolve. The panel met onOct. 31 and Nov. 29, 1983,and Feb. 13 and Mar. 12,1984. The factual portion ofthe panel report wassubmitted to the parties onSept. 27. The full report wassubmitted on Dec. 14, 1984.

The GATT Councilconsidered the panel'sfindings andrecommendations on March12 and April 30, 1985, butthe EC blocked any action. On April 30, the USconsidered the disputesettlement concluded. OnMay 10 USTR held a publichearing on the substance ofour recommendations to thePresident (50 FR 15266).USTR transmitted hisrecommendation on May 30,and on June 20 the Presidentdetermined that the EC

Brazil, Korea and PRCThrown Silk Agreementswith Japan (301-12)

George F. Fisher, Inc. filed apetition on Feb. 14, 1977,alleging that Japaneseagreements with Brazil,Korea and the PRCpermitting imports of thrownsilk effectively prevented theentry of such imports fromthe United States, and thatthis constituteddiscriminatory conduct (40FR 11935).

STR held a public hearing onMarch 29, 1977. Followingthe failure of accelerateddiscussions with Japan, theUS filed a complaint underGATT XXIII:2. A disputesettlement panel heard thecase in the fall, 1977. Beforethe GATT panel issued itsreport, Japan adjusted therestrictions. STR terminatedthe investigation on March 3,1978 (43 FR 8876).

Japan Leather (301-13) The Tanners Council ofAmerica filed a petition onAug. 4, 1977, allegingviolation by Japan of GATTArt. XI in imposingquantitative restrictions onimports of leather from theU.S., and excessively hightariffs (42 FR 42413).

STR initiated an investigationon Aug. 23, 1977. The USconsulted with Japan underGATT Art. XXIII:1 inJanuary 1979, which resultedin an understanding toexpand the quota on importedleather. In light of thisunderstanding, the Presidentdecided not to take retaliatoryaction; however, on Aug. 1,1980 (45 FR 51171), hedirected USTR to monitorimplementation of theunderstanding.

Since the results of the 1979-82 bilateral leatherunderstanding wereunsatisfactory, USTRpursued GATT disputesettlement. The US and Japanconsulted under GATT Art.XXIII:1 on Jan. 27-28, March30 and April 12, 1983. Adispute settlement panelunder GATT Art. XXIII:2was authorized on April 20,1983. That panel heard thecase in the fall and winter of1983-84. In February 1984,the panel found that Japan'sleather quotas violated GATTArt. XI and causednullification or impairment ofUS GATT benefits. TheGATT Council adopted thepanel report on May 16,1984. The US rejected asinadequate Japan's mid-1985proposal to replace the quotaby a high tariff.

On Sept. 7, 1985, thePresident directed USTR to

USSR Marine Insurance(301-14)

The American Institute ofMarine Underwriters filed apetition on Nov. 10, 1977,alleging that the USSRunreasonably required thatmarine insurance on all tradebetween the US and theUSSR be placed with aSoviet state insurancemonopoly (43 FR 3635).

In June 1978, the Presidentdetermined that the Sovietpractice is unreasonable (43FR 25212). On July 12, 1979,USTR suspended theinvestigation pending reviewof the operation of the U.S.-Soviet agreement (44 FR40744). The suspensionremains in effect (45 FR49428).

Canada Border Broadcasting(301-15)

Certain US televisionlicensees filed a petition onAug. 29, 1978, alleging thatcertain provisions of theCanadian Income Tax Actwere unreasonable in denyingtax deductions to anyCanadian taxpayer foradvertising time purchasedfrom a U.S. broadcaster foradvertising aimed at theCanadian market, whendeductions were granted forthe purchase of advertisingtime from a Canadianbroadcaster (43 FR 39610).

STR held public hearings inNovember 1978 and July1980. The Presidentdetermined on Aug. 1, 1980,that the most appropriateresponse was legislation tomirror in US law theCanadian practice (45 FR51173). That proposal wassent to Congress on Sept. 9,1980, and again in November1981. Legislation wasenacted on Oct. 30, 1984.Trade and Tariff Act of 1984,Sec. 232, Pub. L. No. 98-573.

EC Wheat Export Subsidies(301-16)

Great Plains Wheat, Inc. fileda petition on Nov. 2, 1978,alleging that EC exportsubsidies were enablingexports of wheat from the ECto displace US exports inthird country markets (43 FR59935).

STR held public hearings inFebruary 1979, and consultedwith the EC in July 1979.Both parties agreed tomonitor developments in thewheat trade, exchangeinformation, and consultfurther to address anyproblems that might arise.USTR terminated theinvestigation on Aug. 1, 1980(45 FR 49428).

Japan Cigars (301-17) The Cigar Association ofAmerica, Inc. filed a petitionon March 14, 1979, allegingthat Japan imposesunreasonable importrestrictions, internal taxes orcharges on imports in excessof those placed on domesticproducts, anddiscriminatoryrestrictions onthe marketing, advertising,and distribution of importedcigars (44 FR 19083).

During panel deliberationsunder GATT Art. XXIII:2 inMarch 1980, Japan repealedits internal tax on importedcigars and applied an importduty of 60% ad valorem.Prior to completion of panelaction, the US and Japanreached agreement thatliberalized market restrictionsand reduced the import duty.USTR terminated theinvestigation on Jan. 6, 1981(46 FR 1389). GATTproceedings terminated inApril 1981.

Argentina Marine Insurance(301-18)

The American Institute ofMarine Underwriters filed apetition on May 25, 1979,alleging that Argentina'srequirement that marineinsurance on trade withArgentina be placed with anArgentine insurance firm isunreasonable and burdens UScommerce (44 FR 32057).

STR initiated an investigationon July 2, 1979, and held apublic hearing on Aug. 29,1979. Upon Argentina'scommitment to participate inmultilateral negotiations, agoal of which was theelimination of restrictivepractices in the insurancesector, USTR suspended theinvestigation on July 25,1980 (45 FR 49732).

Japan Pipe Tobacco (301-19) The Associated TobaccoManufacturers filed a petitionon Oct. 22, 1979, allegingthat Japan set unreasonableprices for imported pipetobacco and restricted itsdistribution and advertising(44 FR 64938).

In November 1979, USTRconsolidated this case with301-17 alleging identicalpractices with respect tocigars. USTR terminated theinvestigation on Jan. 6, 1981(46 FR 1388).

Korea Insurance (301-20) The American HomeAssurance Company filed apetition on Nov. 5, 1979,alleging that the Republic ofKorea was discriminatingagainst petitioner by failing toissue a license permittingpetitioner to write insurancepolicies covering marinerisks; not permittingpetitioner to participate injoint venture fire insurance;and failing to grantretrocessions from KoreaReinsurance Corp. topetitioner on the same basisas Korean insurance firms(44 FR 75246).

On Dec. 19, 1979, USTRinitiated an investigation. OnNov. 26, 1980, USTR invitedpublic comments on, interalia, proposals for retaliation(45 FR 78850). Beginning inJune 1980, several rounds ofconsultations were held,resulting in Korea'scommitment to promote moreopen competition in theinsurance market. Uponwithdrawal of the petition onDec. 19, USTR terminatedthe investigation on Dec. 29,1980 (45 FR 85539). SeeDocket No. 301-51.

Switzerland Eyeglass Frames(301-21)

Universal Optical Co., Inc.filed a petition on Dec. 6,1979, alleging that the SwissCustoms Service engaged inunreasonable practices byrequiring an assay to be doneto determine the gold contentof the trim in eyeglass frameexamples before theirimportation (45 FR 7654).

Petitioner withdrew itspetition on Nov. 10, 1980.USTR terminated theinvestigation on Dec. 11,1980 (45 FR 81703).

EC Sugar Export Subsidies(301-22)

Great Western SugarCompany filed a petition onAug. 20, 1981, alleging ECviolation of GATT Art. XVIand the Subsidies Code inusing export subsidies toobtain more than an equitableshare of world export trade insugar (46 FR 49697).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Oct. 5, 1981,and held a public hearing onNov. 4, 1981. The USconsulted with the EC underArt. 12:3 of Subsidies Codeon Feb. 16, 1982. Theconciliation phase wascompleted by April 30, 1982.USTR submitted arecommendation to thePresident on June 7, 1982.On June 28, 1982, thePresident directed USTR tocontinue international effortsto eliminate or reduce ECsubsidies (47 FR 28361).

On July 29, 1987 thepetitioners requested that theinvestigation be reactivated.USTR denied their request;agricultural export subsidiesare being addressed in theUruguay Round negotiations.

EC Poultry Export Subsidies(301-23)

The National Broiler Councilfiled a petition on Sept. 17,1981, alleging EC violationof GATT Art. XVI and theSubsidies Code in usingexport subsidies that displaceUS poultry exports to thirdcountry markets (46 FR54831).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Oct. 28,1981. Consultations with theEC under Art. 12:3 of theSubsidies Code were heldFeb. 16, 1982. On June 11,the US submitted requests forinformation under Art 17 ofthe Code to the EC andBrazil. USTR submitted arecommendation to thePresident on June 28, 1982.On July 12, the Presidentdirected expeditiousexamination of Braziliansubsidies (47 FR 30699). TheUS informally consulted withBrazil on Aug. 30, 1982, andadditionally consulted withthe EC on Oct. 7, 1982.Formal Art. 12 consultationswith Brazil were held April 1,1983, and the US met againwith the EC and Brazil onJune 23. Since theseconsultations did not resolvethe problem, the USrequested conciliation.TheSubsidies Code Committeeheld the first conciliationmeeting on Nov. 18, 1983. Conciliation continued onApril 4, May 4, June 20, andOct. 16, 1984. No furtheraction has taken place in theSubsidies Code Committee;agricultural export subsidiesare being addressed in theUruguay Round negotiations.

Argentina Hides (301-24) The National Tanners'Council filed a petition onOct. 9, 1981, alleging breachby Argentina of a U.S.-Argentina hides agreement,and unreasonable restrictionson commerce imposed byArgentine hide exportcontrols (46 FR 59353).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Nov. 24,1981. The US consulted withArgentina on Feb. 23 andApril 15, 1982. USTR held apublic hearing on Oct. 6,1982, on a proposedrecommendation to thePresident concerningtermination (47 FR 40959).The US terminated the hidesagreement effective Oct. 29,1982, and the Presidentincreased the US tariff onleather imports effective Oct.30 (47 FR 49625). Petitionerwithdrew its petition on Nov.9, 1982. USTR terminatedthe investigation on Nov. 16,1982 (47 FR 52989).

EC Pasta Export Subsidies(301-25)

The National PastaAssociation filed a petitionon Oct. 16, 1981, alleging ECviolation of GATT Art. XVIand the Subsidies Code inusing pasta export subsidies,resulting in increased importsinto the US (46 FR 59675).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Nov. 30,1981. Beginning on Dec. 2,1981, the US consulted withthe EC several times. OnMarch 1, 1982, the USreferred this matter to theSubsidies Code Committeefor conciliation. The US laterrequested a disputesettlement panel, and onApril 7 the Committeeauthorized its establishment.The panel began its work onJuly 12. On July 21, thePresident directed USTRexpeditiously to completedispute settlement (47 FR31841). The panel met againon Oct. 8 and issued factualfindings on Jan. 20, 1983. Atthe EC's request, anadditional panel meeting washeld March 29. The panelreport (3-1 in favor of theU.S.) was submitted to theSubsidies Code CommitteeMay 19. The Committeeconsidered the report on June9 and Nov. 18, but deferreddecision on adoption of thereport.

In 1985 and 1986, the USincreased duties on pastaimports in retaliation againstthe EC's discriminatory citrustariffs 50 FR 26143, 33711;51 FR 30146). The ECcounter-retaliated by raisingits duties on lemons andwalnuts. See the Citrus case,Docket No. 301-11.

Under the agreement reached

EC Canned Fruit ProductionSubsidies (301-26)

The California Cling PeachAdvisory Board et al. filed apetition on Oct. 23, 1981,alleging violation by the ECof GATT Art. XVI ingranting production subsidieson EC member states' cannedpeaches, canned pears andraisins, that displace sales ofnon-EC products within theEC and impair tariff bindingson those products (46 FR61358).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Dec. 10,1981. The US consulted withthe EC under GATT Art.XXIII:1 on Feb. 25, 1982. The US requested a disputesettlement panel under Art.XXIII:2 on March 31, 1982.On Aug. 17, 1982, thePresident directed USTR toexpedite dispute settlement(47 FR 36403). The panelmet on Sept. 29 and Oct. 29,1982. The panel report wassubmitted to the US and ECon Nov. 21, 1983. The panelmet again with the parties onFeb. 27, 1984. A revisedpanel report was submitted toboth parties on April 27,1984. An additional panelmeeting was held on June 28.A final panel report wasissued on July 20. The USrequested adoption of thepanel report in GATTCouncil meetings of April 30,May 29, June 5 and July 16,but Council action wasdeferred because the EC wasnot yet ready to act on thereport. On Sept. 7, 1985, thePresident directed USTR torecommend retaliation unlessthis case was resolved byDec. 1, 1985. In December1985 the US and the ECreached a settlement underwhich, in addition to subsidyreductions alreadyimplemented on cannedpears, the EC agreed to phaseout processing subsidies forcanned peaches.

Austria Specialty SteelDomestic Subsidies (301-27)

The Tool and Stainless SteelIndustry Committee et al.filed a petition on Dec. 2,1981, and refiled on Jan. 12,1982, alleging that domesticsubsidies for specialty steelindustries in Belgium,France, Italy, U.K., Austria,Brazil and Sweden violate theGATT and Subsidies Code,and that imports from thosecountries adversely affect theUS industry (47 FR 10107).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Feb. 26,1982, with respect toallegations against Austria,France Italy, Sweden, and theU.K. The US consultedinformally with thosegovernments in March 1982.USTR held a public hearingon April 14, 1982. Consultations under theSubsidies Code were held inOctober 1982. On Nov. 16,1982, the President directedUSTR to: (1) request the ITCto conduct an expeditedinvestigation under section201 of the 1974 Trade Act;(2) initiate multilateral and/orbilateral discussions aimed ateliminating all tradedistortive practices in thespecialty steel sector; and (3)monitor US imports ofspecialty steel productssubject to the Sec. 201investigation (47 FR 51717).The ITC found injury. USITC Pub. 1377 (May1983). Effective July 20,1983, the President imposeda combination of tariffs andquotas (48 FR 33233).

France Specialty SteelDomestic Subsidies (301-28)

See 301-27. See 301-27.

Italy Specialty SteelDomestic Subsidies (301-29)

See 301-27. See 301-27.

Sweden Specialty SteelDomestic Subsidies (301-30)

See 301-27. See 301-27.

U.K. Specialty SteelDomestic Subsidies (301-31)

See 301-27. See 301-27.

Canada Railcar ExportSubsidies (301-32)

The AFL-CIO et al. filed apetition on June 3, 1982,alleging that the CanadianGovernment's export creditfinancing for subway cars tobe exported to the USviolates the Subsidies Codeand is unreasonable and aburden on US commerce (47FR 31764).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on July 19,1982. The US had alreadyconsulted with Canada underthe Subsidies Code on July 5,1982. USTR terminated theinvestigation on Sept. 23,1982, because the sameallegations were the subjectof a countervailing dutyinvestigation (47 FR 42059).

Belgium Specialty SteelDomestic Subsidies (301-33)

The Tool and Stainless SteelIndustry Committee et al.filed a petition on June 23,1982, alleging that domesticsubsidies for Belgian steelproduction violate the GATTand Subsidies Code, and thatimports of Belgian steeladversely affect the USindustry (47 FR 35387).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Aug. 9,1982. The US consultedunder the Subsidies Code inOctober 1982. ThePresidential determination ofNov. 16, 1982 (see 301-27above), covers this petition aswell.

Canada Front-End LoadersDuty Remissions (301-34)

The J.I. Case Company fileda petition on July 27, 1982,alleging that Canada'sregulations allowingremission of customs dutiesand sales tax on certain front-end loaders violate the GATTand Subsidies Code, areunreasonable anddiscriminatory and burdenand restrict US commerce.Petitioner amended andrefiled a petition on Sept. 13,1982 (47 FR 51029).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on Oct. 28,1982, and held a publichearing on Dec. 14, 1982.The US consulted withCanada under GATT Art.XXII on Dec. 21, 1982.

Brazil Non-rubber FootwearImport Restrictions (301-35)

The Footwear Industries ofAmerica, Inc. et al. filed apetition on Oct. 25, 1982,alleging that importrestrictions on non-rubberfootwear by the EC and thegovernments of France, Italy,the United Kingdom, Spain,Brazil, Japan, Taiwan andKorea deny US access tothose markets, areinconsistent with the GATT,and are unreasonable and/ordiscriminatory and a burdenon US commerce (47 FR56428).

On Dec. 8, 1982, USTRinitiated investigations of thealleged restrictive practices(other than allegations thatGATT-bound tariffs areexcessive) made againstBrazil, Japan, Korea andTaiwan. Consultations underGATT Art. XXII were heldApril 4, 1983. In November1985, Brazil offered toliberalize its import surchargeand to reduce tariffs.

Japan Non-Rubber FootwearImport Restrictions (301-36)

See 301-35. See 301-35. The USconsulted on Jan. 27, 1983,and requested GATT Art.XXIII consultations inFebruary 1984. Consultationsunder Art. XXIII:1 were heldin April 1985. In July 1985,the US decided to proceedunder Art. XXIII:2 andrequested application of theconclusions reached by adispute settlement panel in1984 on the leather quota tothe Japanese leather footwearquota as well (See 301-13).

On Sept. 7, 1985, thePresident directed USTR torecommend retaliation unlessthe leather and leatherfootwear restrictions weresatisfactorily resolved byDec. 1. In December 1985Japan agreed to provide anestimated $236 million incompensation throughreduced (or bound) Japanesetariffs. Also the US hasraised tariffs on an estimated$24 million in imports intothe US of leather and leathergoods from Japan (51 FR9435).

Korea Non-Rubber FootwearImport Restrictions (301-37)

See 301-35. See 301-35. The US andKorea consulted on Feb. 5,1983, and in August 1983.Korea reduced tariffs onfootwear items and removedall leather items from theimport surveillance list.

Taiwan Non-RubberFootwear Import Restrictions(301-38)

See 301-35. See 301-35. The USconsulted with Taiwan onJan. 17, 1983. On Dec. 19,1983, the Presidentdetermined that Taiwan doesnot impose unfair barriers onUS imports; he neverthelessdirected USTR to pursueoffers regarding marketingassistance for US exporters(48 FR 56561). The issuesraised in the petition are nolonger the subject of aninvestigation.

Korea Steel Wire RopeSubsidies and TrademarkInfringement (301-39)

The Committee of DomesticSteel Wire Rope andSpecialty CableManufacturers filed a petitionon March 16, 1983, allegingthat production and export ofKorean steel wire rope issubsidized, that Korea limitsimports of steel wire ropefrom Japan thereby causingdiversion to the US market,and that Korean ropeproducers are infringing UStrademarks (48 FR 20529).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on May 2, 1983,with respect to claims ofproduction subsidies. USTRheld a hearing on June 2,1983, and requestedconsultations under theSubsidies Code. Petitionerwithdrew its petition on Nov.29, 1983, and effective Dec.15, 1983, USTR terminatedthe investigation (48 FR55790).

Brazil Soybean Oil and MealSubsidies (301-40)

The National SoybeanProcessors Association fileda petition on April 16, 1983,alleging that the governmentsof Argentina, Brazil, Canada,Malaysia, Portugal and Spainengage in unfair practices,including export andproduction subsidies andquantitative restrictions thatrestrict US exports ofsoybean oil and meal (48 FR23947).

On May 23, 1983, USTRinitiated an investigationinvolving Brazil, Portugal,and Spain. USTR held apublic hearing on June 29and 30. The US and Brazilconsulted under Art. 12 of theSubsidies Code on Nov. 21.USTR submitted arecommendation to thePresident on Jan. 23, 1984;on Feb. 13, the Presidentdirected USTR to pursuedispute settlement proceduresunder the Subsidies Code (49FR 5915). The US hasrequested additionalconsultations.

Portugal Soybean Oil andMeal Subsidies (301-41)

See 301-40. The US and Portugalconsulted under GATT Art.XXII on Nov. 29, 1983. InJune 1984, Portugal beganlifting its restrictions onsoymeal imports.

Spain Soybean Oil and MealSubsidies (301-42)

See 301-40. The US and Spain consultedunder GATT Art. XXII onDec. 1, 1983.

Taiwan Rice ExportSubsidies (301-43)

The Rice Millers Associationfiled a petition on July 13,1983, which it withdrew onAug. 26. It refiled on Sept.29, 1983, alleging thatTaiwan subsidizes exports ofrice that restrict US exportsand burden the US supportprogram (48 FR 56289).

On Oct. 11, 1983, USTRinitiated an investigation.Consultations were held Dec.8-9, 1983, and Jan. 17-18 andFeb. 20-22, 1984. Based onan understanding reachedduring those discussionsproviding for limits onsubsidized rice exports fromTaiwan, petitioner withdrewits petition on March 9, 1984,and USTR terminated theinvestigation on March 22(49 FR 10761).

Argentina Air Couriers (301-44)

The Air Courier Conferenceof America filed a petition onSept. 21, 1983, alleging thatArgentina has actedunreasonably in grantingexclusive control over theinternational airtransportation of time-sensitive commercialdocuments to the Argentinepostal system (48 FR 52664).

On Nov. 7, 1983, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations.Consultations were heldMarch 22, 1984. USTR helda public hearing on proposalsfor action under Sec. 301 onOct. 24. On Nov. 16, 1984,the President determined thatArgentine practices wereunreasonable and a restrictionon US commerce. Hedirected USTR again toconsult, as requested byArgentina, and to submitproposals for action underSec. 301 within 30 days.Prior to the 30-day period,Argentina lifted itsprohibition for a 90-dayperiod (49 FR 45733).

In March 1985, therestrictions were lifted, butwere replaced by heavydiscriminatory taxes whichbecame the subject ofrenewed consultations.Following additionalconsultations on September1, 1988, Argentina reducedthe tax further and improvedthe transparency of its aircourier regulations. However,consultations continued in1989 regarding theapplication and level of thetax.

On May 25, 1989, the U.S.and Argentina reached anagreement with respect toArgentina's fees andproviding for non-discriminatory treatment of

Taiwan Films (301-45) The Motion Picture ExportersAssociation of America fileda petition on Dec. 19, 1983,alleging that Taiwandiscriminates against foreignfilm distributors (49 FR5404).

On Jan. 30, 1984, USTRinitiated an investigation.Petitioner withdrew itspetition on April 17, 1984,and USTR terminated theinvestigation on April 26 (49FR 18056).

European Space AgencySatellite Launching Services(301-46)

Transpace Carriers, Inc. fileda petition on May 25, 1984,alleging that the membergovernments of the EuropeanSpace Agency (ESA)--Belgium, Denmark, France,Germany, Ireland, Italy, theNetherlands, Sweden, Spain,Switzerland and the UnitedKingdom-- and their space-related instrumentalitiessubsidize satellite launchingservices offered byArianespace (49 FR 28643).

On July 9, 1984, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations withthe European Space Agency.Consultations were held Nov.12-13 and Dec. 17-18, 1984,and Feb. 21-22 and May 20,1985. The US consulted withArianespace on May 21,1985. On July 9, USTRsubmitted a recommendationto the President. On July 17, the President found thatESA's practices were notunreasonable, and terminatedthe investigation (50 FR29631).

EC Triple SuperphosphateWater Solubility Standard(301-47)

The Fertilizer Institute filed apetition on Aug. 17, 1984,alleging that a technical watersolubility standard for triplesuperphosphate adopted bythe EC is inconsistent withthe Standards Code.

On Oct. 1, 1984, USTRinitiated an investigation. TheUS and EC consulted underthe Standards Code on Dec.5-6, 1984.

Japan Semiconductors (301-48)

The Semiconductor IndustryAssociation filed a petitionon June 14, 1985, allegingthat the Japanese governmenthas created a protectivestructure that acts as a majorbarrier to the sale of foreignsemiconductors in Japan (50FR 28866).

USTR initiated aninvestigation on July 11,1985. USTR asked parties tosubmit comments regardingthe petition by Aug. 26, 1985.The US and Japan consultedin August, September,November and December1985, followed by technicaldiscussions in January andFebruary 1986, and furtherconsultations in March,April, May, June and July.On July 31, 1986, the US andJapan reached agreement adreferendum under whichJapan would increase accessfor US firms to the Japanesesemiconductor market, andhelp prevent dumping ofsemiconductors in US andthird country markets. ThePresident approved thisagreement in a determinationunder Sec. 301 andsuspended the investigation(51 FR 27811), and theUSTR signed the finalagreement Sept. 2, 1986.

In March 1987, the Section301 Committee requestedpublic comment on possibleUS actions in response toJapan's failure to fulfill itsobligations under thesemiconductor agreement (52FR 10275). A hearing washeld April 13, 1987. On April17, the President determinedthat Japan had notimplemented or enforcedmajor provisions of theagreement (52 FR 13419),and in response proclaimed

Brazil Informatics (301-49)* On Sept. 16, 1985, USTRself-initiated an investigationat the President's directioninto all aspects of Brazil'sinformatics policy, includinginvestment restrictions,subsidies, and importrestrictions (50 FR 37608).

After extensive discussionswith US industry, the USconsulted with Brazil inFebruary, July, August andSept. 1986. On Oct. 6, thePresident determined thatBrazil's informatics policy isunreasonable, and continuedthe case until Dec. 31, 1986.He directed the TradeRepresentative to notify theGATT of our intention tosuspend tariff concessions forBrazil under Art. XVIII, andto effect such suspensionwhen appropriate (51 FR35993).

On Dec. 30, the TradeRepresentative announced thePresident's determination tosuspend the investigationwith respect to Brazil'sadministration of itsinformatics policy and importrestrictions, in light ofimprovement in these areas. However, because ofinsufficient progress to datein negotiations on relatedintellectual propertyprotection and investmentrestrictions, the Presidentannounced he woulddetermine the appropriateresponse of the US within sixmonths unless a satisfactoryresolution was reached (52FR 1619).

On Feb. 10, 1987, USTRannounced a hearing andinvited public comment onspecified intellectual propertyand investment issues in this

Japan Tobacco Products(301-50)*

On Sept. 16, 1985, at thePresident's direction, USTRself- initiated an investigationof Japanese practices(including high tariffs, JapanTobacco Institute'smanufacturing monopoly,and distribution restrictions)that act as a barrier to UScigarette exports (50 FR37609).

After discussions with USindustry, on Feb. 3, 1986,USTR requestedconsultations with Japan. TheUS presented a lengthyquestionnaire on Feb. 11, andheld technical discussions Feb. 21. The US raised thiscase during Sub-Cabinetmeetings on Feb. 28, andconsulted in Tokyo on March4 and on April 16-17. TheUS received answers to itsquestionnaire on March 21.The US consulted with JapanMay 27-28; August 13, 18,and 28-29; Sept. 8, 9, 11, 25,26 and 29; and Oct. 1-3. OnOct. 3, the US and Japanconcluded an agreementunder which Japan willreduce its tariff on cigarettesto zero, eliminate thediscriminatory deferral inexcise tax payment, andterminate discriminatorydistribution practices. OnOct. 6, 1986, the Presidentapproved this agreement andsuspended the investigation,directing that it be terminatedwhen Japan fully implementsthe agreement (51 FR 35995).

Korea Insurance (301-51)* On Sept. 16, 1985, at thePresident's direction, USTRself-initiated an investigationof Korean practices thatrestrict the ability of USinsurers to provide insuranceservices in the Korean market(50 FR 37609).

See 301-20. The USconsulted with Korea inNovember and December1985 and February, Marchand July 1986. On July 21,1986, the White Houseannounced the conclusion ofan agreement with Korea thatwill increase US firms' accessto the Korean insurancemarket by enabling them tounderwrite both life and non-life insurance. The Presidentapproved the agreement andterminated the investigationon Aug. 14 (51 FR 29443).The final agreement wassigned Aug. 28.

It was amended on Sept 10,1987, setting forth moredetailed requirementsregarding insuranceoperations through jointventures.

In January, 1988, the US andROK further clarified theSept. 10 amendment tospecify the terms under whichsome Korean firms couldparticipate in joint ventures.

Korea Intellectual PropertyRights (301-52)*

On Nov. 4, 1985, USTR self-initiated an investigation ofKorea's lack of effectiveprotection of US intellectualproperty rights (50 FR45883).

The US consulted with Koreain November and December1985 and throughoutFebruary-July 1986. On July21, 1986, the White Houseannounced the conclusion ofan agreement with Korea thatwill dramatically improveprotection of intellectualproperty rights in Korea. ThePresident approved theagreement and terminated theinvestigation on Aug. 14,1986 (51 FR 29445). Thefinal agreement was signedAug. 28, 1986.Implementation of theagreement continues to bemonitored, and on June 13,1988, the TradeRepresentative formed aninteragency task force toexamine Korean practicesrelated to obtaining andenforcing patent rights. Thetask force made a preliminaryreport to USTR in December1988. Followup discussionsare being held with theKorean Government.

Argentina Soybeans andSoybean Products (301-53)

The National SoybeanProcessors Association fileda petition on April 4, 1986,alleging that the differentialin Argentine export taxes(higher for soybeans than forsoybean products) providesArgentine crushers with anunfair cost advantage thatburdens US exports in third-country markets.

USTR initiated aninvestigation on April 25,1986 (51 FR 16764). Following bilateralconsultations with Argentina,the President suspended thisinvestigation on May 14,1987, based upon Argentina'sassurance that it planned toeliminate these export taxesand thus any differential (52FR 18685).

In February 1988, Argentinareduced the export taxdifferential by 3 percent. However, on July 29, 1988,Argentina established a taxrebate on oil and mealexports to third countrieswhich subsidize theseproducts, so consultationswith Argentina resumed inAugust 1988. TheGovernment of Argentinaonly provided a few rebatesunder that scheme before itwas suspended in December1988. USTR continues toconsult with Argentina,which is considering otheroptions to aid its soybeancrushing and exportingindustry.

EC Enlargement (301-54)* On March 31, 1986, thePresident announced hisintention to (1) impose quotason EC products if the EC didnot remove certainquantitative restrictions onoilseeds and grains inPortugal; and (2) increasetariffs on EC products if theEC did not providecompensation for US lossesresulting from the EC'simposition of variable levieson corn and sorghum importsinto Spain in breach of priortariff commitments.

On May 15, 1986, thePresident imposed quotas onEC imports in response to theEC's quantitative restrictionsin Portugal (51 FR 18294).On Oct. 14, 1987, the level ofthese quota restrictions wasincreased to avoid a moredamaging effect on EC tradethan is warranted by thecurrent operation of the ECrestrictions in Portugal (52FR 38167).

On July 2, 1986, an interimsolution was reached with theEC with regard to the importlevy restrictions in Spain.That solution provided thatany shortfall in US corn,sorghum, and corn glutenfeed exports to Spain below amonthly EC average of234,000 metric tons throughthe remainder of 1986 wouldbe compensated for throughreduced import levy quotas inthe EC.

On Dec. 30, 1986, the USannounced that unless the ECagreed to compensate the USsatisfactorily by the end ofJanuary for $400 million inlost corn and sorghumexports to Spain, thePresident would becompelled to impose dutiesof 200% ad valorem onimports into the US of certainEC cheeses, ham, carrots,endive, white wine, brandyand gin-accounting for $400million in EC exports to theUS. The President

Canada Fish (301-55) Icicle Seafoods and nineother seafood processors fileda petition on April 1, 1986,alleging that the Canadianprohibition on the export ofunprocessed herring andsalmon violates GATTArticle XI and providesCanadian processors with anunfair cost advantage thatburdens US exports in thirdcountry markets.

USTR initiated aninvestigation on May 16,1986 (51 FR 19648), andrequested comments oncertain economic issuesrelating to the investigation.The US consulted withCanada under Art. XXIII:1 ofthe GATT Sept. 3 and Oct.27, 1986, and presentedarguments before a GATTdispute settlement panel onJune 18 and July 10, 1987.The US won the case, and thefavorable panel report wasadopted by the GATTCouncil in February 1988.Canada announced that itwould terminate its exportrestrictions by Jan. 1, 1989,but would adopt some newlanding requirements.

On August 30, 1988, aFederal Register notice (53FR 33207) requestedcomments on the unfairnessdetermination required underthe Omnibus Trade andCompetitiveness Act of 1988.Canada failed to remove itsexport prohibition by January1, 1989, and in early 1989 theUS and Canada continued toconsult on Canada's plans tointroduce new landingrequirements. The USTRdetermined on March 28,1989, that Canada's exportprohibition denied U.S. rightsunder the GATT. At the sametime the USTR sought publiccomment on possible tradeaction as a result of thisdetermination, and directed

Taiwan Customs Valuation(301-56)*

On Aug. 1, 1986, thePresident determined thatTaiwan's use of a duty payingsystem to calculate customsduties violated a tradeagreement and wasunjustifiable andunreasonable and a burden orrestriction on US commerce(51 FR 28219). He directedthe Trade Representative topropose an appropriatemethod for retaliation.

By an exchange of lettersdated Aug. 11, the Taiwanauthorities agreed to takeactions by Sept. 1, 1986, toabolish the duty payingschedule effective Oct. 1,1986. USTR confirmed thatTaiwan did so, and thereforeadvised the public that noretaliatory action would beproposed as earlier directedby the President (51 FR37527).

Taiwan Beer, Wine &Tobacco (301-57)*

On Oct. 27, 1986, thePresident determined thatacts, policies and practices ofTaiwan regarding thedistribution and sale of USbeer, wine and tobaccoproducts in Taiwan areactionable under Section 301(51 FR 39639). He decided totake proportionalcountermeasures so long asTaiwan continues thesepractices, and directed theTrade Representative topropose appropriate andfeasible actions.

On Dec. 5, 1986, Taiwanagreed to cease the unfairpractices complained of. As aresult, USTR announced thatno retaliatory action would beproposed as previouslydirected by the President (51FR 44958).

Canada Softwood Lumber(301-58)*

On Dec. 30, 1986, the USand Canada concluded anagreement under which theDepartment of Commerceterminated a pendingcountervailing dutyinvestigation (based uponwithdrawal of the petition)after Canada agreed toimpose a tax of 15% advalorem on exports of certainsoftwood lumber products tothe U.S.

Pending Canada's imminentimposition and collection ofthat tax as agreed, on Dec.30, 1986, the Presidentproclaimed--under Section301 authority--a temporaryadditional duty of 15% advalorem on imports ofCanadian softwood lumberproducts (52 FR 229). On thesame date, as the necessarypredicate for the exercise ofSection 301 authority, hedetermined that Canadianpractices regarding thefederal and provincialgovernments' terms andconditions for the harvest ofstumpage (standing timber)were unjustifiable orunreasonable and a burden orrestriction on US commerce(52 FR 231). Effective Jan. 8,Commerce suspended theimport duty based on theSecretary's determination thatCanada has begun to collectthe export surcharge onexports to the US of certainsoftwood lumber products(52 FR 1311). On May 26,1987, the Government ofCanada passed legislationproviding for this tax.

India Almonds (301-59) The California AlmondGrowers Exchange filed apetition on Jan. 6, 1987,alleging that India's licensingrequirements and steep tariffson almonds are actionableunder section 301.

On Feb. 20, 1987, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations withIndia (52 FR 6412 and 7057).The US consulted with Indiaunder GATT Art. XXIII:1 inJune and September. USTRrequested the establishmentof a panel under Art. XXIII:2at the GATT Councils inJuly, October and November.The US also raised almondsissues in the fullconsultations with India heldin the GATT Balance ofPayments Committee inOctober. In November 1987,the GATT Council agreed tothe establishment of a panel.In May 1988, a satisfactorybilateral settlement wasreached and USTRterminated the investigation(53 FR 21757).**TheIndian Governmentestablished a separate quotafor almonds, which increasesaccess to that market, to thesatisfaction of US industry.Moreover, India agreed toeliminate the quota in threeyears if its balance ofpayment position improves asspecified in the Agreement.India also reduced and boundits tariff for shelled almondsand bound its tariff onunshelled almonds.

EC Third Country MeatDirective (301-60)

On July 14, 1987, theAmerican Meat Institute, USMeat Export Federation,American Farm BureauFederation, National PorkProducers Council andNational Cattlemen'sAssociation filed a petitioncomplaining of the EC'sThird Country Meat Directiveas a violation of GATT Art.III and an unjustifiable,unreasonable ordiscriminatory practice thatburdens US commerce.

On July 22, 1987, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations withthe EC (52 FR 28223). TheUS consulted with the ECtwice under GATT Art.XXIII:1, in September andNovember, 1987. USTRrequested the establishmentof a panel at the GATTCouncils in October andNovember, but the ECblocked it. The ECacquiesced to that request atthe December GATTCouncil. Since then, the EChas taken steps to provideaccess for a number of USmeat packers.

Brazil Pharmaceuticals (301-61)

On June 11, 1987, thePharmaceuticalManufacturers Associationfiled a petition complainingof Brazil's lack of process andpatent protection forpharmaceutical products asan unreasonable practice thatburdens or restricts UScommerce.

On July 23, 1987, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations withBrazil (52 FR 28223).Consultations were held onFeb. 29, 1988, and additionaldiscussions resulted in noresolution. On July 21, 1988,the President determinedBrazil's policy to beunreasonable and a burdenand restriction on UScommerce, and he directedUSTR to hold public hearings(See 53 FR 28100 and30894) on certain productsexported from Brazil. Hearings were heldSeptember 8-9, 1988.

On October 20, 1988 thePresident used section 301authority to proclaim tariffincreases to 100 % advalorem on certain paperproducts, non-benzenoiddrugs, and consumerelectronics items, effectiveOctober 30, 1988 (53 FR41551).

On June 26, 1990, theGovernment of Brazilannounced that the Presidentof Brazil had decided to seeklegislation to provide patentprotection for pharmaceuticalproducts and the process oftheir production. TheBrazilian Administration willensure the presentation of abill to the Brazilian NationalCongress for this purpose byMarch 20, 1991, and willseek its approval and

EC Hormones (301-62)* On Nov. 25, 1987, thePresident announced hisintention to raise customsduties to a prohibitive levelon as much as $100 millionin EC exports to the US Thisaction was in response to theimplementation scheduled forJan. 1, 1988 of the AnimalHormone Directive. Withoutvalid scientific evidence, thisdirective would ban importsof meat produced fromanimals treated with growthhormones. However, thePresident said he wouldsuspend increased duties ifEC member states continuedto allow such imports for a12-month transition period.

On Dec. 24, 1987, on his ownmotion, the Presidentproclaimed but immediatelysuspended increased dutieson specified products of theEC (52 FR 49131), pendingEC implementation of itsDirective. He delegatedauthority to modify, suspendor terminate the increasedduties (including to terminatethe suspension of suchincreased duties) to the TradeRepresentative. The ECimplemented its directive onJanuary 1, 1989. In response,the USTR terminated thesuspension of the increasedduties, effective January 1,1989, with somemodifications (53 FR 53115).The US and EC agreed onJanuary 12 to allow a graceperiod for goods exported, ormeat certified for export,prior to January 1, if theyentered before February 1 (54FR 3032).

On February 18, the US andEC established a task force ofhigh- level governmentofficials to seek a resolutionto the hormones dispute byMay 4, 1989. In May the taskforce's mandate was extendedand its work continues.

Effective July 28, 1989, theUSTR suspended theadditional duty on pork hamsand shoulders (54 FR 31398),since the EC had enablednon-treated U.S. beef to enterthe EC. Effective December

EC Oilseeds (301-63) On Dec. 16, 1987, theAmerican SoybeanAssociation filed a petitioncomplaining that the EC'spolicies and practices relatingto oilseeds and oilseedsubstitutes nullified andimpaired benefits accruing tothe United States under theGATT and, specifically, areinconsistent with a zero tariffbinding agreed to by the EC.ASA alleged that thepractices also areunjustifiable, unreasonableand burden or restrict UScommerce.

On Jan. 5, 1988, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations withthe EC (53 FR 984). The USconsulted with the EC severaltimes, both informally andformally, under GATT Art.XXIII:1. The EC blocked theUS request for a panel at theMay 1988 GATT Council,but acquiesced at the June1988 Council. However, theEC delayed composition ofthe panel for several monthswith a number of proceduralmaneuvers. The first oralarguments before the panelwere held June 27, 1989.

On July 5, 1989, USTRdetermined that there wasreason to believe that rightsof the United States under atrade agreement were beingdenied by the EC'sproduction and processingsubsidies on oilseeds andanimal feed proteins. USTRdelayed implementation ofany action to be taken undersection 301 and mayreconsider thesedeterminations in light of theGATT Panel's findings. Thepanel ruled in favor of theUnited States, in a report thatwas circulated to GATTContracting Parties onDecember 14, 1989.

Following release of thereport, the EC ForeignAffairs Council expressed itsreadiness to accept the GATTpanel conclusions and to

Korea Cigarettes (301-64) On Jan. 22, 1988, the USCigarette Export Associationfiled a petition complainingthat the policies and practicesof the Korean Governmentand its instrumentality theKorean MonopolyCorporation unreasonablydenied access to the Koreancigarette market and were aburden or restriction on UScommerce.

On Feb. 16, 1988, USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested consultations withthe Government of Korea (53FR 4926). The USTR signedan agreement with Korea onMay 27, 1988, providingopen, non-discriminatoryaccess to the Korean cigarettemarket. Based on thisagreement, the investigationwas terminated on May 31,1988.

Korea Beef (301-65) On Feb. 16, 1988, theAmerican Meat Institute fileda petition alleging that theROK maintains a restrictivelicensing system on importsof all bovine meat, inviolation of GATT ArticleXI, which is unjustifiable,unreasonable, and burdensorrestricts US commerce.

On March 18, 1988, USTRinitiated an investigation (53FR 10995). The US hadalready consulted with theROK under GATT Art.XXIII:1. On May 4, 1988,GATT Council established apanel under Art. XXIII:2.Australia was also authorizeda panelon the same matter, soconsultations on panelselection includedcoordination between twopanels. The first panelmeeting was November 28,1988; the second meetingwas January 20, 1989. Thepanel issued a reportfavorable to the US on May27. However, at GATTCouncil meetings in June andJuly 1989, Korea did notagree to adoption of the panelreport. Public comment onsection 304 determinationswas requested August 25,1989 (54 FR 35422).

Effective September 28,1989, the USTR determinedunder section 304 that rightsto which the U.S. is entitledare being denied by Koreaand that the appropriateaction under section 301 is tosuspend tariff concessions.(54 FR 40769.)Implementation of suchaction was delayed to allowadditional time for the GATTprocess. The USTRannounced that if there wereno substantial movementtoward a resolution by mid-November, a proposed

Japan Citrus (301-66) On May 6, 1988, FloridaCitrus Mutual, et al. filed apetition alleging that Japan'simport quotas on freshoranges and orange juicecontravene GATT Article XI,and their domestic contentmixing requirements violateArt. III:5.

On May 25, 1988, USTRinitiated an investigation. TheUS had already consultedwith Japan under GATTArticle XXIII:1, and a panelunder Art. XXIII:2 had beenauthorized by GATT Councilon May 4, 1988. Intensivesettlement negotiationsfollowed, and on July 5,1988, a bilateral agreementwas reached to settle theissue. Among other issuessettled, import quotas onfresh oranges will end April1, 1991, and on April 1, 1992for orange juice; the blendingrequirement will be phasedout in 1988-89 andeliminated as of April 1,1990. Based upon thisagreement, the citrus industrywithdrew its petition andUSTR terminated theinvestigation on July 5, 1988(53 FR 25714).

Korea Wine (301-67) On April 27, 1988, the WineInstitute and the Associationof American Vintners filed apetition complaining ofpolicies and practices of theKorean Government thatunreasonably deny access tothe Korean wine market andare a burden or restriction onUS commerce.

On June 11, 1988, USTRinitiated an investigation (53FR 22607) and requestedconsultations with the KoreanGovernment. Consultationswere held October 11-12 inWashington and October 25in Seoul. Furtherconsultations finally resultedin an agreement, reached onJanuary 18, 1989, in whichKorea agreed to provideforeign manufacturers ofwine and wine products non-discriminatory and equitableaccess to the Korean market.The investigation wasterminated on January 18,1989.

Argentina Pharmaceuticals(301-68)

On August 10, 1988, thePharmaceuticalManufacturers Associations(PMA) filed a petitioncomplaining of Argentina'sdenial of product patentprotection forpharmaceuticals anddiscriminatory productregistration practices. PMAalleged these practices areunreasonable anddiscriminatory and burden orrestrict US commerce.

On September 25, 1988,USTR initiated aninvestigation (53 FR 37668),and requested publiccomments in order to requestconsultations with theArgentine government.Consultations were held inBuenos Aires in December1988 and August 1989.Public comments on section304 determinations wererequested on August 16, 1989(54 FR 33809).

On September 23, 1989, thePMA withdrew its petition onthe basis of Argentina'swillingness to modify itspharmaceutical productregistration procedures, andto address constructively theissue of patent protection forpharmaceutical products.

Japan Construction-relatedServices (301-69)*

Section 1305 of the OmnibusTrade and CompetitivenessAct of 1988, enacted August23, 1988, required the USTRto initiate an investigationregarding the acts, policies,and practices of theGovernment of Japan, and ofentities owned, financed, orotherwise controlled by theGovernment of Japan, thatare barriers in Japan to theoffering or performance byUS persons of architectural,engineering, construction andconsulting services in Japan.

USTR initiated aninvestigation on November21, 1988, and requestedpublic comment byDecember 20, 1988 (53 FR47897). Consultations withJapan were requested, to bescheduled following a publichearing. A hearing was heldMarch 13, 1989 (54 FR2033), and consultations withthe Japanese began on May23, 1989.

On November 21, 1989, theUSTR determined, pursuantto section 304(a)(1)(A) of theTrade Act, that certain acts,policies and practices of theGovernment of Japan withrespect to the procurement ofarchitectural, engineering andconstruction services andrelated consulting services bythe Japanese Government areunreasonable and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce (54FR 49150).

The USTR furtherdetermined, pursuant tosection 304(a)(1)(B) of theTrade Act, that no responsiveaction under section 301 ofthe Act was appropriate atthat time in light of certaincommitments made by theGovernment of Japan. TheUSTR announced that shewould monitor Japan'simplementation of thesecommitments pursuant tosection 306 of the Trade Act,and would seek a satisfactoryresolution of all remaining

EC Copper Scrap (301-70) The Copper and BrassFabricators Council, Inc.,filed a petition on November14, 1988, alleging that exportrestrictions on copper scrapand zinc scrap maintained bythe European Community,the United Kingdom andBrazil violate the GATT andburden and restrict UScommerce. On December 27petitioners withdrew theallegations regarding Braziland zinc scrap.

USTR initiated aninvestigation on December29, 1988, involving thepractices of the EC and UK.Comments were requestedand a public hearing was heldon January 27, 1989 (54 FR338). USTR advised the ECof its intention to scheduleGATT consultations after thepublic hearing. On January25, 1989, USTR informed theUK that the investigationwould proceed only as to theEC, since the UK hadrepresented that itsregulations merelyimplemented the EC exportcontrols and did notconstitute separaterestrictions.

Consultations with the ECunder GATT Article XXIII:1were held on April 26, 1989,and a dispute settlementpanel was established by theGATT Council on July 19,1989. The first panel meetingwas held in November 1989,after which the US and ECresumed settlementnegotiations, resulting in asatisfactory agreementconcluded on January 4,1990.

On the basis of this tradeagreement with the EC, theUnited States withdrew itscomplaint from the GATTdispute settlement panel. Thepetitioner expressedsatisfaction with thisresolution, and on February

EC Canned Fruit (301-71)* On May 8, 1989, USTR self-initiated an investigationregarding compliance by theEuropean Community with atrade agreement (see Docket301-26) in which the ECagreed to limit processingsubsidies granted on cannedfruit.

USTR requested publiccomment and on June 9, 1989held a public hearing (54 FR20219) on whether the ECpractice is actionable undersection 301, includingwhether it violates a tradeagreement; and, if so, on theappropriateness of subjectingcertain products of the EC toincreased US tariffs. In June1989 the EC agreed to reduceits 1989-90 subsidy levels oncanned peaches and pears andto modify its regulations forfuture years; and the U.S. andEC clarified theirinterpretation of the 1985Canned Fruit Agreement. Theinvestigation was, therefore,terminated October 1, 1989(54 FR 41708).

Thailand Cigarettes (301-72) On April 10, 1989, the USCigarette Export Association(CEA) filed a petitionalleging that the Royal ThaiGovernment and itsinstrumentality, the ThailandTobacco Monopoly (TTM)engage in practices that areunreasonable or discriminateagainst imports and burdenand restrict US commerce.

USTR initiated aninvestigation on May 25,1989 (54 FR 23724), andrequested public comment.Consultations with Thaigovernment officials beganJuly 31. A public hearing washeld September 19, 1989 (54FR 32731). Furtherconsultations wereheld inOctober 1989. On December22, the United Statesrequested consultations underArticle XXIII:1 of the GATT.Since those consultationsfailed to result in asatisfactory solution, theUnited States requested theestablishment of panel underGATT Article XXIII:2. Thepanel was established onApril 3, 1990, and issued itsreport on September 21,1990, concluding thatThailand's import restrictionson cigarettes are contrary tothe provisions of GATTArticle XI. On November 7,1992, the GATT Counciladopted this report

Pursuant to section 304 of theTrade Act, the deadline fordetermining actionabilityunder section 301 in this casewas November 25, 1990. OnOctober 15, public commentwas requested on the section304 determinations (55 FR41781).

On November 23, 1990, theUSTR determined that U.S.rights under the GATT wereviolated by Thailand's

Brazil Import Licensing (301-73)*

On June 16, 1989, USTRinitiated an investigation ofcertain import restrictionsmaintained by theGovernment of Brazil,including its 'suspended list,'company and sector-specificimport quotas, and lack oftransparency of its importlicensing regime. Thisinvestigation resulted fromidentification of this practiceas a 'priority practice' undersection 310 of the Trade Actof 1974, as amended.

USTR requested publiccomments on Brazil's policiesand practices and on theamount of burden orrestriction on US commercecaused by these practices (54FR 26135). On October 6,1989, the US requestedformal consultations withBrazil under Article XXIII:1of the GATT. Thoseconsultations were held inGeneva on December 11,1989.

During consultations, Brazilindicated its intent tosignificantly reduce the'prohibited' import list andexpand the de facto quotas.Some minor liberalization ofthe de facto quotas occurredin February 1990. However,when action to reduce the'prohibited' import list did notoccur, the United Statesinformed Brazil of itsintention to request disputesettlement proceedings underGATT Article XXIII:2 if noresolution was forthcoming.

On May 14, 1990, the USTRwas informed by theGovernment of Brazil that itsMinistry of Economy hadimplemented ResolutionNumber 56, issued March 15,1990, which eliminatesquantitative restrictions onimports. In particular, the'prohibited list' of importsthat was the subject of thisinvestigation (Annex C ofCACEX Communique 205,

Japan Satellites (301-74)* On June 16, 1989, USTRinitiated an investigation ofthe Government of Japan'sban on governmentprocurement of foreignsatellites. This investigationresulted from identificationof this practice as a 'prioritypractice' under section 310 ofthe Trade Act of 1974, asamended.

USTR requested publiccomments on Japan's policiesand practices and on theamount of burden orrestriction on US commercecaused by these practices (54FR 26136), and thereafterbegan consultations with theGovernment of Japan. OnApril 3, 1990, the USTRannounced that the UnitedStates had reached anunderstanding with theGovernment of Japan on anagreement which, whenfinalized, will provide openaccess to the Japanese publicsatellite market for U.S.companies.

The investigation wassuspended, pursuant tosection 310(c) of the TradeAct, on June 15, 1990 (55 FR25761).

Japan Supercomputers (301-75)*

On June 16, 1989, USTRinitiated an investigation ofthe Government of Japan'sprocurement practices withrespect to supercomputers.This investigation resultedfrom identification of thispractice as a 'priority practice'under section 310 of theTrade Act of 1974, asamended.

USTR requested publiccomments on Japan's policiesand practices and on theamount of burden orrestriction on US commercecaused by these practices (54FR 26137), and thereafterbegan consultations with theGovernment of Japan.

On March 23, 1990, theUSTR announced that anunderstanding had beenreached ad referendum withthe Japanese on a basic textof an agreement to supercedea 1987 bilateral agreement onsupercomputers and thatwork would continue tofinalize the new agreementand to ensure marketopportunities for U.S.supercomputer suppliers. OnJune 15, 1990, USTRexecuted an exchange ofletters with the JapaneseAmbassador regardingactions by the Government ofJapan to improve access forU.S. firms to itssupercomputer market.

The investigation wassuspended, pursuant tosection 310(c) of the TradeAct, on June 15, 1990 (55 FR25764).

Japan Forest Products (301-76)*

On June 16, 1989, USTRinitiated an investigation ofJapan's policies and practicesaffecting imports of forestproducts, including technicalbarriers to trade. Thisinvestigation resulted fromidentification of this practiceas a 'priority practice' undersection 310 of the Trade Actof 1974, as amended.

USTR requested publiccomments on Japan's policiesand practices and on theamount of burden orrestriction on US commercecaused by these practices (54FR 26137), and thereafterbegan consultations with theGovernment of Japan.

After extensive consultations,on April 25, 1990, the UnitedStates and Japan reachedagreement on acomprehensive package ofmeasures that will greatlyimprove market access forUS exporters of forestproducts and substantiallyexpand the opportunities forwood construction in Japan.On June 15, 1990, USTRexecuted an exchange ofletters with the JapaneseAmbassador regardingactions the Government ofJapan is taking and will taketo improve access for U.S.wood products to its market.

The investigation wassuspended, pursuant tosection 310(c) of the TradeAct, on June 15, 1990 (55 FR25763).

India Investment (301-77)* On June 16, 1989, USTRinitiated an investigation oftrade- restricting measuresimposed by the Governmentof India on foreign investors.This investigation resultedfrom identification of thispractice as a 'priority practice'under section 310 of theTrade Act of 1974, asamended.

USTR requested publiccomments on India's policiesand practices and on theamount of burden orrestriction on US commercecaused by these practices (54FR 26136), and thereafterbegan talks with theGovernment of India.

On April 27, 1990, USTRrenewed the identification ofIndia as a 'priority country'and of its investment barriersas a 'priority practice' (55 FR18693). A request for publiccomment on section 304determinations was publishedon May 11, 1990 (55 FR19818).

On June 14, 1990, the USTRdetermined that India'spractices were unreasonableand burdened or restrictedU.S. Commerce. The USTRfurther determined that noresponsive action underSection 301 was appropriateat that time, given thepotential for results throughIndia's participation inUruguay Round GATTnegotiations on these issues.The USTR will review thestatus of India's practicesafter the conclusion of theUruguay Round anddetermine at that timewhether action under section301 would be warranted.

The investigation wasterminated on June 14, 1990(55 FR 25765).

India Insurance (301-78)* On June 16, 1989, the USTRinitiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1) of theTrade Act of 1974concerning India's barriers toforeign insurance providers.These practices had beenidentified on May 26, 1989,as 'priority practices' of a'priority country' undersection 310(a)(1) of the TradeAct. Under Section 310(c)(1)of the Trade Act, the UnitedStates consulted with theGovernment of India, seekingto negotiate an agreementwhich provides for (a) theelimination of, orcompensation for, India'spractices the prioritypractices identified undersubsection (a)(1)(A) by nolater than the close of the 3-year period beginning on thedate on which suchinvestigation is initiated, and'(b) the reduction of suchpractices over a 3-year periodwith the expectation thatUnited States exports to the foreign country will, as aresult, increase incrementallyduring each year within such3-year period.' On June 16,1989, USTR initiated aninvestigation of barriers toforeign insurance providersimposed by the Governmentof India. This investigationresulted from identificationof this practice as a 'prioritypractice' under section 310 ofthe Trade Act of 1974, asamended.

USTR requested publiccomments on India's policiesand practices and on theamount of burden orrestriction on US commercecaused by these practices (54FR 26135), and thereafterbegan talks with theGovernment of India.

On April 27, 1990, USTRrenewed the identification ofIndia as a 'priority country'and of insurance marketbarriers as a 'priority practice'(55 FR 18693). A request forpublic comment on section304 determinations waspublished on May 11, 1990(55 FR 19818).

On June 14, 1990, the USTRdetermined that India'spractices were unreasonableand burdened or restrictedU.S. Commerce. The USTRfurther determined that noresponsive action underSection 301 was appropriateat that time, given thepotential for results throughIndia's participation inUruguay Round GATTnegotiations on these issues.The USTR will review thestatus of India's practicesafter the conclusion of theUruguay Round anddetermine at that timewhether action under section301 would be warranted.

The investigation wasterminated on June 14, 1990(55 FR 25766).

Norway Toll Equipment(301-79)

On July 11, 1989, a petitionwas filed on behalf ofAmtech Corporation alleging,inter alia, that practices by theGovernment of Norway denyU.S. rights under the GATTGovernment Procurementcode, adversely affectingUnited States trade in the saleof highway toll electronic IDsystem.

USTR initiated aninvestigation August 25,1989, (54 FR 36089) andrequested public comments.On August 25, the U.S. alsorequested consultations withNorway under the GATTProcurement Code, andinformed Norway that ifcontinuing consultations didnot result in a settlement, theUnited States would requestthe establishment of a disputesettlement panel under Codeprocedures after April 19,1990.

In an exchange of lettersbetween the United Statesand Norway on April 26,1990, Norway agreed to takeactions that offset thenegative impact of thisprocurement on thePetitioner. These includeclarification that theAMTECH system met therequirements of the Oslo TollRing project and a statementthat the AMTECH systemwas found to be proven,reliable, competitive, type-approved by the NorwegianPTT and commerciallyavailable.

Norway will also take stepsto ensure that ProcurementCode procedures are followedin its future governmentprocurements and that theaward of the Oslo Toll Ringcontract to a Norwegian firmdoes not prejudice the abilityof foreign companies to win

Canada Import Restrictionson Beer (301-80)

G. Heileman BrewingCompany, Inc. filed a petitionon May 15, 1990, allegingthat Canada's importrestrictions on beer --including listingrequirements, discriminatorymark-ups, and restrictions ondistribution -- areinconsistent with the GATTand the US-Canada FreeTrade Agreement.

On June 29, 1990, the USTRinitiated an investigation andrequested public comment onthe allegations in the petition(55 FR 27731). Also on thatdate the US requestedconsultations with Canadaunder Article XXIII:1 of theGATT. Consultations wereheld July 20, 1990.

On September 14, 1990, theStroh Brewing Companyfiled a petition complainingabout the distribution andpricing practices of theProvince of Ontario withrespect to imported beer. OnOctober 17, 1990, the USTRdecided to investigate theallegations contained in theStroh petition in the contextof this investigation.

On February 6, 1991, thematter was referred to aGATT dispute settlementpanel, which issued its reporton October 16, 1991. OnDecember 29, 1991, USTRdetermined consistent with aGATT panel finding that acts,policies, or practices ofCanada violate the provisionsof a trade agreement(specifically, the GATT) andthat action shall be taken inthe form of substantiallyincreased duties on beer andmalt beverages from Canadasufficient to offset fully thenullification or impairment ofGATT rights resulting fromthese Canadian acts, policiesor practices. The USTR

EC Enlargement (301-81)* On November 15, 1990, theUSTR initiated aninvestigation under section302(b) of the Trade Act withrespect to denial of benefitsunder trade agreement by theEuropean Communities (EC),arising from accession ofSpain and Portugal into theEC (see 301-54).

On November 19, 1990,USTR requested publiccomments and a publichearing was held November26, 1990 (55 FR 48197). OnDecember 5, 1990, USTRpublished a notice ofnotification to the GATTcontracting parties of the U.S.intent to suspend tariffconcessions in response toactions by the EEC underArticle XXIV of the GATT(55 FR 50269). A settlementagreement was reached withthe EC on December 21,1990, and the investigationwas terminated on that date(55 FR 53376).

Thailand CopyrightEnforcement (301-82)

On November 15, 1990, theInternational IntellectualProperty Alliance (IIPA),Motion Picture ExportAssociation of America, Inc.(MPEAA), and the RecordingIndustry Association ofAmerica (RIAA) filed apetition under section 302(a)of the Trade Act of 1974, asamended, alleging that theGovernment of Thailandinadequately enforces itscopyright laws, therebydenying market accessopportunities to those whorely upon copyrights.

On December 21, 1990,USTR initiated aninvestigation under section302(a) of the Trade Act withrespect to the Thaigovernment's acts, policiesand practices relating to theenforcement of copyrights.USTR also requestedconsultations with the RoyalThai Government (56 FR292). Several rounds ofconsultations on this issuewere held with the ThaiGovernment. On December20, 1991, USTR determinedthat acts, policies, andpractices of the Governmentof Thailand concerning theenforcement of copyrights inthat country are unreasonableand burden or restrict U.S.commerce. The Thaigovernment, however, istaking steps to improveenforcement procedures andcombat copyright piracy. TheThai government has alsobegun the process ofamending its copyright laws.The ultimate results of theseefforts will not be knownimmediately. Thus, pursuantto section 301(b)(19 U.S.C.2411(b)), USTR determinedthat the appropriate action inthis case was to terminate theinvestigation and to monitorThai governmentimplementation of measuresto eliminate those acts,policies, and practices. (56FR 67114).

EC Third Country MeatDirective (301-83)

On November 28, 1990, theNational Pork ProducersCouncil and the AmericanMeat Institute filed a petitionfor action under section 301of the Trade Act, as amendedby the 1988 Omnibus Tradeand Competitiveness Act,alleging that the EC ThirdCountry Meat Directive,restricting exports of U.S.pork and beef products,denies the rights of theUnited States under theGATT and is otherwiseunreasonable and burdens orrestricts United Statescommerce. (An earliersuspended investigation hadbeen initiated prior to theenactment of the 1988amendments to Section 301. See 301-60.)

On January 10, 1991, USTRinitiated an investigationunder section 302(a) of theTrade Act, and invoked theprovisions of section303(a)(2)(A) to delay GATTconsultations for up to 90days. (56 FR 1663). Furtherbilateral consultationswereheld with the EC. OnJune 7, 1991, as required bysection 303(a)(2)(B), USTRrequested that a GATTdispute settlement panel beconvened to examine theEC's practice. The ECblocked the request for apanel on July 10, 1991. TheU.S. and EC continued tonegotiate, however, andvarious U.S. plants wererelisted.

Thailand Pharmaceuticals(301-84)

On January 30, 1991, thePharmaceuticalManufacturers Associationfiled a petition under section302 of the Trade Act,alleging that the Governmentof Thailand does not provideadequate and effective patentprotection for pharmaceuticalproducts.

On March 15, 1991, USTRinitiated an investigationunder section 302(a) of theTrade Act and requestedpublic comment on theallegations in the petition (56FR 11815). Also on that date,the US requestedconsultations with the ThaiGovernment. On February11, 1992, the USTRrequested further publiccomment on whether theGovernment of Thailand'sacts, policies, and practiceswith respect to providingpatent protection areunreasonable and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce, and ifso, what responsive action, ifany, should be taken pursuantto section 301 of the TradeAct of 1974, as amended. (57FR 5030). On March 15,1992, USTR determinedpursuant to section304(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the TradeAct that the Government ofThailand's acts, policies, andpractices related to theprotection of patents areunreasonable and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce. TheUSTR has furtherdetermined, pursuant tosection 304(a)(1)(B) of theTrade Act, that action inresponse to theseunreasonable acts, policies,and practices is appropriate,but also determined, pursuantto section 305(2)(A)(ii), thata delay of implementation ofsuch action is desirable toobtain a satisfactory solution

India Intellectual PropertyProtection (301-85)*

On May 26, 1991, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(2)(A) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof India that deny adequateand effective protection ofintellectual property rightsand fair and equitable marketaccess to United Statespersons that rely uponintellectual propertyprotection.

On May 31, 1991, USTRinvited public comments onthe matters being investigated(56 FR 24877), and requestedconsultations with theGovernment of India. OnNovember 26, 1991, USTRdetermined that complex orcomplicated issues wereinvolved in the investigationthat it required additionaltime, thus USTR'sdeterminations under section304(a)(1) on actionability andwhat action, if any, should betaken in response must bemade no later than February26, 1992 (56 FR 61447). OnJanuary 29, 1992, the USTRrequested further publiccomment on acts, policies,and practices of theGovernment of India. Inparticular, USTR isrequesting comments onwhether such acts, policies,and practices areunreasonable and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce, and ifso, what responsive action, ifany, should be taken pursuantto section 301 of the TradeAct. (57 FR 3457). OnFebruary 26, 1992, the USTRhas determined pursuant tosection 304(a)(1)(A)(iii) ofthe Trade Act that theGovernment of India's denialof adequate and effectiveprotection of patents isunreasonable and burdens orrestricts U.S. commerce. TheUSTR has further determinedpursuant to section304(a)(1)(B) of the Trade Act

People's Republic of ChinaIntellectual PropertyProtection (301-86)*

On May 26, 1991, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(2)(A) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the People'sRepublic of China (PRC) thatdeny adequate and effectiveprotection of intellectualproperty rights and fair andequitable market access toUnited States persons thatrely upon intellectualproperty protection.

On May 31, 1991, USTRinvited public comments onthe matters being investigated(56 FR 24878), and requestedconsultations with the PRCgovernment. On November26, 1991, USTR determinedthat complex or complicatedissues were involved in theinvestigation that it requiredadditional time, thus USTR'sdeterminations under section304(a)(1) on actionability andwhat action, if any, should betaken in response must bemade no later than February26, 1992 (56 FR 61447). OnDecember 2, 1991, USTRrequested public comment ona proposed determination thatcertain acts, policies andpractices of the People'sRepublic of China withrespect to its protection andenforcement of intellectualproperty rights areunreasonable and constitute aburden or restriction onUnited States commerce (56FR 61278). The USTR alsosought public comment onappropriate action undersection 301 in response tothese acts, policies, andpractices. A public hearingwas held on January 6-7,1992, for the purpose ofhearing views on possibleaction being considered inresponse to the People'sRepublic of China'sintellectual property laws,policies, and practices (56 FR64280). On January 17,1992, USTR decided to

Canada Softwood Lumber(301-87)*

On October 4, 1991, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1)(A) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies, andpractices of the Governmentof Canada affecting exportsto the United States ofsoftwood lumber.

On October 4, 1991, USTRinvited public comments onthe matters being investigated(56 FR 50738). Becauseexpeditious action wasrequired, the USTR madethese determinations prior toreceiving public comment inaccordance with section304(b)(1). TheAdministration announcedthe following action: (1)intention to self-initiate acountervailing dutyinvestigation of softwoodlumber imports from Canada(which was in fact initiatedon October 31, 1991); and (2)until preliminary results ofthat investigation areavailable, interim customssuspension of liquidation toprevent disruption of the U.S.lumber market as aconsequence of the abrupttermination of the MOUundertaking.

On March 6, 1992, theDepartment of Commerceissued an affirmativepreliminary determination inthe countervailing dutyinvestigation. Consequently,the bond requirementimposed by the Section 301investigation was terminated.Meanwhile, Canadachallenged the initiation ofthe 301 and countervailingduty investigations before theGATT.

On October 19, 1994, USTRterminated Section 301 action

People's Republic of ChinaMarket Access (301-88)*

On October 10, 1991, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1)(A) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the People'sRepublic of China thatrestrict or deny imports intothe Chinese marketofproducts from the UnitedStates.

On October 10, 1991, USTRinvited public comments onthe matters being investigated(56 FR 51943) and requestedconsultations with the PRCgovernment. On August 27,1992, USTR requested publiccomment on a proposeddetermination that certainacts, policies and practices ofthe People's Republic ofChina that are barriers tomarket access areunreasonable and constitute aburden or restriction onUnited States commerce (57FR 38912). The USTR held apublic hearing on September23-25, 1992, for the purposeof hearing views on possibleaction being considered inresponse to the People'sRepublic of China's barriersto market access. OnOctober 10, 1992, USTRterminated the investigationinitiated under section 302 ofthe Trade Act of 1974, asamended, having reached asatisfactory resolution of theissues.(57 FR 47889)

Taiwan Intellectual Property(301-89)*

On May 29, 1992, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(2)(A) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the authorities onTaiwan that deny adequateand effective protection ofintellectual property rights.

On May 29, 1992, USTRinvited public comments onthe matters being investigated(57 FR 23605) and requestedconsultations with theTaiwan government.

On June 5, 1992, USTRterminated the investigationafter reaching an agreementon providing improved levelsof protection for patents,copyrights, trade secrets,layout designs of integratedcircuits and industrialdesigns. In addition, pursuantto section 182(c)(1)(A) of theTrade Act, the USTR hasdecided that the informationin the Agreement warrantsrevocation of theidentification of Taiwan as a'priority foreign country.' TheUSTR will monitorcompliance with this tradeagreement pursuant to section306 of the Trade Act. (57 FR25091).

Indonesia Pencil Slats (301-90)

On August 18, 1992, P&MCedar Products, Inc. andHudson ICS filed a petitionpursuant to section 302(a) ofthe Trade Act alleging thatvarious Indonesian practicesconcerning pencil slats areunreasonable and burden orrestrict United Statescommerce. The petitionalleges that the followingpractices by Indonesia havethe effect of enhancingexports of Indonesian pencilslats to third-country marketsand are actionable undersection 301: (1) theimposition of differentialexport taxes, with anextremely high tax on logsand no tax on finishedproducts such as pencil slats;(2) underpricing ofgovernment-owned timberstock; and (3) failure toenforce the terms of timberconcession arrangements.

On October 2, 1992, USTRinitiated an investigation under section 302 of theTrade Act and requestedpublic comment on theallegations in the petition.Also on that date, the USrequested consultations withthe Indonesian Government.

On December 31, 1992, theUSTR terminated theinvestigation afterdetermining that there was noevidence that the allegedpractices are having theadverse trade effects assertedby the petition. Thus, evenassuming that the allegedpractices exist and wouldotherwise be consideredactionable under section301(b), there is no basis forconcluding that they areburdening or restrictingUnited States commerce. (58FR 610).

Brazil Intellectual PropertyRights (301-91)*

On May 28, 1993, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(2)(A) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof the Republic of Brazil thatdeny adequate and effectiveprotection of intellectualproperty rights.

On May 28, 1993, USTRinvited public comment onthe matters being investigatedand requested consultationswith the BrazilianGovernment(58 FR 31788). On November 26, 1993,USTR determined thatcomplex or complicatedissues were involved in theinvestigation and that itrequired additional time, thusthe deadline for USTR'sdeterminations under section304(a)(1) on actionability andwhat action, if any, should betaken was extended until nolater than February 28, 1994(58 FR 64351). On January28, 1994, USTR requestedfurther public comment onwhether the acts, policies,and practices underinvestigation areunreasonable and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce, and ifso, what responsive action, ifany, should be taken pursuantto section 301 of the TradeAct (59 FR 4135). OnFebruary 28, 1994 on thebasis of measures andassurances offered, the USTRdecided to terminate thisinvestigation. Pursuant tosection 182(c)(1)(A) of theTrade Act, the USTR decidedthat the information receivedwarrants revocation ofBrazil's identification as apriority foreign country. TheUSTR is monitoring Brazil'simplementation of thesemeasures under section306(a)(2) of the Trade Act

China Intellectual PropertyRights (301-92)*

On June 30, 1994, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(2)(A) ofthe Trade with respect tocertain acts, policies, andpractices of the Governmentof the People's Republic ofChina that deny adequate andeffective protection ofintellectual property rights.

On June 30, 1994, USTRinvited public comment onthe matters being investigatedand requested consultationswith the Chinese government(59 FR 35558).

On December 31, 1994,USTR determined that ascomplex or complicatedissues were involved in theinvestigation, requiringadditional time, theinvestigation should beextended to February 4, 1995(60 FR 1829). On the samedate, the USTR alsorequested public comment onproposed determinations onthe actionability undersection 301 of the practicesunder investigations and onappropriate action undersection 301 in response tothem. A public hearing washeld on January 24-25 to hearviews on the proposed action. On February 4, 1995, theUSTR determined pursuantto section 304(a) that certainacts, policies and practices ofChina with respect to itsprotection of intellectualproperty rights and theprovision of market access topersons who rely onintellectual property rightsprotection was unreasonableand discriminatory andconstituted a burden orrestriction on U.S. commerce. The USTR also determinedthat the appropriate action inresponse was, pursuant tosection 301 (b) and (c), to

Japan Auto Parts *(301-93) On October 1, 1994, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder Section 302(b)(1)(a) ofthe Trade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof Japan that restrict or denyU.S. auto parts suppliers'access to the auto partsreplacement and accessoriesmarket in Japan.

On October 13, 1994, USTRinvited public comment onthe matters being investigated(59 FR 52034-35) and onNovember 10, 1994 USTRextended the comment period(59 FR 56099). On May 10,1995, the USTR determinethat acts, policies andpractices of Japan that restrictor deny suppliers of U.S. autoparts access to the autoreplacement and accessoriesmarket in Japan areunreasonable anddiscriminatory and burden orrestrict commerce. On May18, 1995, USTR requestedpublic comment and held apublic hearing on June 8,1995, on a proposeddetermination that theappropriate action in responsewould be to impose 100%tariff on luxury motorvehicles from Japan (60 FR26745).

Effective June 28, 1995,having reached a satisfactoryresolution of the issues underinvestigation, the USTRdetermined that theappropriate action in this casewas to terminate theinvestigation and monitorcompliance with theagreement in accordance withsection 306 of the Trade Act(60 FR 35253).

European CommunityBanana Import Regime (301-94)

Chiquita BrandsInternational, Inc. and theHawaii Banana IndustryAssociation filed a petitionon September 2, 1994pursuant to section 302(a) ofthe Trade Act alleging thatvarious policies and practicesof the European Union,Colombia, Costa Rica,Nicaragua and Venezuelaconcerning trade in bananasare discriminatory,unreasonable and burden orrestrict United Statescommerce. The petitionalleges that the followingacts, policies and practicesare discriminatory andunreasonable: (1) CouncilRegulation (EEC) No. 404/93and related rulesimplementing a Communitybanana policy and theframework agreement onbananas between theEuropean Union and the fourabove mentioned LatinAmerican countries arediscriminating.

On October 17, 1994, USTRinitiated an investigationunder Section 302 of theTrade Act of the EuropeanUnion's practices, invitedpublic comment on thematters being investigatedand requested consultationswith the EU (59 FR 53495). USTR decided not to initiatean investigation underSection 302 at that timeagainst Colombia, CostaRica, Nicaragua andVenezuela. On November21, 1994 USTR extended thecomment period (59 FR60026).

On January 9, 1995, USTRrequested public comment ona proposed determination thatthe acts, practices andpolicies of the EU withrespect to bananas areunreasonable anddiscriminatory and burden orrestrict US commerce and onwhat action in response isappropriate (60 FR 3285).

On September 27, 1995USTR terminated thisinvestigation and initiated asecond investigation, (60 FR52027) see 301-100.

Korean Agricultural MarketAccess Restrictions(301-95)

On November 18, 1994, theNational Pork ProducersCounsel, the American MeatInstitute and the NationalCattlement filed a petitionunder section 302(a) of theTrade Act with respect toKorean practices regardingthe importation of certainU.S. agricultural products. The petition alleges thatcertain practices of theGovernment of Korearegarding the importation ofU.S. beef and pork productsviolates three U.S. Koreabilateral trade agreements andare unreasonable and burdenor restrict U.S. commerce.

On November 22, 1994,USTR initiated aninvestigation under Section302(a) and invited publiccomment on the matter beinginvestigated (59 FR 61006).

On July 20, 1995, the USTRterminated its investigationfollowing an agreementbetween the U. S. and Korea. The USTR will monitorKorea's implementation ofthe agreement pursuant tosection 306 of the Trade Act(60 FR 42925).

Colombia Exportation ofBananas to EU (301-96)*

On January 9, 1995, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder Section 302(b)(1)(A)of the Trade Act to determinewhether, as a result ofColombia's implementationof the FrameworkAgreement, the policies andpractices of Colombiaregarding the exportation ofbananas to the EU areunreasonable anddiscriminatory and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce.

On January 9, 1995, USTRinvited public comment onthe matters being investigatedand requested consultationswith the ColombiaGovernment (50 FR 3283). On January 10, 1996, theUSTR determined that thepractices under investigationwere unreasonable ordiscriminatory and burdenedor restricted U.S. commerce,and that, because Columbiahas not fully addressed all theacts, policies, and practicesfound actionable pursuant tosection 301 (b)(1), theappropriate action at this timeis to direct USTR officials toimplement a process aimed ataddressing the remainingburden or restriction on U.S.commerce while monitoring,under section 306,Colombia's commitmentsmade on January 9, 1996,during bilateral consultations,and to terminate theinvestigation.

Costa Rica Exportation ofBananas to the EU (301-97)*

On January 9, 1995, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1)(A) ofthe Trade Act to determinewhether, as a result of CostaRica's implementation of theFramework agreement, thepolicies and practices ofCosta Rica regarding theexportation of bananas to theEU are unreasonable anddiscriminatory and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce.

On January 9, 1995, USTRinvited public comment onthe matters being investigatedand requested consultationwith the Government ofCosta Rica (60 FR 3284-85). On January 10, 1996, theUSTR determined that thepractices under investigationwere unreasonable ordiscriminatory and burdenedor restricted U.S. commerce,and that, because Costa Ricahas not fully addressed all theacts policies, and practicesfound actionable pursuant tosection 301 (b)(1), theappropriate action at this timewas to direct USTR officialsto implement a process aimedat addressing the remainingburden or restriction on U.S.commerce while monitoring,under section 306, CostaRica's commitments made onJanuary 6, 1996, duringbilateral consultations, and toterminate the investigations.

Canadian CommunicationsPractices (301-98)

On December 23, 1994,Country Music Television(CMT), filed a petitionpursuant to section 302(a) ofthe Trade Act alleging thatacts, policies and practices ofthe Canadian governmentregarding the authorizationfor distribution via cablecarriage of U.S.-ownedprogramming services areunreasonable anddiscriminatory and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce.

On February 6, 1995, USTRinitiated an investigation,invited public comment onthe matters being investigatedand requested consultationswith the Government ofCanada (60 FR 8101-2). USTR also requested publiccomment concerning aproposed determination thatcertain acts, policies andpractices of Canada withrespect to the granting ortermination of authorizationsfor U.S.-owned programmingservices to be distributed inCanada via cable carriage areunreasonable ordiscriminatory and constitutea burden or restriction onU.S. commerce.

On February 6, 1996, theUSTR determined pursuantto section 304(a)(1)(A)(ii) ofthe Trade Act that certainacts, policies and practices ofthe Government of Canadawith respect to the granting ortermination of authorizationfor US owned programmingservices to be distributed inCanada via cable carriagedeny market access for suchservices and are unreasonableand discriminatory andconstitute a burden orrestriction on US commerce. As negotiations to restoreCMT's access were ongoingand Canada had taken nosubsequent action toterminate the authorizationsof other U.S. -ownedprogramming services, the

Barriers to Access to theJapanese Market forConsumer Photographic Filmand Paper (301-99)

On May 18, 1995, theEastman Kodak Companyfiled a petition pursuant tosection 302(a) of the TradeAct alleging that certain acts,policies and practices ofJapan deny access to themarket for photographic filmand paper in Japan and areunjustifiable, unreasonableand discriminatory andactionable under section 301.

On July 2, 1995, the USTRinitiated an investigation withrespect to barriers to access tothe Japanese market forconsumer photographic filmand paper. USTR invitedpublic comment on thematters being investigatedand the determinations to bemade under section 304 ofthe Trade Act and requestedconsultations with theGovernment of Japan (60 FR35447).

On June 13, 1996, the ActingUSTR determined, pursuantto section 304(a)(1)(A) of theTrade Act, that certain acts,policies, and practices of theGovernment of Japan withrespect to the sale anddistribution of consumerphotographic materials inJapan are unreasonable andburden or restrict U.S.commerce and that these actsshould be addressed by: (1)seeking recourse to thedispute settlement proceduresof the WTO to challengeJapanese Governmentliberalizationcountermeasures; (2)(a)requesting consultations withthe Government of Japanunder the WTO provision forconsultations on restrictivebusiness practices; (b)(i)requesting that Kodakprovide information forsubmission to the Japan FairTrade Commission (JFTC)concerning anticompetitivepractices in this sector,(ii)

European CommunityBanana Import Regime (301-100)*

Pursuant to section 302(b)(1)of the Trade Act, the USTRself-initiated a newinvestigation concerning theEuropean Union's (EU) acts,policies and practices relatingto the importation, sale anddistribution of bananas. (See301-94)

The USTR invited publiccomment on the acts, policiesand practices of the EU andpursuant to section 303(a) ofthe Trade Act, requestedconsultations with the EUpursuant to the WTO'sUnderstanding on Rules andProcedures Concerning theSettlement of Disputes(DSU) (60 FR 52027 of10/04/95).

On May 8, 1996, the DSBestablished a panel inresponse to the April 11,1996, panel request filedjointly and severally byEcuador, Guatemala,Honduras, Mexico, and theUnited States. A WTOdispute settlement Panel wassubsequently formed toaddress this dispute, and, in areport circulated in May 1997found in favor of the UnitedStates. The findings in thereport were affirmed by theWTO Appellate Body onSeptember 9, 1997, andadopted by the WTO DisputeSettlement Body onSeptember 25, 1997.

EU Enlargement (301-101) On October 24, 1995, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1) of theTrade Act with respect to thedenial of benefits under atrade agreement by theEuropean Union arising fromthe accession of Austria,Finland and Sweden.

On October 27, 1995, USTRrequested public comment,while a public hearing washeld on November 21, 1995,on a proposed determination(60 FR 55076). OnDecember 22, 1995, theEuropean Union Councilapproved the U.S.-E.U.Agreements on EUEnlargement and Grainswhich provides fullcompensation to the UnitedStates for tariff increases thatoccurred when the threecountries acceded to the EU.

Effective October 21, 1996,having reached an agreementthat provided a satisfactoryresolution of the issues underinvestigation, the ActingUSTR decided to terminatethis investigation and tomonitor EU implementationpursuant to section 306 of theTrade Act (61 FR 56082 of10/30/96).

Canadian Practices AffectingPeriodicals (301-102)

On March 11, 1996, theUSTR self-initiated aninvestigation under section302(b)(1) of the Trade Actwith respect to certain acts,policies and practices of theGovernment of Canada thatrestrict or prohibit imports ofcertain periodicals intoCanada and applydiscriminatory treatment tocertain imported periodicals.

The USTR requested publiccomment and requestedconsultations with theGovernment of Canadapursuant to Article XXII ofGATT, 1994, and Article 4 ofthe WTO DSU (61 FR 11067of 3/18/96). A WTO disputesettlement Panel wassubsequently formed and, in areport circulated in March1997, found in favor of theUnited States. The findingsof this report were upheld bythe WTO's appellate body onJune 30, 1997. BecauseCanada announced itsintention to comply with thePanel and Appellate Bodyreports, this investigation wasterminated on September 11,1997 (62 FR 50651 of 9/26/97).

Portugal's PracticesRegarding Term of PatentProtection (301-103)

On April 30, 1996, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1) of theTrade Act with respect tocertain act, policies andpractices of the Governmentof Portugal relating to theterm of existing patents.

The USTR requested publiccomment concerning the acts,policies and practices ofPortugal being investigatedand requested consultationswith the Government ofPortugal pursuant to ArticleXXII of GATT, 1994, andArticle 4 of the WTO DSU(61 FR 19971 of 5/3/96).

On May 30, 1996, the UnitedStates and Portugal heldformal consultations. OnAugust 23, 1996, Portugalissued Decree-Law 141/96 toimplement properly its patentterm related obligations underthe TRIPS agreement. Having reached a satisfactoryresolution of the issues underinvestigation, the USTRterminated the investigationon October 21, 1996, and willmonitor implementation ofthe agreement under section306 of the Trade Act. Accordingly, on October 21,1996 USTR terminated thisinvestigation (61 FR 55352of 10/26/97).

Pakistan's PracticesRegarding Patent Protectionfor Pharmaceuticals andAgricultural Chemicals (301-104)

On April 30, 1996 USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1) of theTrade act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof Pakistan that may result inthe denial of patents andexclusive marketing rights toU.S. individuals and firmsinvolved in the developmentof innovative pharmaceuticaland agricultural chemicalsproducts.

The USTR invited publiccomment on the mattersbeing investigated andrequested consultations withthe Government of Pakistanpursuant to Article XXII ofGATT, 1994, and Article 4 ofthe WTO DSU( 61 FR 19971of 5/3/97). Consultationswere held on May 30, 1996. On July 4, 1996 the U.S.requested establishment of aPanel.

After consultations betweenthe United States andPakistan, Pakistan issuedOrdinance No. XXVI of1997. On February 28, 1997,the United States andPakistan jointly notified theWTO Dispute SettlementBody (DSB) of the settlementof this matter in light ofPakistan's plannedimplementation of OrdinanceNo. XXVI. Having reached asatisfactory resolution of theissues under investigation,the USTR terminated thissection 302 investigation andwill monitor implementationof the agreement undersection 306 of the Trade Act. This investigation wasterminated June 8, 1997 (62FR 33695 of 6/20/97).

Turkey's Practices Regardingthe Imposition of aDiscriminatory Tax on BoxOffice Revenues (301-105)

On June 12, 1996, USTRself-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1) of theTrade act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof Turkey that may result inthe discriminatory treatmentof U.S. films in Turkey.

The USTR invited publiccomment on the mattersbeing investigated (61 FR32883) and requestedconsultations with theGovernment of Turkeypursuant to Article XXII ofGATT, 1994, and Article 4 ofthe WTO DSU (61 FR 32883of 6/25/96). Although aWTO dispute settlementPanel was subsequentlyformed to address thisdispute, the Panel did notproceed because Turkeyagreed to eliminate itsdiscriminatory practice. Thissettlement was notified to theWTO Dispute SettlementBody on July 17, 1997.

India's Practices RegardingPatent Protection forPharmaceuticals andAgricultural Chemicals (301-106)

On July 2, 1996, USTR self-initiated an investigationunder section 302(b)(1) of theTrade Act with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof India that may result in thedenial of patents andexclusive marketing rights toU.S. individuals and firmsinvolved in the developmentof innovative pharmaceuticaland agricultural chemicalproducts.

The USTR invited publiccomment on the mattersbeing investigated andrequested consultation withthe Government of Indiapursuant to Article XXII ofGATT, 1994, and Article 4 ofthe WTO DSU and Article 64of the TRIPs Agreement (61FR 35857 of 7/8/96). Subsequently, a WTO disputesettlement panel was formedto address this dispute and, ina report circulated September5, 1997, found in favor of theUnited States. India appealedthis decision to the WTO'sAppellate Body on October15, 1997.

Australian SubsidesAffecting Leather (301-107)

On August 19, 1996, theCoalition Against AustralianLeather Subsidies filed apetition pursuant to section302(a) of the Trade Actalleging that certain subsidyprograms of the Governmentof Australia constitute acts,policies and practices thatviolate, or are inconsistentwith and otherwise denybenefits to the United Statesunder GATT 1994 and theSCM Agreement.

On October 3, 1996, theUSTR initiated aninvestigation pursuant tosection 302(a) to determinewhether certain acts, policiesor practices of theGovernment of Australiaregarding subsidies availableto leather under the Textile,Clothing and FootwearImport Credit Scheme andanother subsidies to leathergranted or maintained inAustralia which areprohibited under Article 3 ofthe SCM Agreement areactionable under section 301. The USTR sought publiccomment on this matter andrequested consultations withthe Government of Australiapursuant to Articles 1 and 4of the Understanding onRules and ProceduresGoverning the Settlement ofDisputes (DSU), Article 4.1of the SCM Agreement, andArticle XXIII:1 of GATT1994 as incorporated inArticle 30 of the SCMAgreement (61 FR 55063 of10/23/96). Consultationswere held on October 31,1996, and a settlement of thisdispute was reached onNovember 25, 1996. Due toa new, replacement subsidiespackage put in place by theGovernment of Australia,new consultations wererequested on November 10,1997.

Argentine Specific Dutiesand Non-Tariff BarriersAffecting Apparel, Textiles,Footwear (301-108)

On October 4, 1996, theUSTR self-initiated aninvestigation under section302(b)(1) of the Trade Actwith respect to certain acts,policies and practices of theGovernment of Argentinaconcerning the imposition of(1) specific duties on apparel,textiles, footwear and otherad valorem; (2) adiscriminatory statistical taxand (3) a burdensomelabeling requirement onapparel, textiles andfootwear.

The USTR requested publiccomment and also requestedconsultations with theGovernment of Argentinapursuant to Article 4 of theUnderstanding on Rules andProcedures Governing theSettlement of Disputes(DSU), Article XXII:1GATT, 1994, Article 14 ofthe Agreement on TechnicalBarriers to Trade, Article 19of th Agreement on theImplementation of Article VIIof the GATT 1994, andArticle 7 of the Agreement onTextiles and Clothing (61 FR53776 of 10/15/96). Becausethese consultations failed toresolve this dispute, a WTOdispute settlement panel wasestablished on February 25,1997. The WTO Panel ruledin favor of the United Statesin November, 1997.

Indonesian Practices Re:Promotion of Motor VehicleSector (301-109)

On October 8, 1996, theUSTR self-initiated aninvestigation under section302(b)(1) of the Trade Actwith respect to certain acts,policies and practices of theGovernment of Indonesiaconcerning the grant ofconditional tax and tariffbenefits intended to develop amotor vehicle sector inIndonesia.

The USTR invited publiccomment on the mattersbeing investigated andrequested consultation withthe Government of Indonesiapursuant to Article 1 and 4 ofthe DSU, Article XXII:1 ofthe GATT 1994, Article 8 ofTRIMs Agreement, Articles 7and 30 of the SCMAgreement, and Article 64 ofthe TRIPS Agreement (61 FR54247 of 10/17/96). Becausesubsequent consultationsproved unsuccessful, a WTOdispute panel has beenformed to address thisdispute.

Brazilian Practices RegardingTrade and Investment in theAuto Sector (301-110)

On October 11, 1996, theUSTR self-initiated aninvestigation under section302(b)(1) of the Trade Act of1974, with respect to certainacts, policies and practices ofthe Government of Brazilconcerning the grant of tariff-reduction benefits contingenton satisfying certain exportperformance and domesticcontent requirements.

In August 1996, the USTRsought consultations withBrazil regarding its autoregime. Subsequently, Brazilagreed to enter into intensivetalks with the United Statesto discuss the removal of thediscriminatory impact of theBrazilian practices on U.S.exports. Pending thesuccessful outcome of thesetalks, the USTR decided,pursuant to section303(b)(1)(A) of the TradeAct of 1974, to delay for upto 90 days requesting WTOdispute settlement procedures(required under section303(a) of the Trade Act) forthe purpose of ensuring andadequate basis for suchconsultations. The USTRalso invited writtencomments on the mattersbeing investigated (61 FR54485 of 10/18/96). OnJanuary 10, 1997 the UnitedStates requested formalconsultations pursuant toArticles 1 and 4 of the WTO,DSU, Article XXIII:1 of theGATT 1994, Article 8 of theTRIMS Agreement, andArticles 4.1, 7.1 and 30 of theSCM Agreement.

Certain Subsidies AffectingAccess to the EuropeanCommunities' Market forModified Starch (301-111)

On January 22, 1997, theU.S. Wheat Gluten IndustryCouncil filed a petitionpursuant to 302(a) of theTrade Act alleging thatcertain subsidy schemes ofthe EC constitute acts,policies and practices thatviolate, or are inconsistentwith and otherwise denybenefits to the United Statesunder the GATT of 1994 andthe Agreement on Subsidiesand CountervailingMeasurers.

On March 8, 1997 the USTRinitiated an investigation withrespect to certain act, policiesand practices of the EuropeanUnion (EC); morespecifically the provision ofsubsidies that affect access tothe EC modified starchmarket. The Acting USTRinvited written commentsfrom the public on thematters being investigatedand the determinations to bemade under section 304 ofthe Trade Act, and postponedrequesting WTOconsultations under Section303 for a period up to 90 daysfor the purpose of ensuring anadequate basis for suchconsultations (62 FR 12264of 3/14/97).

Following consultatiions withthe petitioners, on June 6,1997, the Acting USTRannounced her intention toconsult with the EuropeanCommunities (EC) regardingwheat gluten exports from theEC to the United Statespursuant to a bilateralagreement with the EC ongrains (signed July 22, 1996). Pending the outcome of theseconsultations, the USTR willnot pursue consultationsunder the WTO agreementsand terminated, effectiveJune 6, 1997, theinvestigation initiated onMarch 8, 1997, under section302(a) of the Trade Act of1974 (62 FR 32398 of6/13/97).

Japan Market Access Barriersto Agricultural Products(301-112)

On October 7, 1997, theUSTR self-initiated aninvestigation with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof Japan concerning Japan'sprohibition on imports ofcertain agricultural products.

The USTR requestedconsultations with theGovernment of Japanpursuant to Article 4 of theWTO DSU, Article 11 of theAgreement on theApplication of Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures,Article XXIII of GATT 1994,and Article 19 of theAgreement on Agriculture, toaddress the matters beinginvestigated. The USTR alsoinvited written commentsfrom the public on thesematters (62 FR 53853 of10/16/97).

Canadian Export Subsidiesand Market Access for DairyProducts (301-113)

On September 5, 1997, theNational Milk ProducersFederation, the U.S. DairyExport Council, and theInternational Dairy FoodsAssociation filed a petitionpursuant to section 302(a) ofthe Trade Act alleging thatcertain export subsidies of theGovernment of Canada andCanada's failure to implementa TRQ for fluid milkconstitute acts, policies andpractices that violate, or areinconsistent with andotherwise deny benefits to theUnited States under theUruguay Round Agreementon Agriculture and GATT1994.

On October 8, 1997, theUSTR initiated aninvestigation under section302(a) of the Trade Act of1974 with respect to certainacts, policies and practices ofthe Government of Canadawith respect to exportsubsidies on dairy products,and the operation of Canada'stariff rate quota (TRQ) forfluid milk. The USTRinvited written commentsfrom the public on thematters being investigatedand the determinations to bemade under Section 304 ofthe Trade Act of 1974 (62 FR53851 of 10/16/97). Inaddition, the USTR requestedconsultations with Canadaregarding the issues underinvestigation pursuant toArticle 4 of the WTO DSU,Article XXII of the GATT1994, and Article 30 of theAgreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures.

EU Circumvention of ExportSubsidy Commitments onDairy Products (301-114)

On October 8, 1997, TheUSTR self-initiated aninvestigation with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the EuropeanUnion (EU) concerningexport subsidies on processedcheese.

The USTR invited publiccomment on the mattersbeing investigated (62 FR53852 of 10/16/97) andrequested consultations withthe EU regarding the isuesunder investigation. Therequest was made pursuant toArticle 4 of the WTO DSU,Article 19, of the Agreementon Agriculture to the extent itincorporates Article XXII ofthe GATT 1994, and Article30 of the Agreement onSubsidies and CountervailingMeasurers to the extent itincorporates Article XXII ofthe GATT 1994.

Korean Barriers to AutoImports (115)

On October 20, 1997, theUSTR initiated aninvestigation with respect tocertain acts, policies andpractices of the Governmentof the Republic of Korea thatpose barriers to imports ofU.S. autos into the Koreanmarket.

The USTR invited publiccomment on the mattersbeing investigated (62 FR55843 of 10/28/97).

Honduran Protection ofIntellectual Property Rights(301-116)

On October 31, 1997, theUSTR initiated aninvestigation with regard toacts and policies of theGovernment of Honduraswith respect to the protectionof intellectual property rights,and proposed to determinethat these acts, policies andpractices are actionable undersection 301(b) and that theappropriate response is apartial suspension of tariffpreferences.

The USTR invited publiccomments on the mattersbeing investigated andparticipation in a publichearing concerning theproposed determinations andaction. (62 FR 60299 of11/7/97)