[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25213]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Report of Trade Expansion Priorities Pursuant to Executive Order
12901
AGENCY: Office of United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) has submitted the report published herein to the
Committee on Finance of the United States Senate and the Committee on
Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives
identifying trade expansion priorities pursuant to Executive Order
12901 of March 3, 1994.
DATES: The report was submitted on October 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irving Williamson, Chairman, Section
301 Committee, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20506, (202) 395-3432.
Authority: E.O. 12901 of March 3, 1994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the USTR report is as follows:
Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities Pursuant to Executive
Order 12901
This report is submitted pursuant to Executive Order 12901 of March
3, 1994. Under the Executive Order the United States Trade
Representative is required, by September 30, 1994, to ``review United
States trade expansion priorities and identify priority foreign country
practices, the elimination of which is likely to have the most
significant potential to increase United States exports, either
directly or through the establishment of a beneficial precedent.''
In identifying priority foreign country practices, the Trade
Representative must take into account all relevant factors, including:
(a) The major barriers and trade distorting practices described in
the National Trade Estimate Report;
(b) The trade agreements to which a foreign country is a party and
its compliance with those agreements;
(c) The medium-term and long-term implications of foreign
government procurement plans; and
(d) The international competitive position and export potential of
United States products and services.
The Executive Order permits the Trade Representative to include, if
appropriate, ``a description of the foreign country practices that may
in the future warrant identification as priority foreign country
practices.'' The Trade Representative may also include ``a statement
about other foreign country practices that were not identified because
they are already being addressed by provisions of United States trade
law, existing bilateral trade agreements, or in trade negotiations with
other countries and progress is being made toward their elimination.''
The Global Context
Changes in the world economy, reinforced by the end of the Cold
War, have opened up new opportunities in the global marketplace. The
United States is well-positioned to take advantage of these
opportunities. We are unsurpassed in innovation and flexibility. Gains
in productivity have fueled our competitiveness. Our higher education
is unsurpassed. Our workers are the most skilled and productive in the
world.
This new world is extremely competitive. In order to remain
successful, we must pursue a strategy consisting of two interrelated
parts: trade policies that will open markets around the world; and
domestic policies that will help American companies and workers to
remain the most productive in the world. This two-part strategy
reflects the Administration's fundamental goal of higher living
standards for all Americans.
The single most important component of our trade strategy is the
successful implementation of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations. The Uruguay Round agreements amount to a global tax cut
of some $744 billion. They will stimulate the creation of hundreds of
thousands of jobs and, when fully implemented, add an estimated $100-
200 billion to the U.S. GDP annually.
The Uruguay Round agreements contain improvements in market access
worldwide for goods and services, improved rules for trade, a new
agreement protecting intellectual property worldwide, and dramatically
improved procedures to enforce our rights. The improvements in dispute
settlement under the new World Trade Organization (WTO) can provide
real assurance to our exports that our gains at the bargaining table
will be translated into real market opportunities, and that any
impairment of our rights to market access will have an expeditious
remedy. But these benefits, scheduled to go into effect on January 1,
1995, will materialize only if Congress has adopted legislation
approving and implementing the Uruguay Round agreements. For this
reason, the Administration urges expeditious approval of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, which the President submitted to Congress on
September 27.
Enforcement
The Administration remains committed to vigorous enforcement of our
rights under trade agreements--both our rights at present, and the
expanded rights we will have when the Uruguay Round results enter into
effect. Section 301 will remain an essential element of our strategy in
enforcing our rights in the new WTO system. Under WTO dispute
settlement procedures, we will be authorized to retaliate against the
trade of any government found to be violating our rights, if that
government does not either eliminate the violation or provide
compensation acceptable to us. Such realization would be carried out
under the authority of section 301 as a matter of U.S. trade law.
Section 301 will also remain an important tool in addressing unfair
practices not covered under the Uruguay Round agreements. And it will
be available to us when we encounter trade-restricting practices by
either non-members of the WTO or governments to which we do not apply
the Uruguay Round agreements.
Priority Foreign Country Practices
As a result of the review under Executive Order 12901 and the
results to date of intensive negotiations, the Trade Representative has
decided not to identify any priority foreign country practices at this
time.
We have had serious, long-standing concerns regarding access to the
Japanese market for flat glass. We have reached agreement with Japan in
principle concerning access to the distribution system and access to
the public and private construction markets for flat glass in Japan,
and have also agreed to work to finalize that agreement within the next
thirty days.
Other Practices
A. The following practices may in the future warrant identification
as priority foreign country practices:
--Japan market access for wood and paper:
In the 1990 U.S.-Japan Wood Products Agreement, Japan agreed to
substantially reduce tariffs, to reduce subsidies, to speed up product
certification, and to adopt performance-based standards and building
codes. Progress has been made, but new or existing barriers continue to
impede market access. Tariffs, although reduced in the Uruguay Round,
remain a significant impediment. Adoption of performance-based
standards and building codes has been slow and Japan maintains a
parallel unliberalized set of building standards for housing loans.
Subsidies to the wood products industry appear to have risen. We seek
further market opening through the elimination of these remaining
barriers.
In April 1992, Japan agreed to take GATT-consistent measures to
increase substantially market access in Japan for foreign paper and
paperboard products, to realize the objective in the January 1992 Bush-
Miyazawa action plan of January 1992 ``to substantially increase market
access for foreign firms exporting paper products to Japan.'' Four
consultations have been held under the agreement. In the Uruguay Round,
Japan agreed to join a Quad country consensus to cut tariffs on paper
to zero over 10 years. However, Japan has failed to provide detailed
information on the degree to which Japanese government agencies are
implementing provisions which obligate them to actively encourage use
of foreign products by end-users in key market segments. We seek a full
accounting by all appropriate entities within the Japanese government
on their implementation of the agreement, as well as other measures to
augment the agreement and make it more effective.
B. The following foreign country practices were determined not to
be appropriate for identification because they are already being
addressed by other provisions of United States trade law, existing
bilateral agreements, or in trade negotiations with other countries and
progress is being made toward their elimination. They do, however,
remain significant trade negotiating objectives for the United States.
--European Union Utilities Directive: Under the European Union's
Utilities Directive, which took effect on January 1, 1993,
telecommunications utilities in 8 EU member countries now penalize bids
by U.S. suppliers containing over 50% non-EU content and May reject
such bids completely. In May 1993, the U.S. implemented sanctions
against the EU under Title VII of the 1988 Trade Act. These sanctions
ban the purchase by the U.S. government of certain goods and services
from these 8 countries. We will continue to seek removal of the
discriminatory aspects of the Directive through negotiation with the
EU.
--Canada dairy and poultry measures: In implementing the Uruguay Round,
Canada intends to convert its existing import quotas on dairy products,
chicken, turkey and eggs to tariff-rate quotas, and raise its bound
tariffs on these products. Canada has also stated its intention to
apply these tariffs on imports from the United States. We believe such
an action would reduce our access to the Canadian market. If it becomes
appropriate, this matter could be addressed through the NAFTA process.
--India market access for textiles: India severely restricts imports of
textiles and apparel, and maintains high tariffs. In implementing the
Uruguay Round, the Administration has agreed to take all appropriate
measures to obtain market access commitments from any signatory to the
WTO Agreement that is a significant exporter of textiles and apparel to
the United Sates and that we consider has failed to provide adequate
access to its market for U.S. textile and apparel products. We are
currently engaged in negotiations with the Indian government and will
continue to seek improvements in market access for textiles and
apparel.
--Korea market access for automobiles: Actions by the Korean government
have built and reinforced perceptions among Korean consumers that the
purchase of a foreign car will lead to government harassment. Other
barriers to imports include excise taxes, high tariffs, standards
barriers, distribution restrictions and a ban on
private sector retail financing. The Korean government has taken some
steps to address these barriers and has pledged to take others. Our
continuing consultations are aimed at ensuring that the remaining
barriers are addressed and that the Korean government's actions result
in improved access for imported motor vehicles.
--Intellectual property rights protection ion China: On June 30,
through the ``Special 301'' process under Section 182 of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242), the Trade Representative
designated China as a priority foreign country, and initiated a section
301 investigation of China's failure to provide adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights and fair and equitable
market access to persons relying on intellectual property protection.
Negotiations with the Chinese government to address these concerns are
ongoing. By December 31, 1994, the Trade Representative will be
required to determine whether China's failure to address our concerns
represents an unreasonable or discriminatory burden or restriction on
U.S. commerce and whether trade action is appropriate.
--Financial services market access negotiations: The WTO Agreement
provides for continuing market access negotiations in the financial
services sector, to conclude six months after its entry into force. The
United States is seeking commitments from a wide range of commercially
important developed and developing countries to reduce or eliminate
barriers to the supply by U.S. financial services firms of financial
services including banking, securities, insurance and other financial
services. If we do not achieve our objectives, we would maintain an
exemption from the most-favored-nation obligation of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services.
--Telecommunications market access: The WTO Agreement provides for
continuing market access negotiations in the basic telecommunications
services sector. These negotiations cover local, long-distance, and
international basic telecommunications services. In these negotiations,
we will seek to ensure that U.S. firms may provide basic
telecommunications services in foreign markets both through facilities-
based competition--including the right to build, own, and operate
domestic and international network facilities--and through the resale
of services on existing networks. We will also seek to ensure that U.S.
companies can compete in foreign markets on reasonable and non-
discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.
--Negotiations on accession to the World Trade Organization: The United
States will also continue to seek market opening for our goods and
services, and to achieve protection of intellectual property rights
abroad, in negotiating with countries that are seeking admission as
members to the World Trade Organization. The Agreement Establishing the
WTO requires that all members must provide market access, and the
Administration is committed to gaining appropriate market access from
every applicant for membership.
Ira Shapiro,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 94-25213 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
