WORLD TRADE G/SCM/N/3/USA
15March 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0944)
Original: English Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
SUBSIDIES
NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOARTICLE XVI.1 OFTHE GATT 1994
AND ARTICLE 25OFTHE AGREEMENT ONSUBSIDIES AND
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
UNITED STATES
Thefollowing notification fromthePermanent Mission oftheUnited States wasreceived on
7March 1996.
_______________
TABLE OFCONTENTS
Page
Introduction andGeneral Remarks 3
Federal-Level Programs (Sector-Specific Assistance) 4
AEROSPACE &AERONAUTICS 4
Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) Program 4
TheDC-XA Program 5
TheX-33 Program 6
TheX-34 Program 7
High Speed Research Program 8
Advanced Subsonic Technology Program 9
AGRICULTURE 10
TheExport Enhancement Program (EEP) 10
TheDairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) 12
Mandated Export Sales ofDairy Stocks 13
TheSunflowerseed OilandCottonseed OilAssistance Programs (SOAP &COAP) 14
Agricultural Price Support Programs 15
Support forWheat andFeed Grains (Corn, Barley, Oats, Rye) 16
Support forRice 23
Support forCotton -Upland andExtra Long Staple (ELS) 26
Support forOilseeds 30
Soybeans 30
Minor Oilseeds 32G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page2
Page
Support forPeanuts 33
Support forDairy Products 35
Support forSugar 36
Support forWool andMohair 38
Support forHoney 39
Support forTobacco 41
AUTOMOTIVES/ENGINES/MOTORS 43
Partnership foraNewGeneration ofVehicles (PNGV) 43
TheAlternative FuelVehicle Development Program 44
TheMotor Challenge Program 45
TheHeatEngines Program 46
TheElectric Hybrid Propulsion Program 47
BUILDING EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS 48
TheBuilding Equipment Program 48
TheBuilding Systems Program 49
TheBuilding Envelope Program 50
CERAMICS &LIGHT-WEIGHT MATERIALS 51
TheLight-Weight Transportation Materials Program 51
TheContinuous Fibre Ceramic Composite Program 52
CHEMICALS &PETROCHEMICALS 53
TheHydrogen Research &Development Program 53
ENERGY &FUELS (ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, STORAGE AND 54
TRANSPORTATION &OTHER RELATED SECTORS
TheMembrane Program 54
TheGeothermal Energy Program 55
TheEnergy Storage Systems Program 56
TheProcess Heating andCooling Program 57
TheBiomass Power Program 58
TheAdvanced Turbine System Program 59
TheIsotope Production andDistribution Program 60
TheUranium Programs Technology Partnerships Program - 61
Non-Uranium Enrichment Applications
TheCoalResearch andDevelopment Program 62
TheFuelCellforStationary Applications Program 63
TheOilProgram 64
TheNatural GasProgram 65
TheClean CoalTechnology Demonstration Program 66G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page3
Page
METALS 67
Materials andMetals Processing Metals Initiative 67
TEXTILES &CLOTHING 68
TheAMTEX Program 68
TheTextile/Clothing Technology Corporation Program (TC2) 69
Federal-Level Programs (General Export Programs) 70
TheExport Credit Programs oftheUSExport-Import Bank 70
APPENDIX 73
_______________
Introduction andGeneral Remarks
TheUnitedStatessubmitsthisnotificationincompliancewithitsobligationsunderArticleXVI:1
oftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade (GATT) 1994 andArticle 25oftheAgreement on
Subsidies andCountervailing Measures (the“Subsidies Agreement ”or“Agreement ”).Ingeneral,
theperiod towhich thefollowing information applies isthefiscal year1995(1October 1994through
30September 1995).
AstheMembersofthisCommitteeareaware,theUruguayRoundSubsidiesAgreementprovides
greater definition thanhasbeenthecaseinthepastastothenature andscope ofactivities which are
tobereported inconnection withMembers ’general subsidy notification obligations under theGATT
andtheWorld Trade Organization (WTO). Notwithstanding theadditional precision anddetail which
theSubsidies Agreement provides, thedecision astowhich activities toreport restsinlarge measure
onsometimes difficult judgments astowhen a“financial contribution ”isprovided, whether a“benefit ”
isconferred andthecircumstances inwhich theprovision ofasubsidy islimited, or“specific ”,to
anenterprise, industry orgroup thereof. Suchjudgments arefarfromclear-cut, andreasonable minds
maydiffer astowhether particular programs warrant notification. However, insofar asthenotification
obligation isatransparency-based provision that,pursuant toArticle 25.7oftheAgreement, carries
nolegalweight astotheactual identification ofasubsidy, itsactionability status, oritstrade effects,
theUnited States hasincluded certain activities initsnotification which arguably arenot(orarenot
always) “specific subsidies ”within themeaning oftheAgreement.
Forexample, eventhough thisnotification listsprograms by“sector ”inkeeping withthe
guidance provided inthequestionnaire format forsubsidy notifications (G/SCM/6), inreality many
programs bothbenefit andinvolve alarge number andwidevariety offirms andindustries thatare
notwithin theidentified sector (e.g.thePartnership foraNewGeneration ofVehicles). (Italsobears
noting thatmany ofthenotified programs involve theparticipation ofbothUS-andforeign-owned
firms.) Inaddition, inmany instances itisunrealistic toexpect thatthetrade effects ofsubsidies -
should theyeverarise-canbereadily identified onsuchageneralized basis. Asgovernments abandon
commodity-specific export andproduction subsidies infavour ofassistance thatisbothmore diffused
across industries andlessproximate tothemarketplace, theidentification oftradeeffects willnecessarily
become amore tenuous exercise. Thisisespecially trueofprograms involving support forresearchG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page4
anddevelopment (R&D) activities, where therelevance oftheR&D toparticular industries maynot
beknown atthetimethatassistance isprovided andthere canbesignificant timelagsbetween the
provision oftheassistance andthecommercialization ofanytechnologies orproducts thatmayresult
fromtheR&D. Finally, inanyconsideration oftheidentification ofsubsidies anddeterminations of
specificity, itmustbeacknowledged thattheevaluation ofcertain activities onaprogram-wide basis
mayleadtodifferent conclusions thanwhatwould obtain ifinvestigating authorities wereexamining
thespecific factsandcircumstances surrounding theprovision ofindividual subsidies received bya
particular firmorindustry.
Inlightoftheabove, while theUnited States hasundertaken considerable timeandeffort to
submit ascomprehensive anotification aspossible, suchcomprehensiveness canalways beimproved
uponbased oncontinued experience inMembers ’identification andanalysis ofmeasures fornotification
purposesaswellasintheSubsidiesCommittee’sreviewofallMembers’notifications.TheUnitedStates
maywellsupplement thisnotification atalaterdatewithadditional information, based onourongoing
review ofUSactivities. However, theuniformity ofthesubsidy notification obligation requires that
allMembers approach thisissue withatleastroughly equivalent expectations andefforts astothe
measures which require reporting. TheUnited States willbearthisprinciple carefully inmind asit
evaluates itsownmeasures forfuture notification andinitspreparations fortheCommittee ’sreview
ofother Members ’notifications.
Federal-Level Programs
(Sector-Specific Assistance)
AEROSPACE &AERONAUTICS
Title: Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995 (October 1994 -September 1995).
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheACTS program provides development andflight verification ofadvanced technologies
thatwould enhance thecapability ofcommunication satellites. Private sector organizations and
government agencies develop andexecute experiments thattestandevaluate theACTS technologies
under various application scenarios. KeyACTS technologies include fast-hopping spotbeam formation
andcontrol; on-board intermediate, frequency andbaseband switching; Ka-band components; dynamic
rainfadecompensation techniques; andhybrid wideband network interface technologies.
Background andauthority
TheACTS program isadministered bytheNational Aeronautics andSpace Administration ’s
(NASA) Office ofSpace Access andTechnology Programs. Legislative authority derives from the
National Aeronautics andSpace Actof1958, asamended, andtheUSGovernment ’sannual budget
andappropriations legislation.
Form
Assistance isprimarily provided through grants.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page5
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Universities andother grantees conduct research using theNASA satellite. Numerous
organizations (more than50inoneyear) havemade useofACTS, including bothUSandnon-US
commercial, medical, educational andgovernmental entities.
Amount
Theamount spent infiscal year1995 came to$4.3million.
Duration
Theprogram wasinitiated infiscal year1984, andisfunded through annual Congressional
appropriations. There isnofixed termination date.
Trade Effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activity being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheDC-XA Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheDC-XA program isintended topermit early, small scaledemonstration ofadvanced space
launch technologies (e.g. reusable cryogenic tankage andcomposite primary structures) inaflight
environment.
Background andauthority
TheDC-XA program isadministered bytheNASA ’sOffice ofSpace Access andTechnology
Programs. Legislative authority derives from theNational Aeronautics andSpace Actof1958, as
amended, andtheUSGovernment ’sannual budget andappropriations legislation.
Form
Participation inthisprogram isachieved through theuseofcontracts.
Towhom andhowassistance isgranted
TheprimarycontractorundertheDC-XAprogramisamajoraerospacecompanywhichperforms
research anddemonstration work asspecified bythecontract.
Amount
Theamount spent infiscal year1995 came to$12.7 million.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page6
Duration
NASAfundingoftheprogramcommencedinfiscalyear1994;theprogramiscurrentlyscheduled
toterminate inSeptember 1996.
Trade Effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activity being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheX-33 Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheX-33 program isintended todevelop anddemonstrate technologies andoperations that
would yield significant reductions inthecostofaccess tospace. Itaimstointegrate andexpand the
achievements ofrelated efforts toproduce anexperimental vehicle thatwould demonstrate thefeasibility
ofacost-effective, operational reusable launch vehicle. TheX-33 testvehicle would demonstrate key
technology, operations, andreliability requirements fornext-generation launch systems, including those
required forasingle stage-to-orbit launch system. TheX-33program isdivided intothreedevelopment
phases, withadecision toproceed tothesecond phase (i.e.construction ofatestvehicle) dependent
onadecision bythePresident oftheUnited States.
Background andauthority
TheX-33programisadministeredbyNASA’sOfficeofSpaceAccessandTechnologyPrograms.
Legislative authority derives fromtheNational Aeronautics andSpace Actof1958, asamended, and
theUSGovernment ’sannual budget andappropriations legislation.
Form
Participation intheprogram isachieved through theuseofcooperative agreements withprivate
sector partners. Forexample, on12January 1995, NASA issued acooperative agreement notice
requesting proposals forthedevelopment ofatechnology demonstrator fortheX-33 program.
Submission ofproposals wasopentoallcategories oforganizations, bothdomestic andforeign. The
notice described thethreephases fortheprogram, andindicated thatmultiple proposals forphase one
(concept definition anddesign) would beaccepted. Asspecified inthenotice, theX-33 program is
premisedoncost-sharing,requiringallpartiestothecooperativeagreementtocontributetotheprogram’s
funding.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participating companies areselected through anopen process andwork jointly withNASA
inthedevelopment program. Inexchange forsome ofthework performed ontheprogram bythe
non-NASA partner, NASA paysthepartner onthebasis oftheterms negotiated inthecooperative
agreement. However, these payments donotandarenotintended tocover allofthecosts associatedG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page7
withtheprogram thatareincurred bythepartner. Suchresidual costsmustbeborne fullybythepartner
itself. Atpresent, three aerospace companies areparticipating intheX-33 program.
Amount
Theamount spent infiscal year1995 amounts to$67.8 million.
Duration
TheX-33 program wasinitiated infiscal year1995. Adecision onwhether toproceed with
theconstruction ofanX-33demonstration vehicle willbemade inthemiddle of1996. Should adecision
betaken toconstruct suchavehicle, demonstration flights would begin in1999.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activity being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheX-34 Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheX-34program aimstostimulate thedevelopment ofasmall, reusable (orpartially reusable)
booster which willprovide significantly reduced costsforplacing small payloads intolowEarth orbit.
Itisintended toserve asamodel forsmall, fast-paced, industry-led management ofagovernment R&D
program. Theprogram isdesigned toprovide flight experience withanumber ofnewtechnologies,
including composite structures andadvanced thermal protection systems. TheX-34 program isalso
intended todemonstrate theoperations costofaneconomic reusable launch vehicle system.
Background andauthority
TheX-34programisadministeredbyNASA’sOfficeofSpaceAccessandTechnologyPrograms.
Legislative authority derives fromtheNational Aeronautics andSpace Actof1958, asamended, and
theUSGovernment ’sannual budget andappropriations legislation.
Form
Theprogram isimplemented through theuseofcooperative agreements, inamanner similar
tothatdescribed above inreference totheX-33 program.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participating companies areselected through anopen process andwork jointly withNASA
inthedevelopment program. Inexchange forsome ofthework performed ontheprogram bythe
non-NASA partner, NASA paysthepartner onthebasis oftheterms negotiated inthecooperative
agreement. However, these payments donotandarenotintended tocover allofthecosts associated
withtheprogram thatareincurred bythepartner. Suchresidual costsmustbeborne fullybythepartnerG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page8
itself. Onthebasisofthiscompetitive selection process, NASA signed acooperative agreement with
asmall aerospace company.
Amount
Theamount spent infiscal year1995 came to$9.1million.
Duration
Funding forthisprogram began infiscal year1995, andthelastyearinwhich government
expenditures areanticipated isfiscal year1999.
Trade Effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activity being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: High Speed Research Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheHighSpeed Research program hasthespecific aimofimproving, by2005, thetechnology
baseforthepossible future development ofaneconomically viable andenvironmentally friendly high
speed civiltransport byprivate aerospace companies.
Background andauthority
TheHighSpeedResearchprogramisadministeredbyNASA’sOfficeofAeronautics.Legislative
authority fortheprogram derives fromtheNational Aeronautics andSpace Actof1958, asamended,
andtheUSGovernment ’sannual budget andappropriations legislation.
Form
Uptothree-quarters oftheappropriated funding forthisprogram isapplied togrants, contracts,
orother cooperative-type agreements withprivate sector partners forthepurpose ofachieving the
program 'sstated goals.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participating companies areselected through anopen process andwork jointly withNASA
intheresearch andtechnology (R&T) program. Duetothenature andfocus oftheR&T activity,
thesecontracts, grants andothercooperative-type agreements havebeenandwillcontinue tobeawarded
tolargecivilaircraft andengine manufacturers, advanced aerospace material manufacturers, andother
major subsystem developers foraircraft, engine andairtraffic management systems. Inthelongterm,
itisexpected thatthisprogram maybenefit abroader spectrum ofmanufacturers, operators andusers
throughouttheaviationsystem.Thesebenefitsmaytaketheformofgreateraviationsystemaffordability,
increased productivity, andenvironmental sustainability.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page9
Amount
Theamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 was$221.3 million fortheHigh Speed Research
program.
Duration
Relevant contracts arecurrently planned through fiscal year2002.
Trade Effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&Tactivity being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: Advanced Subsonic Technology Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheAdvanced Subsonic Technology program hasthespecific aimofgenerating, by2001,
promising technologies forthepossible future development byprivate companies ofanewgeneration
ofenvironmentally compatible andeconomic subsonic aircraft andasafe,highly productive global
airtransportation system.
Background andauthority
TheAdvancedSubsonicTechnologyprogramisadministeredbyNASA’sOfficeofAeronautics.
Legislative authority fortheprogram derives fromtheNational Aeronautics andSpace Actof1958,
asamended, andtheUSGovernment ’sannual budget andappropriations legislation.
Form
Uptothree-quarters oftheappropriated funding forthisprogram isapplied togrants, contracts,
orother cooperative-type agreements withprivate sector partners forthepurpose ofachieving the
program 'sstated goals.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participating companies areselected through anopen process andwork jointly withNASA
intheresearch andtechnology (R&T) program. Duetothenature andfocus oftheR&T activity,
thesecontracts, grants andothercooperative-type agreements havebeenandwillcontinue tobeawarded
tolarge civilaircraft andengine manufacturers, general aviation aircraft andengine manufacturers,
advanced aerospace material manufacturers, andother major subsystem developers foraircraft, engine
andairtraffic management systems. Inthelongterm, itisexpected thatthisprogram maybenefit
abroaderspectrumofmanufacturers,operatorsandusersthroughouttheaviationsystem.Thesebenefits
maytaketheform ofgreater aviation system affordability, aircraft safety, increased capacity, and
environmental sustainability.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page10
Amount
Theamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 was$125.8 million fortheAdvanced Subsonic
Technology program.
Duration
Relevant contracts arecurrently planned through fiscal year2003.
Trade Effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&Tactivity being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
AGRICULTURE
Export Assistance Measures
Title: TheExport Enhancement Program (EEP)
Period covered bythenotification
Generally, theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994 (October 1993 -September 1994).
Policy objective and/or purpose
InJune1991, theUSDepartment ofAgriculture (USDA) published program criteria governing
theselection ofproposed salesinitiatives under theEEP. AllEEPinitiatives areevaluated based on
fourcriteria:
(1) Trade Policy Effect -theexpected contributions oftheinitiative infurthering theUS
trade policy objective ofcountering competitors 'subsidies andother unfair trade
practices bydisplacing suchcountries 'subsidized exports intargeted countries;
(2) Export Effect -thepotential todevelop, expand, ormaintain markets forUSagricultural
commodities;
(3) Effect onNon-subsidizers -possible effects, ifany,onnon-subsidizing exporters of
agricultural products; and
(4) Subsidy Requirements -theexpected benefits compared withexpected costs ofthe
initiative.
Theoverall program levelforEEP, aswellasbonus awards under individual EEPinitiatives,
willbemaintained attheminimum levels necessary toachieve theexpected benefits oftheprogram 's
export expansion objectives, aswellastheanticipated long-term benefits frommultilateral agricultural
tradereform. Together, thesefourcriteria areconsidered intheselection ofinitiatives targeting specific
commoditiesandcountriesthatwillbestmeettheprogram'stradepolicyandexportexpansionobjectives.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page11
Effective 1July1995, theterms oftheUruguay Round Agreement onAgriculture established
annual ceilings bycommodity withrespect tomaximum quantity andbudgetary expenditures permitted
forexport subsidies.
Background andauthority
TheEEPhasoperated under various authorities since May1985. Terms andconditions
applicable toallexport initiatives arecontained intheUSCode ofFederal Regulations at7CFR1494.
Form
Cash bonuses paidtoparticipating agricultural exporters.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
TheEEPworks asfollows:
(1) TheGeneral Sales Manager, acting asVice President oftheCommodity Credit
Corporation (CCC), issues apress release (Program Announcement) announcing an
EEPinitiative foraspecific country orcountries. TheProgram Announcement is
followed byaninvitation foroffers fromexporters toobtain aspecific dollar andcents
bonus inconnection withthesaleofaneligible commodity tothetarget countries.
(2) Interested exporters submit information toqualify asparticipants under theprogram.
(3) Theexporter mustmake acommercial saleoftheeligible commodity under either a
world-wide tender oraUS-origin tender, oranegotiated salewithabuyer asaresult
ofatender.
(4) Theexporter thenmakes anoffertotheCCC toestablish theamount oftheCCC bonus
indollars andcents necessary tomake theeligible commodity competitive withthe
same commodity being offered forsalefrom other exporting countries under a
world-wide tender andfurnishes aperformance certificate totheCCC.
(5) TheGeneral Sales Manager determines iftheCCC bonus makes theexporter 's
commercialsaleoftheeligiblecommoditycompetitivewiththesamecommodityoffered
forexport from other exporting countries andiftheoffer meets therequirements of
theprogram.
(6) TheGeneral SalesManager notifies successful exporters andsends awritten acceptance
oftheoffer.
(7) Theexporter exports theeligible commodity against thesalescontract.
(8) Theexporter furnishes proof ofexport andrequests payment oftheCCC bonus.
(9) TheCCC issues payment totheexporter fortheexact amount oftheCCC bonus by
multiplying theCCC bonus specified intheagreement bythenetquantity ofthe
commodity exported.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page12
(10) TheGeneral Sales Manager agrees toacancellation oftheperformance security, in
whole orinpart,provided theexporter hasfurnished evidence thattheexports arrived
inthedesignated country.
Amount
Forfiscal year1994, theCCC committed $1,150.0 million inbonuses under EEP. Because
theprogram isoperated onanadhocbasis, where varying levels ofbonuses maybeoffered fora
range ofdifferent agricultural commodities, itisnotpossible toestimate theamount ofsubsidy per
unitofexports.
Duration
TheEEPwasreauthorized untiltheyear2001intheUruguay Round Agreements Actof1994.
Trade Effects
TheCCC bonuses offered areintended toenable USexporters tocompete atcommercial prices
inselected foreign markets. Theeffect oftheprogram istoenable exporters toofferprices thatare
competitive withthose being offered byother countries 'exporters inthese selected foreign markets.
During fiscal year1994, salesunder EEPtotalled 19.1million metric tons(MT) ofwheat, 556,000 MT
offlour, 1.7million MToffeedgrains, 46,000 MTofrice,372,000 MTofvegetable oil,28,000 MT
offrozen poultry, 65,000 MTofbarley malt, 14,000 MTofpork, and61.9million dozen eggs.
However, because oftheadhocnature oftheprogram andthevariations andrange ofcommodities
exported under theprogram, itisnotpossible toprovide meaningful statistics ofthetypereferred to
intheagreed format fornotifications under Articles 25oftheSubsidies Agreement andXVI:1 ofthe
GATT 1994.
Title: TheDairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP)
Period covered bythenotification
Generally, theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994.
Policy objective and/or purpose
InJune1991, USDA published program criteria governing theselection ofcommodities and
countries under theDEIP. These criteria takeintoaccount:
(1) Trade Policy Effect -theexpected contribution oftheinitiative infurthering theUS
trade policy objective ofcountering competitors 'subsidies andother unfair trade
practices bydisplacing suchcountries 'subsidized exports intargeted countries;
(2) Export Effect -thepotential todevelop, expand, ormaintain markets forUSagricultural
commodities;
(3) Effect onNon-subsidizers -thepossible effects onnon-subsidizing exporters of
agricultural products; and
(4) Subsidy Requirements -theexpected benefits compared withtheexpected costsofthe
initiative.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page13
Theoverall program levelforDEIP, aswellasbonus awards under individual DEIP initiatives,
willbemaintained attheminimum levels necessary toachieve theexpected benefits oftheprogram 's
export expansion objectives, aswellastheanticipated long-term benefits frommultilateral agricultural
trade reform. Together, these fourcriteria areconsidered inselection ofcommodities andcountries
thatwillbestmeettheprogram 'strade policy andexport expansion objectives.
Effective 1July1995, theterms oftheUruguay Round Agreement onAgriculture established
annual ceilings bycommodity withrespect tomaximum quantity andbudgetary expenditures permitted
forexport subsidies.
Background andauthority
Section 153oftheFood Security Actof1985, asamended, mandated thattheCCC operate
theDEIP fortheperiod 21February 1986 -31December 1995.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Payments aremade incash, CCC-owned commodities, orgeneric certificates onabidbasis
toentities thatsellUSdairy products forexport. Export salesunder theprogram mustbeinaddition
to,and,totheextent practicable, notdisplace, commercial export salesofUSdairy products. Eligible
dairy products, inbulk, arebutter, butteroil, anhydrous milkfat,nonfat drymilk, whole milkpowder,
cheddar cheese, mozzarella cheese, cream cheese, fetacheese, andgouda cheese.
Amount
Infiscal year1994, government expenditures onDEIP amounted to$117.6 million for
133,524 metric tonsofdairy products. Because theprogram isoperated onanadhocbasis, where
varying levels ofbonuses maybeoffered forseveral different kinds ofdairy products, itisnotpossible
toestimate theamount ofsubsidy perunitofexports.
Duration
DEIP wasreauthorized untilyear2001 intheUruguay Round Agreements Actof1994.
Trade Effects
Infiscalyear1994,DEIPbonuseswereawardedtosupporttheexportof28,602MTofbutterfat,
2,013 MTofcheese (cheddar, gouda, mozzarella andprocessed American cheese), 91,870 MTofnonfat
drymilkand11,039 MTofwhole milkpowder. (Statistics onproduction, consumption, imports and
exports arecontained intheAppendix.)
Title: Mandated Export Sales ofDairy Stocks
Period covered bythenotification
Generally, theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page14
Policy objective and/or purpose; Background andauthority; Form; Towhom andhowassistance is
provided
Section 1163 oftheFood Security Actof1985 created amandated minimum annual levelof
export salesofCCC-owned dairystocks. Themandated minimum saleswereeliminated bytheUruguay
Round Agreements Actof1994; theSecretary maintains discretionary authority tosellCCC-owned
dairy stocks intotheexport market.
Amount
Forfiscal year1994, theUSGovernment solditsdairy stocks at$10.3 million below cost.
However, because theprogram isoperated onanadhocbasis, varying amounts ofsubsidy occur for
several different kinds ofdairy products. Itis,therefore, notpossible toestimate theamount ofsubsidy
perunitofexports.
Duration
Asindicated above, thisprogram isnolonger mandatory. However, theSecretary hasthe
discretionary authority tosellCCC-owned dairy stocks intotheexport market.
Trade Effects
Under theprogram, theCCC hasmade thefollowing salestodate:
Butter/Butteroil Nonfat DryMilk Cheese
(-------------------------metric tons-----------------------------)
Fiscal Year 1994 15,591 0 0
Fiscal Year 1995 1,837 8,630 0
(Statistics onproduction, consumption, imports andexports arecontained intheAppendix.)
Title: TheSunflowerseed OilandCottonseed OilAssistance Programs (SOAP &COAP)
Period covered bythenotification
Generally, theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994 andpartoffiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheSunflowerseed OilAssistance Program (SOAP) directed theUSDA topurchase $10million
ofsunflowerseed oil,using funds available under Section 32oftheActof24August 1935tofacilitate
additional export sales ofsunflowerseed oilinworld markets atcompetitive prices. TheRural
Development, Agriculture, andRelated Agencies Appropriations Actsforfiscal years 1989and1990
directed USDA touseanadditional $20million and$30million infunds toassist exports of
sunflowerseed andcottonseed oilsthrough theendofFY1990 andFY1991, respectively.
Background andauthority
Section 637oftheRural Development, Agriculture, andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act
of1988required theoperation oftheSOAP through theendoffiscal year1989. TheFood, Agriculture,G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page15
Conservation, andTrade Actof1990extended theoperation ofSOAP andtheCottonseed OilAssistance
Program (COAP) through thefiscal year1995, withfunding nottoexceed $50million tobemade
available fortheprograms, totheextent provided inappropriations acts,ineachofthefivefiscal years.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Bonuses arepaidtosunflowerseed/cottonseed oilexporters incash.
Amount
Program-wide funding levels areindicated above. Because theprogram isoperated onanad
hocbasis, where varying levels ofbonuses maybeoffered forseveral different kinds ofexported
products, itisnotpossible toestimate theamount ofsubsidy perunitofexports.
Duration
Atthetimeofthiswriting, thelegislative authority forSOAP andCOAP hasexpired.
Trade Effects
Asof4August 1995, 758,725 MTofsunflowerseed oilhadbeensoldunder theSOAP. Of
thetotal, 257,500 MTweresoldtoAlgeria, 112,300 MTtoEgypt, 252,775 MTtoMexico, 55,000 MT
tovarious countries comprising theformer Soviet Union, 27,650 MTtoGuatemala, 30,000 MTto
Turkey, and23,500 MTtoVenezuela. Asof4August 1995, 174,577 MTofcottonseed oilhadbeen
soldunder theCOAP program. Ofthetotal, 1,000 MTwere soldtotheDominican Republic,
41,200 MTtoEgypt, 77,225 MTtoElSalvador, 7,500 MTtoTurkey, 13,600 MTtoGuatemala,
12,200 MTtoVenezuela, 12,652 MTtoMexico and9,200 MTtoNicaragua.
Because oftheadhocnature oftheprogram, however, itisnotpossible toprovide meaningful
statistics ofthetypereferred tointheagreed format fornotifications under Articles 25oftheSubsidies
Agreement andXVI:1 ofGATT 1994.
Agricultural Price Support Programs
(TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990
TheOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Actof1990)
Introduction
These programs aredesigned to(1)stabilize, support andprotect farmincome andprices; (2)
assist inthemaintenance ofbalanced andadequate supplies offood, feedandfibre; and(3)aidinthe
orderly marketing offarmcommodities. Theprograms arefinanced bytheCCC andadministered
bytheConsolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA). TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade
Actof1990(1990 Farm Bill)provided afive-year framework fortheadministration oftheseprograms.
Price support programs forspecified commodities were firstauthorized bytheAgricultural
Adjustment Actsof1933 and1938, andtheAgricultural Actof1949. Thecurrent programs are
authorized bytheAgricultural Actof1949(1949 Act),theCCCCharter Act,andtheFood, Agriculture,
Conservation, andTrade Actof1990 (1990 Act). Generally, the1990 Actamended the1949 Act
tocover fivecropyears, 1991 to1995.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page16
Thecommodity programs arepurely voluntary except fortobacco andpeanuts. Theyaremade
available toallfarmers, butsome choose nottoparticipate, preferring todepend onthemechanisms
ofthefreemarket.
The1949 Actwasamended bytheOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Actof1990 (the
Reconciliation Act)toreduce projected expenditures by$13billion overtheFiscal Year1991-95 period.
Theprimary source ofthesavings was"triple base," theelimination ofdeficiency payments on15per
centofthebaseacres ofwheat, feedgrains, upland cotton, andrice. Inaddition, theReconciliation
Actamendments imposed marketing assessments onproducers orfirstpurchasers ofsugar, honey,
peanuts, wool andmohair, andtobacco. Producers ofoilseeds willbecharged aloanorigination fee
andmilkproducers could receive areduction inprice. Theamendments alsosetminimum levels for
acreage reduction programs.
Title: Support forWheat andFeed Grains (Corn, Barley, Oats, Rye)
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered arethefiscal years 1994 -1995 (preliminary).
Policy objective and/or purpose
Wheat andfeedgrains arecovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forincome/price
support andproduction adjustment. Theprincipal export incentives forwheat andfeedgrains arethe
Export Enhancement Program andvarious export credit andcredit guarantee programs administered
bytheCCC. These programs aredescribed inseparate parts ofthisnotification.
Background andauthority
Thecurrent programs areauthorized bytheCommodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,the
Agricultural Actof1949, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Nonrecourse loans andpurchases provide price support forthese commodities; deficiency
payments provide income support. Tobeeligible fortheprice andincome support programs (i.e.
loans, purchases anddeficiency payments), participating farmers mustadhere totheregulations inthe
production adjustment programs. TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990 also
authorizes theSecretary ofAgriculture toimplement several optional programs, including marketing
loans, loandeficiency payments, andinventory reduction payments.
Price support rates
Theprice support rates forthese commodities areestablished annually bytheSecretary of
Agriculture atlevels which should allow thecommodities tobecompetitively priced. Forexample,
in1986, theSecretary reduced thewheat andcornprice support ratesthefull20percentpermissible
fromthebasic (statutory) levels. Thebasic wheat price support rateof$3.00 wasreduced to$2.40,
andthebasic cornprice support rateof$2.40 wasreduced to$1.92 tomaintain thecompetitiveness
ofUSexports. In1994, price support rateswere increased forallcrops.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page17
Current national average price support loanratesperbushel are:
1993 1994 1995
(----------dollars------------)
Wheat 2.45 2.58 2.58
Corn 1.72 1.89 1.89
Barley 1.40 1.54 1.54
Oats 0.88 0.97 0.97
Sorghum 1.63 1.80 1.80
Rye 1.46 1.61 1.54
Thenational average pricesupport ratesareconverted intolocalpricesupport ratesforgrades
andqualities atspecified locations.
For1991-95 wheat andcorncrops, thebasic price support ratewillbesetat85percentof
thesimple average oftheseason average prices received byproducers during thefivepreceding
marketing years, disregarding thehighandlowyears, withdeclines limited to5percentperyear.
TheSecretary hasdiscretion toreduce further thebasicpricesupport ratebyupto10percentdepending
onthecurrent yearstocks-to-use ratios andanadditional 10percentifthereduction isnecessary to
maintain domestic andexport markets.
Price support ratesforother feedgrains willbesetattheirfeedvalue relation compared to
corn. These values are81.43 percentforbarley, 95percentforgrain sorghum, 51.43 percentfor
oatsand85percentforrye.
Loans forwheat andfeedgrains mature ondemand oftheCCC, butnolaterthantheendof
theninth calendar month following themonth theloanismade. Producers mayrepay theloanplus
interest (atthegovernment borrowing rate)atanytimeuptomaturity. Iftheloanisnotrepaid by
thefinalmaturity date,theCCC takes titletothecommodity infullpayment oftheloanandinterest
charges; thisiscalled anonrecourse loan. Inaddition, theCCC maypurchase thesecommodities from
producers atthelocalprice support loanrate.
Marketing loans
TheFood,Agriculture,Conservation,andTradeActof1990amendmentscontinuetheauthority
provided intheFood Security Actof1985 fortheSecretary ofAgriculture tooffer wheat andfeed
grain producers amarketing loan. Under amarketing loan, when market prices arebelow theprice
support loanrate,producers mayrepay theirloanatthedomestic market price, asdetermined bythe
Secretary, or70percentofthebasicpricesupport rate,whichever ishigher. Loans maynotberequired
toberepaid atalevelhigher thantheannounced price support loanrate. Marketing loans werenot
offered forthe1986-1992 crops ofwheat andfeedgrains. They have, however, beenoffered in1994
and1995.
Target Prices
Thetarget price foreachcommodity isestablished annually. TheFood Security Actof1985
amended the1949 Acttoestablish minimum target prices forthe1986 through 1990 crops. Under
theAct,theSecretary ofAgriculture froze target prices in1986and1987atthe1985levelandreduced
target prices by2percentin1988, 3percentin1989and5percentin1990. TheFood, Agriculture,
Conservation, andTrade Actof1990 amendments froze minimum target prices for1991-95 attheir
1990 level. Thisresults inthefollowing minimum target prices:G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page18
Wheat Corn (1)
(--dollars perbushel--)
1988 4.23 2.93
1989 4.10 2.84
1990 4.00 2.75
1991-95 4.00 2.75
(1) Target prices forsorghum, barley, andoatsaredetermined inrelation tocorn. There isno
target price forrye.
Deficiency Payments
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990amendments totheAgricultural
Actof1949 mandate deficiency payments ifthenational weighted average market price received by
farmers during thefirstfivemonths ofthemarketing year(June 1994through October 1994forwheat,
barley andoats; andSeptember 1994 through January 1995 forcornandsorghum) isbelow the
established target price forthatcropyear. Thepayment ratefor1991-93 crops ofwheat andfeed
grains isthedifference between thetarget price andeither thefive-month weighted average market
price orthebasic loanlevel, whichever ishigher. TheReconciliation Actamendments required that,
forthe1994-95 crops ofwheat andfeedgrains, thefive-month market price willbereplaced bythe
lesser of(1)theseason average market price, or(2)thefive-month market priceplus$0.10 forwheat,
and$0.07 forfeedgrains, indetermining thepayment rate. Final deficiency payments aredetermined
attheendofthecropyearonthedifference between thebasic price support loanrateandeither the
finalnational weighted average market price fortheentire marketing yearortheannounced loanrate,
whichever ishigher.
Thedeficiency payment forwheat in1995 wasprojected tobe$0.60 perbushel. Deficiency
payments willmade toeligible producers inDecember 1995, lessaportion ofanyadvance. The
projected 1995 deficiency payment ratesforfeedgrains were:
Product Projected Deficiency Payment
(----$perbushel ----)
corn 0.40
grain sorghum 0.39
barley 0.40
oats 0.10
Wheatandfeedgrainproducerscanearndeficiencypaymentsonaportionofactualacresplanted
within thepermitted acreage established forthefarm. Acreage forpayments willinclude acresdevoted
towheat plusconserving usedesignated tothese crops under the"0/85/92" provision. The0/85/92
provision states thatgrowers whoplantlessthantheirpayment acreage mayreceive deficiency payments
onaportion oftheirunderplanted acreage. Ifgrowers plantbetween 0and85percentoftheirpayment
acreage totheprogram cropanddevote theremaining payment acres toaconserving use,theywill
beeligible toreceive deficiency payments on85percentofthepayment acreage. Program participants
mayplant aminor oilseed croponthe0/85/92 conserving useacres. Producers whoplant minor
oilseeds, industrial orexperimental crops, orwhohaveprevented plantings orfailed acres mayreceive
upto92percentoftheirdeficiency payments. Producers whoplantminor oilseeds mustchoose between
receiving deficiency payments under the0/85/92 program, orreceiving price support loans forthe
minor oilseeds, butnotboth.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page19
Payments forthe1991-95 crops willbedetermined bymultiplying thepayment ratetimes the
farmprogram payment yield established forthefarmtimes either theacreage planted tothecropor
85percentoftheacreage baselessanyreduced acres, whichever isless. Theamount ofcombined
deficiency payments afarmer mayreceive under thewheat, feedgrain, cotton andriceprograms together
islimited to$50,000 peryearperperson, withalimitofthree entities, withcertain exceptions noted
below. There isnodeficiency payment program forrye.Deficiency payments willnotbemade for
anyquantity onwhich adisaster payment wasmade. Anyincrease indeficiency payments resulting
from thereduction inbasic price support ratesissubject toa$75,000 payment limitation. Farmers
wereoffered aportion oftheirprojected finalpayment atthebeginning ofthecropyear, anadvance
deficiency payment, for1986-90 crops. Advance deficiency payments havebeenmandatory for1991-95
crops.
Acreage reduction
TheFood,Agriculture,Conservation,andTradeActof1990amendmentscontinuetheauthority
oftheSecretary ofAgriculture torequire reductions intheacreage planted towheat andfeedgrains.
Acreage limitation orpaidlanddiversion programs maybeimplemented iftotalsupplies willbe
excessive. Anacreage limitation program iscommonly called anacreage reduction program orARP.
IfanARP isineffect, producers must participate intheARP asacondition ofeligibility forwheat
andfeedgrain loans, purchases anddeficiency payments.
When anARPhasbeenannounced, theDepartment ofAgriculture determines theacreage that
maybeplanted tothecropbyuniformly reducing thecropacreage baseofeachfarm. Under anARP,
apercentage ofeachfarm'sacreage must bedevoted toconservation uses.
TheOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Actamendments setminimum ARPlevels forthe1992-95
crops ofwheat. Theminimum ARPis6percentin1992, 5percentin1993, 7percentin1994 and
5percentin1995, buttheprovision doesnotapply ifthestocks-to-use ratioofwheat islessthan34per
cent. TheReconciliation Actamendments settheminimum ARP for1992-95 crops ofcorn, grain
sorghum, andbarley at7.5percentifthestocks-to-use ratios ofthese crops exceed 20percent. The
minimum ARPlevels forwheat andfeedgrains intheReconciliation Actwillnotapply iftheSecretary
determines thatthequantity ofsoybeans onhandonthefirstdayofthemarketing yearforthe1991
cropwillbelessthan325million bushels.
In1995, theARPforwheat was0percentofthecropacreage base. The1995ARPforcorn
was7.5percent,andthe1995 ARPforsorghum, barley andoatswas0percentofthecropacreage
base. Corn producers participating inthebasic acreage reduction mustalsodevote eligible cropland
equal to7.5percentoftheirfarm'scropacreage basetotheAcreage Conservation Reserve (ACR).
TheSecretary mayalsoofferproducers apaidlanddiversion (PLD) program ifsuchpayments
willassist inobtaining thenecessary adjustments intotalacreage. Adiversion program canbeoffered
whether ornotanARPisineffect. Thediverted cropland mustbedevoted toapproved conservation
uses. Payment amounts maybedetermined bybidssubmitted byproducers orother suchmeans as
theSecretary deems appropriate. There hasnotbeenapaiddiversion program since 1986 forwheat
or1988 forfeedgrains. TheFood Security Actof1985 authorized theSecretary ofAgriculture to
offeraset-aside program asanalternative toanARP. TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade
Actof1990 eliminated thisauthority.
TheSecretarymaymakeinventoryreductionpaymentstoproducerswhoagreetoforgoobtaining
loans andreceiving deficiency payments andwholimittheamount ofwheat andfeedgrains planted
forharvest tothecropacreage baselesshalfofanyacreage tobediverted byARP orPLD. TheG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page20
payment rateandquantity would bethesame asthose determined forloandeficiency payments.
Inventory reduction payments havenever beenimplemented.
Farmer-owned reserve
TheCCC administers aFarmer-Owned Reserve (FOR) program forwheat andfeedgrains,
except rye.Theprogram isintended topromote market andprice stabilization byassisting farmers
whowithhold supplies fromthemarket inperiods ofsurplus forrelease inperiods ofshortage. The
Grain Reserve wasoriginally established bytheFood andAgriculture Actof1977.
TheFOR allows farmers toplace eligible grain instorage andreceive extended loans for
three years withextensions aswarranted bymarket conditions. Theloans are"nonrecourse" inthat
farmers canforfeit thecommodity heldascollateral totheGovernment infullsettlement oftheloan
without penalty andwithout paying accumulated interest. Interest ontheloanalsomaybewaived
bytheSecretary ofAgriculture, andfarmers mayreceive quarterly storage payments from the
Government.
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990 contains three modifications to
theprogram: (1)onlythemaximum levels ofwheat andfeedgrains thatmayenter thereserve ina
marketing yeararespecified; (2)producers mayrepay theirreserve loanandmarket thecropatany
timeregardless ofmarket prices; and(3)entry ispermitted onlywhen certain stocks-to-use ratios and
market prices exist. Theupper limits ontheFOR quantity, asdetermined bytheSecretary, willbe
nomore than300-450 million bushels forwheat and600-900 million bushels forfeedgrains. For
1990, thelimitontheFORforwheat is300million bushels andforfeedgrains itis450million bushels.
Ifreserve quantities exceed thislimitatthetimethat1990croploans mature ormarket prices aregreater
than140percentofthepricesupport rate,noentry intothereserve willbepermitted. AsofDecember
1994, theFOR heldzerobushels ofwheat and4.2million bushels offeedgrains.
Amount
Forthefiscal year1994, itisestimated that$1.7billion (net)werespent onthewheat program,
and$0.9billion (net)forfeedgrains. Tables 1and2below provide information withrespect tothe
estimated amount perunit.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page21
Table 1:USSupport andFarm Prices
Deficiency
Target Average Price Average Payment
Grain Year Price Support Rate Farm Price Rate
_________________________________________________________________________________
(---------------dollars perbushel----------------)
Wheat 1993/94 4.00 2.45 2.97 1.03
1994/95 4.00 2.58 3.29 0.61
1995/96 4.00 2.58 4.45 0.70
Corn 1993/94 2.75 1.72 2.50 0.28
1994/95 2.75 1.89 2.26 0.57
1995/96 2.75 1.89 3.15 0.40
Sorghum 1993/94 2.61 1.63 2.31 0.25
1994/95 2.61 1.80 2.13 0.59
1995/96 2.61 1.80 3.16 0.39
Barley 1993/94 2.36 1.40 1.99 0.67
1994/95 2.36 1.54 2.03 0.52
1995/96 2.36 1.54 2.90 0.40
Oats 1993/94 1.45 0.88 1.36 0.11
1994/95 1.45 0.97 1.22 0.19
1995/96 1.45 0.97 1.60 0.10
Rye 1993/94 none 1.46 2.55 none
1994/95 none 1.61 2.70 none
1995/96 none 1.61 2.80 none
Note: 1995/96 farmprices anddeficiency payment ratesarepreliminary.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page22
Table 2:USProduction andGovernment Payments
Total
Total US Deficiency Government
Grain Year Production Payments Payments a/
_________________________________________________________________________________
(million bushels) (----------million dollars-----------)
Wheat 1993/94 2,396 1,900 2,623
1994/95 2,327 1,146 1,637
1995/96 2,186 100 N/A
Corn 1993/94 6,336 1,521 2,789
1994/95 10,102 3,198 3,485
1995/96 7,374 N/A N/A
Sorghum 1993/94 534 154 316
1994/95 649 292 408
1995/96 460 N/A N/A
Barley 1993/94 398 204 343
1994/95 375 163 285
1995/96 359 N/A N/A
Oats 1993/94 207 12 93
1994/95 229 16 87
1995/96 162 N/A N/A
a/ Total government payments toproducers isthesumofdeficiency payments, marketing loan
payments, landdiversion payments, CRPpayments andFOR storage payments.
Note: 1994/95 amounts arepreliminary, 1995/96 amounts areprojected.
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation andTrade Actof1990 continues theaimoftheFood
Security Actof1985 tointroduce greater market orientation inUSfarmpolicy. The1985 Acttied
pricesupport ratestoanaverage ofpastmarket prices andpermits much larger discretionary reductions
iftheprevious season 'sprices wereloworifmarket competitiveness islikely tobehampered bythe
formula-determined rate. Thereduction ofprice support ratesresulted inlower USgrain prices and
removed animportant impediment thatwaspricing theUnited States outofinternational markets.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page23
(a) Estimated quantitative trade effects
TheUnited States isagrain exporting country. Itisunlikely thattheUSgrain imports would
meaningfully increase eveniftheelimination ofpricesupport programs resulted inlower grain prices.
Certain support prices aresetbylegislation butthereisconsiderable administrative discretion
inlowering them. Price support rateswerereduced in1986and1987andareintended tomore closely
correspond toprevailing market conditions through atleast1995. Target prices werereduced beginning
in1988 through 1990 andtheyhavebeenfrozen at1990 levels for1991-95. Lower price support
ratesshould result inthecompetitiveness ofAmerican grains. Furthermore, income support programs
require producers toparticipate inproduction adjustment programs tobeeligible forsupport.
Inpricing commodities fordomestic use,CCC-owned commodities generally arerequired to
besoldatlevels above theprice support rate,depending onthecommodity andother conditions of
sale,plusreasonable carrying charges. Inaddition, higher minimum sales prices areapplicable to
wheat andfeedgrains when thefarmer-owned grainreserve programs areineffect forsuchcommodities.
Congress hasestablished theCCC pricing policy inorder toprotect theCCC'sinvestment inthe
property, tostabilize prices, andnottodisrupt commercial trade channels.
Statistical information onproduction, consumption, imports andexports iscontained inthe
Appendix.
Title: Support forRice
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal years 1994 -1995 (preliminary)
Policy objective and/or purpose
Riceiscovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forincome/price support and
production adjustment.
Background andauthority
During theperiod subject tothisnotification, theprograms wereauthorized bytheCommodity
Credit Corporation Charter Act,theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation,
andTrade Actof1990.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Incomesupportthroughtargetprices,deficiencypayments,andnonrecourseloansandpurchases
ofriceattheprice support rateisavailable toriceproducers. Provisions inthe1949Act-marketing
loans andmarketing certificates -areaimed atmaking ricecompetitive inworld markets. Tobeeligible
fortheincome support andmarketing loanprograms, farmers mustcomply withtheacreage reduction
program.
Price support rates
The1995 price support rateis$6.50 perhundredweight (cwt). Forthe1991-95 crops, the1990 Act
setstheminimum ratesat85percentofthesimple average oftheseason prices received byproducersG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page24
during thepreceding fivemarketing years, dropping theyears withthehighest andlowest prices.
Theprice support ratemaynotbereduced more than5percentbelow theprevious year'srateand
notlower than$6.50 percwt.
Target prices
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990 amendments freeze minimum
target prices attheir1990 levels. Target prices for1987-95 follow.
(dollars perhundredweight)
1987 11.66
1988 11.30
1989 10.95
1990 10.71
1991-1995 10.71
Deficiency payments
Thedeficiency payment rateforthe1991-93 crops willbeequal tothetarget price minus the
average pricereceived byfarmers during thefirstfivemonths ofthemarketing year(August-December),
ortheprice support loanrate,whichever ishigher. TheOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Actof1990
amendments require thatthedeficiency payment rateforthe1994 and1995 crops becalculated as
thetarget price minus thehigher of:(1)thelesser of:(a)thenational average market price received
byproducers during thecalendar yearthatcontains thefirstfivemonths ofthemarketing year; or
(b)thenational average market pricereceived byproducers during thefirstfivemonths ofthemarketing
yearforthecropplusanappropriate amount thatisfairandequitable inrelation towheat andfeed
grains; or(2)theprice support levelforthecrop. Thegainfromrepaying loans atlessthantheprice
support loanrate(seebelow) issubject toa$75,000 payment limitation.
Payments for1991-95 crops willbedetermined bymultiplying thepayment ratetimes thefarm
program payment yieldforthefarmtimes either theacreage planted toriceor85percentoftheacreage
baselessanyreduced acres, whichever isless. Producers whounderplant acreage may, under some
conditions, receive deficiency payments ontheunderplanted acreage. Tobeeligible, theproducer
mustplant atleast50percentofthemaximum payment acreage toriceanddesignate atleast15per
centofsuchacreage asconserving useacres. Nodeficiency payment willbereceived onthe15per
centconserving useacreage. However, anyadditional acreage designated conserving usewillbeeligible
fordeficiency payments under the"50/85/92" provision. Themaximum isthedifference between
theplanted acreage and85percentofmaximum payment acreage.
Marketing certificates
Atanytimeduring theperiod 1August 1986 through 31July1995 thattheworld price of
riceadjusted forclass isbelow thecurrent loanrepayment rateforthatclass ofrice, marketing
certificates willbeissued. Thevalue ofthecertificate isequal tothedifference between theloan
repayment levelandtheworld price. Certificates areissued toproducers when evidence isprovided
thatthericewassoldorredeemed from aprice support loan. Producers donothavetoparticipate
intheacreage reduction program tobeeligible forsuchcertificates. Thecertificates maybeusedfor
marketing, redeemed foragricultural commodities owned bytheCommodity Credit Corporation, or
redeemed forcash.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page25
Marketing loans
Producers arepermitted torepay loans atthesmaller of:
1. Theloanratedetermined forthecrop; or
2. Thehigher of:
(a) theworld market price forriceasdetermined bytheSecretary ofAgriculture; or
(b) 70percentoftheprevailing loanrate.
Producers mayalsoelect todeliver their rice(loan collateral) tothegovernment infull
satisfaction oftheloan.
Acreage reduction
TheFood,Agriculture,Conservation,andTradeActof1990amendmentscontinuetheauthority
oftheSecretary ofAgriculture torequire reductions intheacreage planted torice. Acreage limitation
orpaidlanddiversion programs maybeimplemented iftotalsupplies willbeexcessive. Anacreage
limitation program iscommonly called anacreage reduction program, orARP. IfanARPisineffect,
producers must participate intheprogram asacondition ofeligibility forriceloans, purchases and
deficiency payments. TheARPcannot exceed 35percentofthericebaseacreage andshould beat
suchalevelastoreduce totalcarry-over stocks tobetween 16.5and20.0percentofdisappearance.
When anARP hasbeenannounced, theUSDA determines theacreage thatmaybeplanted
toricebyuniformly reducing thecropacreage baseofeachfarm. Under anARP, apercentage of
eachfarm'sacreage mustbedevoted toconservation uses. A5percentARPwasannounced forthe
1995 ricecrop.
TheSecretary mayalsoofferproducers apaidlanddiversion (PLD) program ifsuchpayments
willassist inobtaining thenecessary adjustments intotalacreage. Adiversion program canbeoffered
whether ornotanARPisineffect. Thediverted cropland mustbedevoted toapproved conservation
uses. Payment amounts maybedetermined bybidssubmitted byproducers orother suchmeans as
theSecretary deems appropriate.
Amount
Itisestimated thattheUnited States Government spent $837million (net)onthericeprogram
infiscal year1994. Theestimated amount perunitisasfollows:G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page26
Table 3:USSupport andFarm Prices
Deficiency
Target Average Price Average Payment
Crop Year Price Support Rate Farm Price 1/ Rate2/
_________________________________________________________________________________
(--------------------dollars perhundredweight--------------------)
Rice 1993 10.71 6.50 7.98 3.98
1994 10.71 6.50 6.70 3.79
1995 10.71 6.50 8.75 3.22
1/1994 and1995 farmprices areestimates.
Table 4:USProduction andGovernment Payments
Total
Total US Deficiency Government
Crop Year Production Payments Payments 3/
_________________________________________________________________________________
(million cwt) (---------------million dollars---------------)
Rice 1993 156.1 569 848
1994 197.8 558 627
1995 173.9 467 468
3/ Total government payments arethesumofdeficiency, storage, diversion, marketing loanand
certificate payments. 1994 and1995 croppayments areestimates.
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Thericeprovisions oftheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990aredesigned
toimprove thecompetitiveness ofUnited States riceinworld markets. Statistical information on
production, consumption, imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Title: Support forCotton --Upland andExtra Long Staple (ELS)
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page27
Policy objective and/or purpose
Cotton iscovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forincome/price support and
production adjustment. (Itshould benoted thatUSimports ofcotton havealsobeenthesubject of
quotas imposed inaccordance withSection 22oftheAgricultural Adjustment Actof1933, asamended.
Asaresult oftheUruguay Round agreements, theSection 22quotas wereconverted totariffratequotas
(TRQs), effective 1January 1995.)
Background andauthority
During theperiod covered bythisnotification, thecotton support programs wereauthorized
bytheCommodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,theAgricultural Actof1949, theExtra Long Staple
Cotton Actof1983, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Generally,thesupportprogramsforcottonprovidefornonrecourseloansanddeficiencypayments
toproducers whocomply withtherequirements oftheannual cotton acreage reduction program.
Marketing loans, withachoice oftwodifferent repayment plans, arerequired when theadjusted world
market price isbelow theloanrate. Whenever theadjusted world market price isbelow theloan
repayment rate,theissuance ofcommodity certificates tofirsthandlers ofupland cotton isrequired.
Loan rates
The1995 loanrateforStrict LowMiddling 1and1/16inchcotton, micronaire 3.5-3.6 and
4.3-4.9, strength 24through 25grams pertex,ataverage USlocation is$0.5192 perpound. The
extra longstaple cotton loanrateis$0.7965 perpound. Forthe1991-95 crops ofupland cotton, the
loanratewillbethelower of(a)85percentoftheaverage USspotprices during theprevious 5years
(excluding thehighandlowyears) or(b)90percentofrecent average northern European prices.
Theloanratecannot bereduced bymore than5percentfrom thepreceding year'srateandnotto
lessthan$0.50 perpound.
Theloanperiod forcotton istenmonths andmustbeextended another 8months under certain
conditions. TheloanrateforELScotton isequal to85percentofthesimple average price received
byproducers ofELScotton during theprevious fiveyears (excluding thehighandlowyears).
Target prices
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation andTrade Actof1990amendments require aminimum
target price of$0.729 perpound forthe1991-95 crops ofupland cotton. The1995 target price for
ELScotton is$0.956 perpound.
Deficiency payments
Thedeficiency payment rateisequal tothetarget price minus thehigher of(a)thenational
average market price received byfarmers during thecalendar year, which includes thefirst5months
ofthemarketing year, or(b)theloanratedetermined forthecrop. The1994payment rateforupland
cotton was$0.065 perpound andforELScotton itwas$0.100.
Payments for1991-95 crops willbedetermined bymultiplying thepayment ratetimes thefarm
program payment yield forthefarmtimes either theacreage planted tocotton or85percentofthe
cropacreage baselessanyreduced acres, whichever isless.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page28
Loan repayment
Iftheworld price ofupland cotton asdetermined bytheSecretary ofAgriculture isbelow the
loanrate,inorder tomake UScotton competitive inworld markets, theproducers arepermitted to
repay aloanat:
1. Alevelthatisthelesser of:
(a) theloanleveldetermined forthecrop; or
(b) thehigher of:
(i) theloanleveldetermined forthecropmultiplied by70percent; or
(ii) theprevailing world market price forcotton; or
2. Suchother level(notinexcess oftheloanleveldetermined forthecropnorlessthan70per
centofthatlevel) thattheSecretary determines willminimize loanforfeitures, minimize stock
accumulation, minimize storage costs, andallow UScotton tobecompetitive.
Foreachofthe1991through 1995crops, loandeficiency payments maybemade toproducers
whoareeligible butagree toforego obtaining aloaninreturn forsuchpayments. Uptoonehalfthe
amount ofthepayment maybemade incotton commodity certificates.
Marketing certificates
Adjusted world price
Several provisions ofthe1991 upland cotton program require adetermination oftheupland
cotton world market price. Theadjusted world price (AWP) isequal totheNorthern Europe price
(anaverage ofthe5lowest-priced growths ofthegrowths quoted forMiddling 1-3/32 inchcotton,
c.i.f.northern Europe), adjusted toaverage USquality andlocation. TheAWP forindividual qualities
isdetermined byapplying the1991schedule ofloanpremiums anddiscounts, andlocation differential.
TheAWP isannounced weekly, onThursdays forthesubsequent Friday-Thursday period.
Firsthandler certificates
Whenever theAWP isbelow 70percentoftheloanrate,commodity certificates areissued
toeligible firsthandlers ofupland cotton. Thecertificate value isbased onthedifference between
70percentoftheloanrateandtheAWP, multiplied bythequantity ofcotton soldduring theweek
inwhich apayment rateisineffect.
Domestic user/exporter certificates
Whenever, forfourconsecutive weeks, theUSNorthern Europe price exceeds theNorthern
Europe price bymore than1.25cents perpound andtheAWP iswithin 130percentofthebaseloan
rate,marketingcertificatesareissuedtoeligibledomesticusersandexportersoneligiblecottonpurchased
orsoldduring theweek following theconsecutive four-week period. Thepayment rateisequal to
thedifference inthefourth week between theUSNorthern Europe price minus $0.0125, andthe
Northern Europe price.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page29
Loan deficiency payments
When theAWP islessthantheloanrate,eligible producers whoagree toforego CCC loans
mayreceive loandeficiency payments ontheirproduction otherwise eligible forloans. Theloan
deficiency payment rateisequal tothedifference between theloanrateandtheloanrepayment rate
ineffect during theweek inwhich theapplication forpayment isfiled. Producers areallowed to
participate inorforego theloandeficiency payment onabale-by-bale basis.
Acreage reduction
IftheSecretary ofAgriculture determines thatthesupply ofcotton isexcessive, anacreage
limitation program mustbeimplemented. TheSecretary mustoperate anacreage reduction program
toresult inaratioofcarry-over tototaldisappearance of30percent. Thelimitation isachieved by
applying auniform percentage reduction (0to25percent)tothecropacreage baseforeachproducer.
Producers whodonotreduce theircotton acreage become ineligible forloans andpayments ontheir
crop.
AzeropercentAcreage Reduction Program (ARP) isineffect for1995 upland cotton and
a10percentARP isineffect for1995 ELScotton.
Amount
Infiscal year1994, itisestimated thatUSGovernment outlays were $849 million (net)on
theupland cotton program and$13.8 million ontheELScotton program. Theestimated amount per
unitisasfollows:
Table 5:USSupport andFarm Prices
Crop Target Average Deficiency
Year Price Loan Rate Farm Price Payment Rate
_________________________________________________________________________________
(---------------------------cents perpound------------------------------)
Upland
1992/93 72.9 52.35 53.7 20.3
1993/94 72.9 52.35 58.1 18.6
1994/95 72.9 50.00 72.0 4.6
ELS
1992/93 105.80 88.15 78.8 17.7
1993/94 105.70 88.12 87.0 17.6
1994/95 102.00 85.03 102.5 1.3
1/ USDA isprohibited from forecasting cotton prices.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page30
Table 6:USProduction andGovernment Payments
Crop Total US Deficiency Total 1/
Year Production Payments Government Payments
_________________________________________________________________________________
(1,000 bales) (-----------------million dollars----------------)
Upland
1992/93 15,710.0 1,017.0 1,475.0
1993/94 15,764.0 1,053.0 1,577.0
1994/95 19,324.0 278.0 335.0
ELS
1992/93 508.0 8.5 8.5
1993/94 370.0 10.4 10.4
1994/95 338.0 0.8 0.8
1/ Total government payments arethesumofdeficiency payments, disaster, landdiversion
payments, marketing certificates, CRP, andloandeficiency payments.
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Theprovisions ofthecotton program oftheFood, Agriculture, Conservation andTrade Act
of1990 areexpected toincrease thecompetitiveness ofUnited States cotton exports. Statistical
information onproduction, consumption, imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Title: Support forOilseeds
Soybeans
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Soybeans arecovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forprice support.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page31
Background andauthority
Thesupport programs described inthisnotification wereauthorized bytheCommodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act,theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Actof1990.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
TheAgricultural Actof1949 established asoybean marketing loanprogram. Under the
marketing loanprogram, aproducer iseligible toobtain anonrecourse price support loan. Theloan
levelforeachofthe1993through 1995crops ofsoybeans shallnotbelessthan$4.92 perbushel under
themarketing loanprovision. Theproducer mayrepay aloanatalevelthatisthelesser oftheloan
leveldetermined forthecrop; ortheprevailing world market price established forsoybeans (adjusted
toUSquality andlocation), asdetermined bytheSecretary ofAgriculture; oratsuchother level(not
inexcess oftheloanleveldetermined forthecrop) thattheSecretary determines willminimize potential
loanforfeitures, minimize theaccumulation ofsoybean stocks bytheFederal Government, minimize
thecostincurred bytheFederal Government instoring soybeans, andallow soybeans produced in
theUnited States tobemarketed freely andcompetitively, bothdomestically andinternationally.
Allproducers areeligible toobtain soybean price support loans, which arenine-month loans.
Inaddition,loandeficiencypaymentswillbepaidtofarmerswhoagreetoforegoobtainingthemarketing
loan. Payment isbased onthequantity eligible (farm acreage actually harvested multiplied bythe
actual yieldestablished forthefarm) multiplied bytheamount bywhich theloanrateexceeds theloan
repayment rate.
Producers cannot berequired toparticipate inanyproduction adjustment forsoybeans orany
other commodity asacondition ofeligibility forsoybean price supports. Soybeans arenoteligible
forstorage payments oranyreserve program.
Amount
TheUSGovernment earned anestimated $20.5 million onthesoybean program infiscal year
1993andspent anestimated $119.1 million onthesoybean program infiscal year1994. Theestimated
amount perunitisasfollows:
Year Average Price Average
Beginning Support Rate Farm Price
------------------------------($/bushel)-----------------------------
1992 $5.02 $5.56
1993 $5.02 $6.40
1994 $4.92 $5.48
1995 $4.92 $7.00
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page32
Trade effects
Thepricesupport program forsoybeans hashadnoappreciable effect ontrade. Inrecent years,
market prices havegenerally beenabove loanrates. Statistical information onproduction, consumption,
imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Minor Oilseeds
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994.
Policy objective andpurpose
Minor oilseeds (sunflowerseed, canola, rapeseed, safflowerseed, flaxseed, mustardseed, and
suchother oilseeds astheSecretary ofAgriculture maydetermine) arecovered byacombination of
programs thatprovide forprice support.
Background andauthority
Thesupport programs described inthisnotification wereauthorized bytheCommodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act,theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Actof1990.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
The1949 Actasamended bytheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990
establishes amarketing loanprogram forminor oilseeds. Under themarketing loanprogram, aproducer
iseligible toobtain anonrecourse pricesupport loan. Theloanlevelforeachofthe1993-1995crops
forminor oilseeds could notbelessthan$0.087 perpound. TheSecretary ofAgriculture wasdirected
topermit aproducer torepay aloanatalevelthatisthelesser oftheloanleveldetermined forthe
crop; ortheprevailing world market price established fortheminor oilseeds (adjusted toUSquality
andlocation), asdetermined bytheSecretary; oratsuchother level(notinexcess oftheloanlevel
determined forthecrop) thattheSecretary determined would minimize potential loanforfeitures,
minimize theaccumulation ofoilseed stocks bytheFederal Government, minimize thecostincurred
bytheFederal Government instoring oilseeds, andallow oilseeds produced intheUnited States to
bemarketedfreelyandcompetitively,bothdomesticallyandinternationally.Allminoroilseedsproducers
areeligible toobtain price support loans, which arenine-month loans. Inaddition, loandeficiency
payments arepaidtofarmers whoagree toforego obtaining theloan. Payment isbased onthequantity
eligible(farmacreageactuallyharvestedmultipliedbytheactualyieldestablishedforthefarm)multiplied
bytheamount bywhich theloanrateexceeds theloanrepayment rate.
Producers cannot berequired toparticipate inanyproduction adjustment foroilseeds orany
other commodity asacondition ofeligibility foroilseed price supports. These minor oilseeds arenot
eligible forstorage payments oranyreserve program.
Amount
TheUSGovernment isestimated tohavespent thefollowing amounts ontheminor oilseed
program infiscal year1995: sunflower ($1.02 million), rapeseed ($0), canola ($116,000 million),
mustardseed ($0), safflower ($0)andflaxseed (-$14,000 million). Theestimated amount perunitis
asfollows:G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page33
Crop year1995, prices perpound:
Average Price Average
Crop Support Rate Farm Price
(-------------------dollars-------------------)
Sunflowerseed (oiltype) 0.087 0.102
Sunflowerseed (other type) 0.087 0.103
Rapeseed 0.087 0.123
Canola 0.087 0.115
Mustardseed 0.087 0.110
Safflowerseed 0.087 0.139
Flaxseed 0.087 0.938
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Theprice support programs forminor oilseeds havehadnoappreciable effect ontrade. In
recent years, market prices havegenerally beenabove loanrates. Statistical information onproduction,
consumption, imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Title: Support forPeanuts
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1994.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Peanuts arecovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forpricesupport andproduction
control.
Background andauthority
TheprogramsdescribedinthisnotificationwereauthorizedbytheCommodityCreditCorporation
Charter Act,theAgricultural Adjustment Actof1938, theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheFood,
Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990.
(Itshould benoted thatthere arenodirect export incentives pertaining topeanuts. However,
adualprice support system doesexistunder which peanuts fordomestic edible usearesupported at
onelevel, andpeanuts forexport orcrushing aresupported atalower level, setconsistent withthe
world market price. Thissupport pricesystem waspreviously protected byimport quotas established
under theauthority ofSection 22oftheAgricultural Adjustment Actof1933, asamended. AsaresultG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page34
oftheUruguay Round agreements, these quotas havebeenconverted totariff ratequotas (TRQs),
effective 1January 1995.)
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Theprice ofpeanuts issupported through nonrecourse price support loans andpurchase
agreements. The1995pricesupport rateforquota peanuts was$678.36 pershort ton.The1995loan
ratefor"additional" (over-quota) peanuts was$132.00 pershort ton.Thesupport rateforsubsequent
crops ofquota peanuts willbetheratefortheprevious crop, adjusted toreflect anyincreases inthe
costofproduction (excluding anychange inthecostofland) during theprevious calendar year. As
aresult ofthe1990 Farm Bill,thesupport ratecannot beincreased bymore than5percentfromthe
previous yeareffective withthe1990 crop.
Theprice support rateforadditional (over-quota) peanuts willbeatlevels theSecretary of
Agriculture determines appropriate, given prices anddemand ofoilsandmeals. Theratemust be
settoincur nolosses totheCommodity Credit Corporation onthesaleordisposal ofsuchpeanuts.
Inaddition toprice support, peanuts areunder asupply management program. Thefirstpart
isthequota system. Anational poundage quota issetandfarmquota holders receive afarmpoundage
quota which isaproportionate share ofthenational poundage quota. Thequota levelofpeanuts is
intended tofilldomestic demand forpeanuts forhuman consumption (i.e.notforcrushing orseed).
Thenational poundage quota ineffect for1990croppeanuts was1,560,000 tons. Thenational poundage
quota for1995 croppeanuts issetat1,350,000 short tons. Peanuts grown andmarketed inexcess
ofthefarmpoundage quota orbyfarmers without aquota mustbeexported, crushed foroil,orput
onloantotheCommodity Credit Corporation. Itispossible forCommodity Credit Corporation
"additional" peanuts toenter thedomestic edible market under certain conditions.
TheOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Actof1990amendments require a1.1percentmarketing
assessment onthe1995 cropofpeanuts. Ingeneral, theassessment ischarged against theproducer
andinsome cases thefirstpurchaser ofpeanuts isrequired tocollect from theproducer amarketing
assessment equal to0.55percentoftheapplicable national average support ratetimes thequantity
ofpeanuts acquired. Thefirstpurchaser remits thatamount plusanadditional 0.55percentassessment
totheCommodity Credit Corporation. Ifpeanuts aremarketed privately, theproducer paystheentire
1.0percentmarketing assessment totheCCC. Inthecaseofpeanuts pledged ascollateral foraprice
support loan,onehalftheassessment willbededucted fromtheproceeds oftheloanandtheremainder
oftheassessment shallbepaidbythefirstpurchaser.
Amount
Infiscal year1994, theUSGovernment spent $4.5million (net)onthepeanut program. The
estimated amount perunitisasfollows:
Year Average Loan Rate Average Farm Price
Quota Additional
---------------------cents perpound----------------------------
1992 33.75 6.55 30.00
1993 33.75 6.55 30.40
1994 33.92 6.60 29.00
1995 33.92 6.60 29.00(estimate)G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page35
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Quota peanuts haveasupport pricehigher thantheworld price, sousually thereisnoincentive
toexport thesepeanuts. Thesupport priceforadditional peanuts, mostofwhich aregrown specifically
fortheexport market, takes intoaccount theworld price forpeanuts based onprice anddemand of
edible peanuts. Statistical information onproduction, consumption, imports andexports iscontained
intheAppendix.
Title: Support forDairy Products
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal years 1994 -1995
Policy objective and/or purpose
Dairy products arecovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forprice support.
Background andauthority
TheprogramsdescribedinthisnotificationwereauthorizedbytheCommodityCreditCorporation
Charter Act,theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Act
of1990.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Prior to21October 1981, theAgricultural Actof1949 required thattheprice ofmilkto
producers besupported atsuchlevelbetween 75and90percentofparity aswould assure alevelof
farm income tomaintain productive capacity sufficient tomeet future needs. However, since
21October 1981, thesupport price hasbeenestablished byCongress atspecific price levels, rather
thanparity levels.
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990amendments setthesupport price
ofmilkatnotlessthan$10.10 perhundred pounds through 31December 1995. However, Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Actof1990 amendments provide that$0.05 to$0.1125 perhundred pounds
willbededucted fromtheprice ofmilkpaidtoproducers whoincrease production above thatofthe
previous year. The1990 Actamendments alsoprovide forthepreparation ofastudy ofsupply
management alternatives foryears when Commodity Credit Corporation purchases areestimated to
exceed 7billion pounds onatotalmilksolids equivalent basis. Under certain conditions, anadditional
assessment could belevied ontheprice ofmilkpaidtoproducers.
(Itshould benoted thatimport quotas wereinplace oncertain cheeses andother dairy products
under theprovisions ofSection 22oftheAgricultural Adjustment Actof1933, asamended. AsaG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page36
result oftheUruguay Round agreements, theseQuotas havebeenconverted totariff ratequotas (TRQs),
effective 1January 1995.)
TheCommodity Credit Corporation supports milkprices bybuying butter, cheese andnon-fat
drymilkfrommanufacturers atannounced prices which arecalculated toallow processors topayfarmers
theannounced support price formilk. Relevant price support levels arelisted below:
1January 1990 $10.10/cwt
1January 1991-96 $10.10/cwt
Amount
Itisestimated thatinfiscal year1994, theUSGovernment spent $540 million (net)onthe
dairy program. Theestimated amount perunitisasfollows:
Marketing Support Price Average Farm Price Year
at3.67% butterfat at3.67% butterfat
(-------------------- $perhundredweight --------------------)
1990-91 10.10 12.23 (CY1991)
1990-95 10.10 11.61 (CY1992)
12.02 (CY1993)
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Inmanaging itsdairy support program, theUnited States strives toavoid setting support prices
atlevels which stimulate production beyond domestic market requirements. However, adjustments
ofsupport prices alone hasnotproved sufficient, largely because ofcontinuing improvements inmilk
production technology. Inthose instances where dairy surpluses haveaccumulated, thepolicy isto
avoid disrupting domestic markets orexport markets fornon-subsidizing exporters indisposing ofthose
surpluses. Donations todomestic feeding programs accounted for61percentofsurplus removals
in1990/91 and8percentofsurplus removals in1993/94. Foreign salesofdairy surpluses havebeen
within theguidelines specified inPartIII,Sections BandDofthisnotification. TheUnited States
remains alarge netimporter ofdairy products. Statistical information onproduction, consumption,
imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Title: Support forSugar
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal years 1994 -1995 (preliminary)G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page37
Policy objective and/or purpose
Sugar iscovered byacombination ofprograms thatprovide forprice support.
Background andauthority
Theprograms described inthisnotification areauthorized bytheAgricultural Actof1949,
andtheAgricultural adjustment Actof1938.
Thepricesupport program forsugar isauthorized bytheAgricultural Actof1949. TheFood,
Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990amended the1949Actwithrespect tothe1991-1995
crops ofdomestically grown sugarcane andsugar beets. Atariff ratequota isineffect under the
Additional USNote2toChapter 17oftheHarmonized Tariff Schedule oftheUnited States (HTS).
There arenoexport incentives forsugar. Inaddition, theFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade
Actof1990 amended theAgricultural Adjustment Actof1938 toestablish marketing allotments for
sugar andcrystalline fructose under certain circumstances.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Sugar prices aresupported through nonrecourse loans made tosugar processors whomustagree
topayatleasttheminimum levelofsupport fortheapplicable region toanyproducer whodelivers
sugar beetsorsugarcane forprocessing. The1994national average support price(loanrate)is18cents
perpound forrawcanesugar. Theloanrateforrefined beetsugar fromthe1994cropis23.43 cents
perpound.
Under theFood Security Actof1985, thePresident isdirected byCongress touseallavailable
authorities toenable theSecretary ofAgriculture tooperate thesugar program atnonetcosttothe
Federal Government bypreventing Commodity Credit Corporation accumulation ofsugar acquired
through loanforfeitures.
The1949 Acttorequires firstprocessors ofsugar topaymarketing assessments tothe
CommodityCreditCorporation.Forsugarcanemarketedduringfiscalyears1992-95,thefirstprocessor
willpayanon-refundable marketing assessment of$0.0018 perpound ofrawcanesugar processed
from domestically-produced sugarcane, and$0.00193 perpound ofbeetsugar processed from
domestically produced sugar beets. Forsugarcane marketed during fiscal years 1995-1998, the
assessment willbe0.198 cents perpound ofrawcanesugar and0.2123 cents perpound ofbeetsugar.
The1938Act,asamended,providesthat,iftheSecretaryofAgriculturedeterminesthatimports
would fallbelow 1.25million short tons,rawvalue, inanyfiscal year(October through September),
heisdirected toimpose marketing allotments ondomestic processors, limiting theirability tomarket
domestically produced sugar such thatimports willmeetorexceed theminimum 1.25million short
tons, rawvalue, level.
Amount
Infiscal year1994, theprogram provided $22.9 million (net)totheFederal government in
theformofmarketing assessments inconnection withcommodity loans. Thesupport priceismaintained
primarily through import barriers anddomestic marketing allotments rather than government
expenditures.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page38
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Theprice support program isintended tostabilize domestic prices andtosupport producer
income intimes ofworld surpluses andlowworld prices. Most sugar imports currently aresubject
totariff ratequotas, andtheUnited States remains anetimporter ofsugar. Statistical information
onconsumption, production, imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Title: Support forWool andMohair
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal years 1994 -1995 (preliminary).
Policy objective and/or purpose
Payments under thewool andmohair support programs areintended toencourage producers
toimprove thequality andmarketing ofwool andmohair, since those producers whoobtain higher
prices fortheirwool andmohair alsoreceive higher incentive payments.
Background andauthority
TheNational Wool Actof1954 wasamended bytheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Actof1990 tocover the1991-95 marketing years forwool andmohair. However, Public
Law103-130 provided foraphase-out ofthewool andmohair programs overthe1994 and1995
marketing years andrepealed theWool Actasof31December 1995. Forthe1994 marketing year,
producers received only75percentofthecalculated payment. Forthe1995marketing year,producers
received only50percent. (There arenoimport quotas orexport incentives forwool ormohair.)
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Support iscarried outthrough incentive payments toproducers. Payments arebased onthe
percentage, called thepayment rate,needed tobring theaverage return (market price +payment)
received byallproducers uptothesupport level. Todetermine aproducer 'spayment, thepayment
rateisapplied totheindividual producer 'snetproceeds from thesaleofwool ormohair. Forthe
1991-95 marketing years ofwoolandmohair, theAgricultural Reconciliation Actimposes amarketing
assessment of1.0percentthatisdeducted from thetotalpayment.
TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Actof1990amendments alsocontained the
provision thatanindividual ’stotalpayments under thisActforwool ormohair shallnotexceed:
A. $200,000 forthe1991 marketing year;
B. $175,000 forthe1992 marketing year;
C. $150,000 forthe1993 marketing year;
D. $125,000 forthe1994 marketing year;G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page39
E. $100,000 forthe1995 marketing year.
Amount
Infiscal year1994, theUSGovernment spent $211million onthewoolandmohair programs.
Theestimated amount perunitisasfollows:
National Average Support Prices, Farm Prices andPayment Rates
Support Price Farm Price Payment Rate1/
(----------$ perpound -------------) (%ofmarket return)
Wool
1992 $1.97 $0.74 1.662
1993 $2.04 $0.51 3.000
1994 $2.09 $0.78 1.259
1995 $2.12 $0.90 2/ 0.678 2/
Mohair
1992 $4.61 $0.86 4.364
1993 $4.74 $0.82 4.778
1994 $4.74 $2.56 0.638
1995 $4.66 $1.85 2/ 0.759 2/
1/ Seeexplanation above.
2/ 1995 figures areestimates.
The1994and1995figures reflect the25percentand50percentcutinpayments, respectively,
inaccordance withlegislation phasing outtheprograms.
Duration
Asnoted above, thissupport hasnowbeeneliminated.
Trade effects
TheUSwoolprogram hasnotaffected international production ortradetoagreatextent because
thedominant factor inUSwool production istheprice ofmeatrather thantheprice ofwool. The
USisandexpects toremain bothaminor producer andanimporter ofwool. Because mohair prices
aremuch greater thanwoolprices, goatmeatprices arelessimportant indetermining mohair production
thanlambprices areforwool. Evenso,themohair program isnotbelieved tohaveasignificant impact
onmohair trade. Statistical information onproduction, consumption, imports andexports iscontained
intheAppendix.
Title: Support forHoney
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal years 1994 -1995 (preliminary)G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page40
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thehoney support program provides market stability toproducers andencourages maintenance
ofbeepopulations which arevitalforpollination ofimportant seed, fruitandvegetable crops.
Background andauthority
TheprogramsdescribedinthisnotificationwereauthorizedbytheCommodityCreditCorporation
Charter Act,theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Act
of1990. (There arenoimport quotas orexport incentives forhoney.)
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
TheAgricultural Actof1949requires price support tobemade available tohoney producers
through loans, purchases orother operations. TheFood, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Act
of1990 amendments establish thefollowing payment andforfeiture limits perproducer forhoney.
Appropriations actsforfiscal years 1994and1995haveprohibited CCCfromaccepting loanforfeitures
during therespective fiscal years. Inaddition, marketing loans werenotavailable forthe1995 crop
during fiscal years 1994 or1995.
Government Benefit Limits
Year Forfeitures Payments Total
1991 $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
1992 $175,000 $175,000 $350,000
1993 $150,000 $150,000 $300,000
1994 $125,000 $125,000 $250,000
1995 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000
Honeyproducersaresupportedthroughapricesupportloanprogramwhichalsoallowsproducers
torepay loans ataratelower thantheloanrate. Thelower ratefluctuates throughout theyearand
isestablished onamonthly basis. Thiswasinstituted toencourage producers tomarket theirhoney
rather thanforfeit ittothegovernment and,thus,cause abuild-up ofgovernment-owned stocks. The
loanratefor1991-95 wassetinthe1949 Act,asamended bythe1990 Act,at53.8cents perpound.
TheOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Actof1993reduced theloanrateto$0.50 perpound forthe1995
crop. Thedifference between theloanrateandtherateatwhich theproducer repays hisloanisthe
deficiency payment. The1990 Actamendments alsoprovide thatloandeficiency payments willbe
made toproducers whoagree nottoobtain ahoney price support loan.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Actamendments require that producers and
producer-packersofthe1991-93cropsofhoneypaytheCommodityCreditCorporationanon-refundable
marketing assessment equal to1.0percentofthenational price support levelforthecrop.
Amount
Infiscal year1994, theUSGovernment spent $10.0 million onthehoney program. Theamount
perunitisestimated asfollows:G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page41
National Average
Year Support Price Market Price
(-----------cents perpound-----------)
1992 53.8 55.0
1993 53.8 49.9
1994 50.0 52.8
1995 50.0 64.4
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.
Trade effects
Thesupport priceforhoney isabove theworld market price. During themid-1980s, theprice
support ratewaswellabove theworld price, resulting inhighlevels ofimports. Theimplementation
ofthelower repayment ratehasreduced thenumber offorfeitures andlowered thelevelofimports
buthasnotresulted insignificantly increased exports. Statistical information onproduction,
consumption, imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
Title: Support forTobacco
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal years 1994 -1995 (preliminary)
Policy objective and/or purpose
Tobacco iscovered byacombination ofprograms designed toprovide price support andto
promote production adjustment.
Background andauthority
Thesupport programs described inthisnotification fortobacco (burley, flue-cured, dark
air-cured, fire-cured, sun-cured, cigar binder andcigar filler) were authorized bytheAgricultural
Adjustment Actof1938, theAgricultural Actof1949, andtheCommodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act. (There arenoimport quotas orexport incentives fortobacco. However, manufacturers were
discouraged fromincreasing imports oftobacco during calendar year1994bytheimposition ofdomestic
content requirements under theFord Amendment.)
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Theamount ofthenational marketing quota forflue-cured andburley tobacco isestablished
bythe1949 Actatnotmore than103percentnorlessthan97percentofthetotalof:(1)thetotal
amount domestic cigarette manufacturers estimate theyintend topurchase onauction markets orfrom
producers during themarketing year; (2)theaverage annual quantity exported fromtheUnited StatesG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page42
during thethreemarketing years preceding theyearforwhich thequota isbeing set;and(3)thatamount
which theSecretary ofAgriculture determines isnecessary toincrease ordecrease theproducer
association inventory toreach thereserve stock level.
Theprice support levelforflue-cured andburley tobacco isdetermined bystatutory formula.
Price support for1988andsubsequent years isbased onthechange inthepreceding five-year average
auction prices (2/3weight) andthechange inacostofproduction index adjusted foryield trends
(1/3weight). Foreachofthe1991-95 crops oftobacco forwhich price support ismade available,
producers andpurchasers arerequired byAgricultural Reconciliation Actamendments topaythe
Commodity Credit Corporation anon-refundable marketing assessment equal to0.5percentofthe
national price support level. Forthe1995cropmarketings, thecombined assessments total0.8cents
perpound fortheproducer and1.8cents perpound forthepurchaser.
Thenational average loanlevel forthe1996 flue-cured tobacco cropis$1.601 perpound.
Thenational marketing quota is873.6 million pounds. Thenational average loanlevel forburley
tobacco in1996 is$1.733 perpound. Thenational marketing quota is634million pounds.
Amount
Forfiscal year1994, theUSGovernment spent anestimated $851million ontobacco support
programs (outlays), andhadreceipts (loans repaid andmiscellaneous) of$159 million, foranet
expenditure onsupport andrelated programs fortobacco of$692 million.
Estimates ofper-unit amounts interms ofsupport prices andaverage farmprices forburley
andflue-cured tobacco aregiven below:
National Average Average Farm
Type/year Support Price Price
(-----------------------------$/lb.----------------------------)
Flue-cured
1992 1.560 1.726
1993 1.577 1.681
1994 1.583 1.698
1995 1.597 1.794 (preliminary)
Burley
1992 1.649 1.815
1993 1.683 1.816
1994 1.714 1.841
1995 1.725 1.845 (preliminary)
Duration
USdomestic commodity programs forthe1996 -2002 crops arecurrently being debated by
theCongress. Hence, thereisnothing thatcanbesaidwithcertainty about whatchanges willbemade.
However, thebudget willcontinue tobeanoverriding concern, andanynewprogram provisions will
most likely require areduction inGovernment outlays.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page43
Trade effects
Ingeneral, theUnited States price support program hasnotincreased exports ordecreased
imports. Some American tobaccos command apremium pricebecause oftheirhighquality. However,
thesupport program hasraised UStobacco prices higher thantheywould beotherwise, possibly acting
asanimport incentive andexport disincentive. Statistical information onproduction, consumption,
imports andexports iscontained intheAppendix.
AUTOMOTIVES/ENGINES/MOTORS
Title: Partnership foraNewGeneration ofVehicles (PNGV)
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
ThePNGV isacooperative R&D program between various agencies oftheUSFederal
Governmentand,primarily,theUnitedStatesCouncilforAutomotiveResearch(USCAR),themembers
ofwhich aretheChrysler Corporation, theFordMotor Company andGeneral Motors Corporation.
Theprogram hasthree main goals: (1)tosignificantly improve USmanufacturing competitiveness;
(2)toimplement commercially viable innovation fromongoing research onconventional vehicles; and
(3)ultimately, todevelop avehicle which would achieve uptothreetimes thefuelefficiency oftoday’s
comparable vehicles while maintaining orimproving current levels ofperformance, size,utility and
totalcostofownership, andwhile meeting orexceeding USFederal safety andemissions requirements.
Asopposed tobeing adiscrete, self-contained “program, ”thePNGV is(inbothitsconception
anditsimplementation) more ofamechanism forpolicy coordination ofthenumerous partnerships
amongfederallaboratories,automobilemanufacturers,universitiesandvarioussupplierstotheautomotive
industry, inwhich theparticipants jointly andcooperatively apply resources tomeetthethreeprogram
goals described above. Consequently, allorpartoftheactivities conducted under some oftheother
programs referenced inthisnotification mayrepresent elements ofthemuch broader PNGV initiative.
Additionally,asnotedintheintroductiontothisnotification,thevarietyandcomplexityofthepartnership
activities issuchthat,inmany instances, nosubsidy within themeaning oftheSubsidies Agreement
could necessarily besaidtoexist.
Background andauthority
Thebackground andauthority forthePNGV program asawhole isembodied inadeclaration
ofintent entered intoinSeptember 1993 between thePresident oftheUnited States andUSCAR and
itsmembership. Authority fortheindividual partnership activities which comprise thePNGV stems
fromavariety ofappropriations billsandother lawswhich support thevaried R&D activities ofthe
participating federal agencies (theDepartments ofTransportation, Energy, Commerce, Defense and
Interior, theEnvironmental Protection Agency, NASA andtheNational Science Foundation).
Form
Duetothebroad anddiverse nature oftheprogram, assistance isprovided through avariety
ofmechanismsnegotiatedbetweentheUSGovernmentandprivatesectorparticipants.SuchmechanismsG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page44
include contracts, subcontracts, understandings, grants, awards, cooperative research anddevelopment
agreements (CRADAs)1andshared research arrangements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Asnoted above, theprimary non-governmental participants inthePNGV program areUSCAR
anditsmembership.However,assistanceisoftenprovidedtouniversitiesandotherindependentresearch
establishmentswhich,fortheirownresearchinterests,wishtoparticipateinsomeofthePNGVactivities.
Moreover, inmany ofthesponsored R&D activities, private sector participants represent awidevariety
ofupstream industries which supply orhaveother commercial relationships withtheautomotive sector,
including some firms offoreign ownership. Themethod bywhich assistance isprovided isdescribed
above.
Amount
Infiscal year1995, atotalof$270 million wasfunded forthevarious PNGV projects across
theeightparticipatingfederalagencies,whichdetermineonanindividualbasishowandtowhichprojects
monies willbeallocated.
Duration
ThePNGV initiative commenced inSeptember 1993 andisprojected tolastuntil2004.
Trade effects
Insofar astheprimary objective ofthePNGV isthedevelopment ofanew, exceptionally
fuel-efficient vehicle, itisatmostpremature tospeculate astowhether theprogram would produce
anyquantifiable trade effects. Moreover, given thediversity ofknowledge andpotential applications
which mayariseoutoftheresearch conducted under thisinitiative, thediffuse nature oftheprogram ’s
benefits isapttomake theidentification oftangible tradeeffects atanypoint intimehighly theoretical.
Title: TheAlternative FuelVehicle Development Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
1Theterm"CRADA"hasafairlyspecificmeaningasaresultoflegislationandregulationsdeveloped
toimplement avariety ofUStechnology promotion andcommercialization programs. Generally,
however, itisanegotiated, contractual agreement between afederal agency oragency laboratory and
aprivate sector partner orpartners (including universities andindependent research institutions) in
which theparties agree onthedesignation ofpersonnel, facilities, equipment andother resources to
acollaborative R&D activity, aswellastothedisposition ofanyintellectual property which theR&D
yields. ACRADA isjustoneofseveral legalinstruments ormechanisms through which government
agencies work inpartnership withbusiness andacademia inpursuit ofshared orcomplementary R&D
objectives. Examples ofother suchinstruments are"cooperative agreements", contracts andgrants.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page45
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheAlternative FuelVehicle Development program supports R&D activities inthree main
areas ofwork: (i)tooptimize engine performance through fuelcompositions thatminimize harmful
emissions andimprove combustion; (ii)todemonstrate heavy andlightdutyvehicles, especially in
fleets; and(iii)tocollect dataonalternative fuels.
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheDepartment ofEnergy ’s(DOE) Office ofEnergy Efficiency
andRenewable Energy. Itslegislative authority derives fromtheEnergy Conservation andProduction
Actof1976, theAlternative Motor Fuels Actof1988, andTitleIVoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participationintheprogramvariesfromgrantsprovidedtouniversitiestocooperativeagreements
andcooperative research anddevelopment agreements (CRADAs) negotiated withindustrial partners.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Viaacompetitive selection andaward process, participants intheprogram range fromengine
manufacturerstoemissions-testinglaboratories(throughcooperativeagreements)anduniversities(through
grants). Stategovernment energy offices alsoparticipate intheprogram inthesolicitation andreview
ofproject proposals.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram inthefiscal year1995 totalled $53million.
Duration
R&D associated withthisprogram wasbegun asearlyas1976. While theprogram isnotsubject
toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations by
theCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheMotor Challenge Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheMotor Challenge program isgenerally intended todemonstrate andvalidate cost-effective
technologies thatimprove theenergy efficiency ofmotors. Through thevarious R&D activitiesG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page46
undertaken under thisprogram, thebroad objective istodevelop andimprove motors which would
helptosave25billion kilowatt hours bytheyear2000.
Background andauthority
TheMotorChallengeprogramisadministeredbytheOfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewable
Energy attheDOE. Legislative authority fortheprogram derives fromTitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy
Actof1992.
Form
Assistanceunderthisprogramtakestheformoftechnicalassistanceprovidedtofirmsperforming
R&D, thevalidation ofstudy results, andthedissemination ofinformation resulting from theR&D
activities.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Slightly over20firms areperforming avariety ofR&D activities withtechnical assistance
provided bytheDOE. Approximately 1,000 other companies representing alargeanddiverse number
ofmanufacturing sectors haveentered intoarrangements withtheDOE whereby theywillreceive
information about designs andproducts thathavebeendeveloped andtested withDOE participation,
including theR&D activities oftheprivate firms receiving DOE’stechnical assistance thatwere
mentioned above.
Amount
Thetotalamount budgeted forthese activities infiscal year1995 came to$5.5million.
Duration
TheMotor Challenge program wasinitiated in1993. Assuming program goals aremetand
theCongress continues toappropriate funds forthese activities, itisanticipated thattheprogram will
terminate in1997.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheHeat Engines Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheHeatEngines program isgenerally intended toimprove uponcombustion technology and
thedesign ofpiston andturbine engines thatareusedinlightandheavy dutyvehicles inorder toachieve
increased economies andefficiency.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page47
Background andauthority
TheHeatEnginesprogramisadministeredbyDOE’sOfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewable
Energy. Legislative authority fortheprogram derives from TitleXXoftheEnergy Policy Actof
1992 andtheAutomotive Propulsion Research andDevelopment Actof1978.
Form
Assistance under thisprogram hastaken theform ofgrants andcooperative agreements,
cost-shared contracts, andCRADAs.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Under theprogram todate, assistance hasbeenprovided viaCRADAs concluded withtwo
gasturbine manufacturers andthree automotive manufacturers, grants touniversities, contracts with
three diesel engine manufacturers, andcontracts withpetroleum companies.
Amount
Thetotalamount budgeted forthese activities infiscal year1995 came to$18.2 million.
Duration
TheHeat Engines program wasbegun in1978. Although continuation oftheprogram is
contingent upon annual appropriation bytheCongress, there isnofixed completion date.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheElectric Hybrid Propulsion Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thegeneral objective andpurpose oftheElectric Hybrid Propulsion program is(i)todevelop
battery technologies thatwillmake batteries andfuelcellswhich perform inamanner similar tothat
obtained inconventional vehicles; and(ii)todevelop ahybrid propulsion system thatwilldouble current
vehicle fueleconomy.
Background andauthority
TheDOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy administers theElectric Hybrid
Propulsion program. Legislative authority fortheprogram derives fromTitles VIandXXoftheEnergy
Policy Actof1992, theNon-Nuclear Energy Research andDevelopment Actof1974andtheElectric
andHybrid Vehicle Research, Development andDemonstration Actof1976.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page48
Form
Assistance under thisprogram hastaken theform ofgrants andcooperative agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participants intheprogram amount toapproximately 100large- andsmall-sized firms, including
manufacturers ofbatteries, engines andvehicle systems andcomponents. Participation intheprogram
isdetermined through competitive procurement processes.
Amount
Thetotalamount budgeted infiscal year1995 was$89.8 million.
Duration
TheElectric Hybrid Propulsion program waslaunched in1974. While theprogram isnot
subject toanyfixedcompletion date,itscontinuation iscontingent uponongoing annual appropriations
bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
BUILDING EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
Title: TheBuilding Equipment Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheBuilding Equipment program isgenerally aimed atthedevelopment oftechnologies that
improve theenergy efficiency ofbuildings, e.g.through solar thermal systems andhigh-efficiency
refrigeration, furnaces, boilers, andlighting.
Background andauthority
DOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy administers theBuilding Equipment
program. Legislative authority fortheprogram derives fromTitleIII(B) oftheEnergy Conservation
andProduction Actof1976, Sections 103,121,125,126,158,172,2101, 2102and2105oftheEnergy
Policy Actof1992, TitleIIIoftheEnergy Policy andConservation Act,andTitles IIandVofthe
National Energy Conservation Policy Actof1977.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page49
Form
Assistance under thisprogram hasbeenprovided through cost-shared contracts andcooperative
agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Through aprocess ofcompetitive procurement, participation inthisprogram hasincluded about
15large heating/air-conditioning/refrigeration companies, sixsmall R&D companies, three lamp
manufacturers,sixfixturemanufacturers,fivemanufacturersofsolarthermalsystems,andapproximately
20suppliers ofvalves, pumps, etc.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 came to$21.5 million.
Duration
TheBuilding Equipment program predates thecreation oftheDOEin1978. While theprogram
isnotsubject toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual
appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheBuilding Systems Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheBuilding Systems program isdesigned tofurther three main objectives: (i)toidentify
constructiontechniquesthatwillproducetheoptimumcombinationofcostandefficiency;(ii)toincrease
energy efficiency within commercial andresidential buildings while maintaining indoor airquality;
and(iii)todevelop diagnostic toolsandtechnology toretrofit existing buildings forincreased energy
efficiency.
Background andauthority
Thisprogram isadministered byDOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy.
Legislative authority fortheprogram derives from TitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Assistance under thisprogram isprovided primarily through grants andcooperative agreements,
although some ofthecollaborative work isimplemented through subcontracts.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page50
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participants inthisprogram arecomprised largely ofbuilders ofresidences anddesigners,
operators andowners ofcommercial buildings. These parties areclearly notmanufacturers orexporters
ofgoods inthesense oftheGATT 1994. However, theUnited States isproviding information with
respect tothisprogram intheinterest oftransparency andbecause, through subcontracts andother
mechanisms, itmaybethatgoods manufacturers haveparticipated orwillparticipate insome aspect
oftheR&D being performed. Theselection ofparticipants isgenerally done through competitive
procurements.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 was$19million.
Duration
Funding forthisprogram began in1992. While theprogram isnotsubject toanyfixed
completion date,itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheBuilding Envelope Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheBuilding Envelope program issimilar totheBuilding Systems program but,generally
speaking, itismoreoriented towards industrial research activity thanisthelatterprogram. TheBuilding
Envelope program hasthefollowing primary goals: (i)todevelop energy efficient building systems
while retaining overall airquality within thebuildings; (ii)todevelop window glazing thatreduces
peakcooling andheating loads andlighting loads; and(iii)todevelop anddemonstrate newbuilding
materials andstructural techniques thatwillincrease energy efficiency within buildings.
Background andauthority
TheDOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy administers thisprogram.
Legislative authority fortheprogram derives from TitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participation inthisprogram iseffectuated through grants andcooperative agreements.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page51
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
AswiththeBuilding Systems program, participants inthisprogram arecomprised largely of
builders ofresidences anddesigners, operators andowners ofcommercial buildings. These parties
areclearly notmanufacturers orexporters ofgoods inthesense oftheGATT 1994. However, the
United States isproviding information withrespect tothisprogram intheinterest oftransparency and
because, through subcontracts andother mechanisms, itmaybethatgoods manufacturers have
participated orwillparticipate insomeaspect oftheR&D being performed. Theselection ofparticipants
isgenerally donethrough competitive procurements.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 was$9.6million.
Duration
TheBuilding Envelope program wasinitiated in1992. While theprogram isnotsubject to
anyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations bythe
Congress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
CERAMICS &LIGHT-WEIGHT MATERIALS
Title: TheLight-Weight Transportation Materials Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thegeneral purpose ofthisprogram istoassist andencourage thedevelopment oflight-weight
materials foruseinvehicles inorder toimprove energy efficiency.
Background andauthority
TheLight-Weight Transportation Materials program isadministered bytheDOE’sOffice of
Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy. Itslegislative authority derives fromTitleXXoftheEnergy
Policy Actof1992.
Form
Thisprogram isimplemented primarily through theuseofcooperative agreements.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page52
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Through asystem ofcompetitive procurement, approximately 10firms fromtheceramics sector
andother secondary suppliers totheautomotive industry haveparticipated intheprogram.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthefiscal year1995 was$33.7 million.
Duration
TheLight-Weight Transportation Materials program began in1992. While theprogram is
notsubjecttoanyfixedcompletiondate,itscontinuationiscontingentuponongoingannualappropriations
bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheContinuous Fibre Ceramic Composite Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thegeneral purpose ofthisprogram istoassist andpromote thedevelopment ofadvanced
ceramic composite materials forindustrial applications, interalia,toobtain greater energy savings.
Background andauthority
DOE’sOfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyadministerstheprogram.Legislative
authority forthisprogram derives from TitleXXII oftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Assistance under thisprogram isprimarily provided through grants andcooperative agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participation intheContinuous Fibre Ceramic Composite program isdetermined through
competitive procurement, withvarious materials andequipment manufacturers taking part.
Amount
Thetotalamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 came to$8million.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page53
Duration
Theprogram wasinitiated in1992, andisprojected toextend until2002.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
CHEMICALS &PETROCHEMICALS
Title: TheHydrogen Research &Development Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thebasic purpose oftheHydrogen Research andDevelopment program istoundertake R&D
intotheuseofhydrogen asafuelandafeedstock, aswellastoexplore thedevelopment ofnewor
improved equipment forthetransportation ofhydrogen. TheHydrogen Research andDevelopment
program wasestablished toencourage andsupport thedevelopment ofpractical andcost-competitive
hydrogen technologies andsystems tomeetlarge-scale energy market needs. Thisprogram willdevelop
anddemonstrate theprocesses andtechnologies needed toproduce, store, transport andutilize hydrogen
forallenergy sectors. Theprogram follows atechnology development strategy focused onlong-term
applications inlarge-scale energy markets using renewable hydrogen. Theprogram alsoseeks tofoster
new,near-term markets using theexisting fossil infrastructure asthestarting point. Theprogram will
accomplish thisbypursuing withindustry carefully selected cost-shared demonstrations toillustrate
and/or develop commercial opportunities inthenear- andmid-term andinlarge-scale markets.
Background andauthority
TheHydrogen Research andDevelopment program isadministered byDOE’sOffice ofEnergy
Efficiency andRenewable Energy. Legislative authority fortheprogram derives from theFederal
Non-Nuclear Energy Research andDevelopment Actof1974, theDepartment ofEnergy Organization
Act(1977), theNational Energy Conservation Policy Act(1978), theNational Superconductivity and
Competitiveness Actof1988, theSpark M.Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development and
Demonstration Actof1990 andTitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Assistance under thisprogram isprovided viagrants andcooperative agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Avariety offirms, including small businesses, andeducational institutions haveparticipated
inR&D activities under thisprogram. Commercial partners haveincluded firms within thepetroleum,
glass, chemical, transportation, metals andutilities sectors. Generally, commercial enterprisesG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page54
participated intheprogram through cooperative agreements andeducational institutions through the
receipt ofgrants.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forfiscal year1995 came to$9.2million.
Duration
Asmall hydrogen program hasoperated under DOE andother agency authority since 1975.
FollowingenactmentoftheMatsunagaActof1990,DOEreorganizedandcreatedtheHydrogenResearch
andDevelopment program under itscurrent format. While theprogram isnotsubject toanyfixed
completion date,itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
ENERGY &FUELS
(ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
&OTHER RELATED SECTORS)
Title: TheMembrane Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thisprogram aimstoassist andpromote thedevelopment ofadvanced membrane systems,
which areusedinnatural gasrefining inplace ofinefficient andenvironmentally damaging solvents.
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered byDOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy.
Itslegislative authority stems from TitleXXII oftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participation intheprogram islargely accomplished through CRADAs andcooperative
agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Through bothcompetitive andnoncompetitive procedures, agreements havebeennegotiated
with, interalia,chemical andpetrochemical producers, membrane manufacturers anduniversities.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page55
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram forfiscal year1995 was$3.4million.
Duration
Various projects under thisprogram havebeenundertaken orareunder waysince1982. While
theprogram isnotsubject toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing
annual appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheGeothermal Energy Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheGeothermal Energy program isprimarily intended toincrease theefficiency ofgeothermal
energy technology inexploration, drilling, energy conversion, andreservoir management.
Background andauthority
Thisprogram isadministered byDOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy.
Legislative authority derives fromTitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992 andtheNon-Nuclear
Energy Research andDevelopment Actof1974.
Form
Assistance under theprogram isprovided through grants, cooperative agreements, CRADAs
andotherforms ofcollaboration accomplished through consortium-based activities between government
laboratories andprivate industry.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participation intheprogram isdetermined through acompetitive procurement process, which
isopentoalleligible parties, including foreign enterprises. Because ofthewide-ranging focus ofthe
R&D activities, participants havealsobeenselected fromabroad fieldincluding independent power
producers, municipal utilities, various equipment manufacturers andservice companies.
Amount
Theamount budgeted fortheGeothermal Energy program infiscal year1995 totalled
$31.8 million.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page56
Duration
R&D activity under theauthority ofthisprogram wascommenced asearly as1975. While
theprogram isnotsubject toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing
annual appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheEnergy Storage Systems Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheEnergy Storage Systems program isbroadly aimed atthedevelopment ofnewtechnologies
forstoring energy forvarious applications andcapable ofreleasing thestored energy overawiderange
ofpower andduration.
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered byDOE’sOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy.
Itslegislative authority derives from TitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participation intheEnergy Storage Systems program isprimarily achieved through grants and
cooperative agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participationintheprogramoccursthroughvarioustypesofcost-sharedcontractsandcooperative
agreements between theDOE andutility companies andenergy cooperatives.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram infiscal year1995 came to$4.3million.
Duration
TheEnergy Storage Systems program wasinitiated in1992. While theprogram isnotsubject
toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations by
theCongress.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page57
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheProcess Heating andCooling Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheProcessHeatingandCoolingprogramhastwobroadR&D-relatedobjectives:(i)todevelop
more energy efficient andenvironmentally safecombustion equipment andprocesses forindustrial
heating; and(ii)todevelop technologies forthecollection ofwaste heatandtoimprove theefficiency
ofheating andcooling systems.
Background andauthority
DOE’sOfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyadministersthisprogram.Legislative
authority fortheprogram iscontained intheEnergy Reorganization Actof1974, theFederal
Non-Nuclear Research andDevelopment Actof1974, theDepartment ofEnergy Organization Act
of1977, theRenewable Energy andEnergy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Actof1989,
TitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992, andinannual appropriations legislation.
Form
Participation intheprogram isrealized through theuseofgrants, other financial
assistance/cost-sharing cooperative agreements, CRADAs andother contracts.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Infiscal year1995, R&D activities under thisprogram focused onwork inthefollowing areas:
(i)combustion processes andindustrial combustion equipment, (ii)heatpumps, (iii)recuperators and
(iv)thermal science.
(i) Combustion Processes andIndustrial Combustion Equipment
Companiesengagedinburnerandfurnacedevelopmentparticipatedthroughcost-shared
cooperativeagreements,anduniversitiesparticipatedthroughgrants.Inthecombustionprocesses
area,twoDOE laboratories areparties toCRADAs withoilcompanies andaresearch institute.
Intheindustrial combustion component, DOE alsoparticipated withafurnace developer and
autility totestanatural gaspreheater toreduce electricity consumption andincrease
productivity. Burners andfurnaces areusedinvirtually every industrial sector. Hostsites
andpotential hostsitesforprogram activities include facilities intheglass, oilrefining, chemical
andsteelindustries.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page58
(ii) HeatPumps
Companies engaged inheatpump development anduniversities participated infield
testing, design andanalytical studies through contracts withDOE contractors. Heatpumps
areprimarily foruseinthechemical, pulpandpaper, foodprocessing, refining, textile and
lumber (drying) industries.
(iii) Recuperators
Thefocus ofthisactivity isonhightemperature, highpressure heatexchange systems,
emphasizing theuseofadvanced ceramic materials. Under financial assistance/cost-sharing
cooperative agreements, theDOE anditspartners areconducting aproject torecover heatfrom
ahazardous waste incinerator, andanother project toproduce ethylene atagreater yieldthan
ispossible withcurrent metal reactors. Bothsystems areexpected tobeusedinthechemical,
petrochemical andoilrefining industries.
(iv) Thermal Science
Theparticipants inthisareaofwork come primarily fromthepetroleum refining and
chemical industries. TheDOEanditsnational laboratories collaborate withtheirprivate sector
partners intwobasic ways. First, theycollaborate through thetransfer oftechnologies that
wereinitially developed ingovernment laboratories. Second, theyperform jointresearch under
theterms ofCRADAs andother cost-sharing arrangements infurtherance oftheirrespective,
specific technology needs.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram forthefiscal year1995 was$7.8million.
Duration
TheDOEhasconductedand/orsponsoredvariousprocessheatingandcoolingresearchactivities
since theagency ’sinception in1977. While theProcess Heating andCooling program isnotsubject
toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations by
theCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheBiomass Power Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page59
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thepurpose ofthisprogram islargely two-fold: (i)toreduce thecostofelectricity generated
frombiomass while increasing emission controls; and(ii)toensure thefeasibility ofbiomass gasifier
combined cycle systems.
Background andauthority
TheBiomass Power program isadministered bytheOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable
Energy attheDOE. Legislative authority fortheprogram derives fromTitleXIIoftheEnergy Policy
Actof1992 andtheRenewable Energy &Energy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act.
Form
Participation intheprogram isrealized through theuseofgrants andcooperative agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Through asystem ofcompetitive procurement, participants inthisprogram include combustion
equipmentproducers,designandconstructioncompanies,turbine/generatormanufacturers,woodhandling
companies, pulpandpaper manufacturers andfarmers.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram infiscal year1995 totalled $52.9 million.
Duration
TheBiomass Power program waslaunched in1989. While theprogram isnotsubject toany
fixedcompletiondate,itscontinuationiscontingentuponongoingannualappropriationsbytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheAdvanced Turbine System Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Gasturbines areusedtodrive electrical generators, incogeneration systems orasmechanical
drives forlargepumps orotherdevices requiring bigprime movers. ThegoaloftheAdvanced Turbine
System program istodevelop anddemonstrate several ultra-high efficiency andenvironmentally safe
turbine systems formanufacturing andutility industry applications. These systems willbesignificantly
more efficient thancurrent engines while cutting exhaust emissions dramatically. They willproduce
electricity costing 10percentlessatthebusbar(i.e.prior totransmission). Advancements inengine
system andcomponent design willbeintegrated withtheuseofadvanced materials andmilitary aircraftG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page60
technology. Theefficiency goalfortheutility classgasturbine is60percent(from 54percentin
1992) forcombined cycle; fortheindustrial turbine, animprovement of15percent(from thehigh
20percentrange) issought overcurrent models. Emissions ofnitrous oxides, carbon monoxide and
unburned hydrocarbons aretobereduced tolessthan10partspermillion, compared tocurrent levels
oftypically 50ormore partspermillion. Reliability, maintenance andavailability factors -ofprimary
concern topurchasers -aretobeequivalent toorexceed current standards.
Background andauthority
TheAdvanced Turbine System program isadministered jointly byDOE’sOffice ofEnergy
Efficiency andRenewable Energy andtheOffice ofFossil Energy. Itslegislative authority stems from
TitleXXI, Section 2112 oftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participation intheprogram isaccomplished viagrants andcooperative agreements resulting
from acompetitive procurement process.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Participation intheprogram isdetermined through asystem ofcompetitive procurements
involving turbine manufacturers withdomestic operations andtheirsuppliers, universities, research
institutes andnational laboratories.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthefiscal year1995 totalled $62.2 million.
Duration
Thisprogram waslaunched in1992, andisexpected tobecompleted bytheyear2000.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheIsotope Production andDistribution Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thepurpose ofthisprogram istosupply isotopes forindustrial, agricultural, health, andother
research andtodistribute isotopes forhealth care(i.e.,diagnostic andtherapeutic applications).G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page61
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheOffice ofNuclear Energy attheDOE. TheAtomic Energy
Actof1954, aswellasPublic Laws 101-101 and103-316, provide theDOE withtheauthority to
sellisotope products, related services, andsurplus material.
Form
Assistance under theprogram isprovided through themanufacture andsaleoftheisotope
products andtheco-funding ofcertain ventures withoutside parties.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Asexplained above, isotopes aresoldtoavariety ofmanufacturers andusers inthehealth
careindustries andtoagricultural, industrial andhealth research facilities ofbothacommercial and
non-commercial orientation, bothintheUnited States andabroad.
Amount
Inthefiscal year1995, theamount budgeted forthisprogram totalled $19.5 million (i.e.to
provide excess capacity andtobring onlinenewisotopes).
Duration
Thesaleofisotopes inthemanner authorized bythisprogram began before the1954Acttook
effect. Theactivity isofindefinite duration; itscontinuation issubject toongoing annual appropriations
bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Even ifitwere possible toquantify trade effects which might ensue from aprogram ofthis
nature, itisdoubtful thatthisparticular program hasledtoanymeaningful tradeeffects. Theisotopes
made available bythisprogram havebeensoldthroughout theworld toapproximately 6,000 customers,
primarily formedical research. Theprices charged aredetermined based ontheintended useofthe
isotope; isotopes destined formedical research aretypically themost significantly price-discounted
(although insome applications theprice paidfullycovers theDOE’scosts). Thefrequency ofisotope
production depends upon demand andhalf-life. Although many isotopes aresoldoutofinventory,
approximately 20isotopes areproduced eachyear. Itisthepolicy oftheDOE toavoid competing
withcommercially available isotopes; formost substances, itisthesoledistributor.
Title: TheUranium Programs Technology Partnerships Program -Non-Uranium Enrichment
Applications
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Theobjective ofthisprogram isgenerally tofacilitate thetransfer ofDOE-developed uranium
enrichmenttechnologytoprivateindustryfornon-enrichmentapplications.(DOE’sinorganicmembrane,G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page62
usedintheenrichment ofuranium, isatechnology adaptable toawiderange ofapplications where
liquid andgaseous compounds needseparation andfiltration.) Among thetechnologies transferred
arethose involving separation processes, including filtration; motors; fabrication; instrumentation;
androadsafety.
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheDOE’sOffice ofNuclear Energy. Legislative authority
fortheprogram iscontained intheNational Competitiveness Technology Transfer Actof1989 and
subsequent technology transfer legislation.
Form
Participation intheprogram isprimarily accomplished through CRADAs, ordinarily based
on50percent/50 percentcost-sharing between thegovernment andtheprivate partner.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Theprogram provides onlyforthetransfer oftechnology, viaCRADA partnerships withfirms
involved inthemedical, environmental, remediation andclean-up, petrochemical andbiotechnology
industries. Through themechanism ofthecooperative R&D agreement, technology isdeveloped on
ajoint, 50/50 percentcost-shared basisforsubsequent commercialization bytheprivate sector partner.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram infiscal year1995 totalled $6.5million.
Duration
Theprogram waslaunched in1994. While theprogram isnotsubject toanyfixed completion
date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Itisnotpossible todetermine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult fromthetransfer of
technology effectuated under thisprogram.
Title: TheCoal Research andDevelopment Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thegeneral policy objective ofthisprogram istoaccelerate thecommercialization ofclean
coaltechnologies thatwillenable theuseofcoalasasecure, low-cost domestic energy source while
meeting environmental quality requirements. Thevarious kinds oftechnologies being researched under
thisprogram involve coalliquefaction, heatengines, magnetohydrodynamics, control technology, coal
preparation, fuelcells, surface coalgasification andunderground coalgasification.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page63
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheDOE’sOffice ofFossil Energy. Legislative authority
fortheprogram stems from TitleXIIIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participation intheprogram isachieved largely through contractual agreements involving the
transfer offunds and/or cost-sharing agreements pooling financial andin-kind resources bythe
government andindustry partners.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Assistance isprovided through acompetitive procurement system which hasinvolved equipment
manufacturers anddevelopers (including foreign companies); utilities, architecture andengineering
companies; environmental companies: andnineuniversities.
Amount
Theamount budgeted infiscal year1995 forthisprogram came to$155 million.
Duration
Theprogram predates theestablishment oftheDOE in1978 and,while itisnotsubject to
anyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations bythe
Congress.
Trade effects
Itisnotpossible todetermine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult fromthetransfer of
technology effectuated under thisprogram.
Title: TheFuelCellforStationary Applications Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thecentral purpose oftheprogram istopromote research intoanddevelopment offuelcells
which would ultimately leadtoindustry commercialization ofstationary fuelcellpower plants.
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheDOE’sOffice ofFossil Energy. Itslegislative authority
derives from theEnergy Policy Actof1992.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page64
Form
Program participation islargely achieved through government/industry cost-shared cooperative
agreements.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Assistance wasprovided toavariety ofmajor industrial firms within theenergy sector through
competitive procurement procedures based onselection factors which address technical qualifications,
commercialization plans andcost-sharing arrangements.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram infiscal year1995 reached $50million.
Duration
Theprogram waspreexisting asoftheestablishment oftheDOE in1978, andisprojected
toextend untiltheyear2000.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheOilProgram
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheOilProgram contains fourbroad program objectives:
(1) Exploration andProduction -toidentify andaddress technology andmethodology gaps
inreservoir characterization, extraction research, exploration anddrilling, and
technology transfer;
(2) FieldDemonstrations-toaddresscommonproductionproblemsassociatedwithspecific
types ofreservoirs, anddemonstrate solutions inthefield;
(3) Downstream Processing -todevelop cost-effective andcleaner heavy oilandresidual
upgrading andprocessing technologies tomaximize theoutput oftransportation fuels;
(4) Environmental Research -toreduce environmental coststooperators while improving
environmental performance.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page65
Background andauthority
TheOilprogram isadministered bytheOffice ofFossil Energy oftheDOE. Legislative
authority fortheprogram derives from TitleXX,Section 2011 oftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Using asystem ofcompetitive procurement, assistance wasprovided through various kinds
ofcooperative agreements andCRADAs tobothindependent oilproducers andmajor petroleum
companies, aswellasfirms from service sectors associated withthepetroleum industry.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthefiscal year1995 approximated $35million.
Duration
Theprogram wasinexistence atthetimeofDOE’screation in1978. While itisnotsubject
toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations by
theCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheactivities being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheNatural GasProgram
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheNatural Gasprogram isaimed atfurthering thefollowing fourpolicy objectives:
(1) Exploration andProduction -todevelop anewgeneration oftechnologies toreduce
operating costs andensure along-term supply ofnatural gas;
(2) Delivery andStorage -toimprove existing, anddevelop new, technologies and
information models toincrease theefficiency andreliability ofthenatural gassystem;
(3) Processing andUtilization -toupgrade lowquality gastopipeline useandconvert
toliquid form natural gasthatistooremote tobemarketable;
(4) Environmental Research -toreduce environmental coststooperators while improving
environmental performance.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page66
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered byDOE’sOffice ofFossil Energy. Legislative authority for
theprogram stems from TitleXX,Section 2013 oftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form: towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Using asystem ofcompetitive procurement, assistance wasprovided through various kinds
ofcooperative agreements andCRADAs tochemical manufacturers, pipeproducers, private research
groups andvarious equipment manufacturers.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram infiscal year1995 approximated $15million.
Duration
Theprogram wasineffect atthetimeofDOE’sestablishment in1978. While nocompletion
datehasbeenset,continuation oftheprogram iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations by
theCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheactivities being assisted, itisnotpossible todetermine
what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Title: TheClean Coal Technology Demonstration Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thegeneral purpose oftheClean CoalTechnology Demonstration Program istodemonstrate
anewgeneration ofadvanced coal-based technologies which significantly advance theefficiency and
environmental performance ofeither neworexisting facilities suchthatthemostpromising technologies
cansuccessfully beapplied toward commercial andoperational uses. Generally, theprogram isintended
forthedevelopment oftechnologies thathave amoderate-to-significant riskofnotachieving
commercialization intheabsence ofoutside support. Todate, much ofthework undertaken under
thisprogram hasfocused onelectrical power generator applications.
Background andauthority
Thisprogram isimplemented bytheOffice ofFossil Energy attheDOE. Thelegislation
authorizing theprogram isfound inPublic Law99-190, theJointResolution Making Further Continuing
Appropriations forFiscal Year1986 andforOther Purposes (19December 1985). Annual funding
hasbeenavailable under appropriations lawsfortheDepartment oftheInterior andRelated Agencies
enacted in1985, 1986, 1987, 1989and1990. Thefinalincrement offunding isscheduled tobecome
available infiscal year1997.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page67
Form
Participation intheprogram isprimarily implemented through cost-shared cooperative
agreements. TheDOE reimburses participants forafixed percentage ofallowable costs, asspecified
ineachagreement. DOE’scontribution toaproject cannot exceed 50percentofallowable costs,
andtheDOE costshare ofeachsuccessful demonstration project islaterrepaid through a20-year
recoupment planbased onfuture commercial salesofthetechnology.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Assistance tocoalmining/processing/refining firmsandrelated equipment/technology suppliers
isdetermined onthebasisofcompetitively assessed proposals. Ofthe43projects nowbeing assisted,
16involve foreign firms aspartners oraslicensors ofthetechnology being used.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram infiscal year1995 totalled $37.1 million.
Duration
TheClean CoalTechnology Demonstration program wasinitiated in1986. Program assistance
forthelastproject authorized bythisprogram isexpected tobeawarded infiscal year1996, while
R&D activities conducted under allprojects arescheduled tobecompleted by2005.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature ofthetechnology activities being assisted, itisnotpossible
todetermine what, ifany,tradeeffects mayeverresult fromthisprogram. However, theInternational
Energy Agency projected in1995thatworld widedemand forcoalthrough 2010willincrease byover
1million tonsequivalent, equal toanannual average increase of2percent.
Thedevelopment, dissemination andintroduction ofclean coaltechnologies should helpthe
users andbeneficiaries ofsuchtechnologies toplayasignificant roleinthisgrowing market.
METALS
Title: Materials andMetals Processing Metals Initiative
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Theoverall purpose ofthisprogram istofurther thedevelopment oftechnologies andtechniques
thatwillprocess basic materials more efficiently, while optimizing thelifespan ofexisting equipment
andbenefiting theenvironment.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page68
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheOffice ofEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy at
theDOE.LegislativeauthorityfortheprogramisfoundintheSteelandAluminumEnergyConservation
andCompetitiveness Actof1988 andthe"Metals Initiative, ”Public Law100-680, reauthorized in
TitleXXIoftheEnergy Policy Actof1992.
Form
Participation intheprogram isbrought about through cooperative agreements negotiated on
acost-shared basis between thefederal laboratories andtheprivate sector partners.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
AgreementsprovidingforcollaborativeR&Dandcost-sharingarrangementshavebeennegotiated
directly withsixmetal-producing and-processing firms, while 20other suchenterprises participate
through trade associations.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram inthefiscal year1995 came to$5.1million.
Duration
Theprogram waslaunched in1986astheso-called “SteelInitiative ”.While itisnotsubject
toanyfixed completion date, itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations by
theCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
TEXTILES &CLOTHING
Title: TheAMTEX Program
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
Thegeneral purpose oftheprogram istodevelop andapply advanced technologies ofmutual
interest toboththeDOE andtheintegrated textile andapparel industry through collaborative research
projects. These projects include electronic integration, flexible manufacturing, andenvironmental
resource conservation. These willleadtoreduced water consumption, reduced waste products, and
reduced inefficiencies currently inherent inprocesses inboththeDOE system ofnational laboratories
aswellasinthetextile andapparel sectors.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page69
Background andauthority
TheAMTEX program isco-administered bytheOffice ofEnergy Research andtheOffice
ofDefense Programs within theDOE. Legislative authority fortheprogram stems fromtheNational
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Actof1989.
Form
Participation intheprogram isactualized through theuseofCRADAs withfournon-profit
industryResearch,EducationandTechnologyTransfer(RETT)organizations.Theseindustryinstitutions
areTextile Research Institute/Princeton, theTextile/Clothing Technology Corporation, theInstitute
ofTextile Technology, andCotton Incorporated.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
TheAMTEX program doesnotprovide assistance, perse,toanyonecompany orindustry.
Rather, viashared research costs(including support fordesignated laboratory scientists) andthetransfer
oftechnologythroughCRADAs,eightDOElaboratoriescollaboratewiththeRETTsinresearchprojects
ofmutual interest.
Amount
Theamount budgeted forthisprogram inthefiscal year1995 was$24.5 million.
Duration
TheAMTEX program wasinitiated in1993, withananticipated termnottoexceed 10years.
Itscontinuation iscontingent upon ongoing annual appropriations bytheCongress.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram. While itisanticipated that
successful research projects mayleadtothedevelopment oftechnologies thatwould enable companies
inthetextile andapparel sector toimprove theirproductivity, AMTEX assistance doesnotdirectly
benefit theproduction orexports ofparticular companies orproducts.
Title: TheTextile/Clothing Technology Corporation Program (TC2)
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthefiscal year1995.
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheTextile/ClothingTechnologyCorporationisanon-profitmembershiporganizationdesigned
tostimulate economic growth intheUStextile andapparel sector. Ithasprograms todemonstrate
advanced equipment andtechniques, toeducate participants inthesector, andtodobasic research.
Only thebasic research element isfunded bytheFederal Government through agrant from theUS
Department ofCommerce (DOC). Thebasic research isperformed internally bytheorganization and
partially byexternal entities onacontractual basis. Theresults ofthebasic research arethenmadeG/SCM/N/3/USA
Page70
available throughout thetextile andapparel sector oftheUnited States. Since theoutput isresearch
results, theprocess involves notextile andapparel production.
Background andauthority
Theprogram isadministered bytheDOC’sOffice ofTextiles andApparel. Authorization
andfunding fortheprogram isprovided foraspartoftheannual budget andappropriations process
fortheDOC.
Form
Assistance isprovided under thisprogram intheform ofgrants.
Towhom andhowassistance isprovided
Agrant isprovided totheTextile/Clothing Technology Corporation following thepresentation
ofaproposal describing theresearch projects which willbeundertaken.
Amount
Theamount provided under thisprogram came to$3.4million infiscal year1995.
Duration
Grants werebegun tobedistributed under theprogram in1981, andfunding isreauthorized
bytheUSCongress onanannual basis.
Trade effects
Inlightofthescope andnature oftheR&D activities being assisted, itisnotpossible to
determine what, ifany,trade effects mayeverresult from thisprogram.
Federal-Level Programs
(General Export Programs )
Title: TheExport Credit Programs oftheUSExport-Import Bank
Period covered bythenotification
Theperiod covered isthrough 1994 and1995 (estimated).
Policy objective and/or purpose
TheUSExport-Import Bank(Eximbank) provides credits, guarantees andinsurance, covering
bothcommercial andpolitical risks, topromote exports ofUSgoods andservices. Thefinancial support
istobeatratesandonterms thatarecompetitive withgovernment-supported ratesandterms available
from other countries whose exports compete withUSexports. AllEximbank programs areinfull
conformity withtheOECD Arrangement onExport Credits, which isconsistent withtheobligations
oftheSubsidies Agreement.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page71
Background andauthority
Theexport credit activities oftheEximbank areauthorized bytheExport-Import Bank Act
of1945. TheFederal Credit Reform Actof1990made fundamental changes inthebudgetary treatment
ofdirect loans andloanguarantees offered byEximbank.
Form: towhom andhowassistance ifprovided
Asnoted above, assistance isprovided toUSexporters and/or purchasers ofUSexports in
theform ofloans, loanguarantees andexport insurance.
Amount
The1990 federal credit reforms, which became effective infiscal year1992, shifted the
accounting basis forfederally provided orguaranteed credit fromtheamount ofcashflowing intoor
outoftheTreasury foracredit program totheestimated costoftheloans orguarantees. Credit reform
required appropriation ofthecost,which includes estimated loan-loss provisions andinterest subsidies
ofthecredit program, andprovided newandunique accounting mechanisms forrecording loanand
loanguarantee transactions.
Underthenewaccountingprocedures,thecostiscalculatedasthedifferencebetweentheamount
committed andthepresent value oftheexpected cashinflows, eachdiscounted bytheinterest rateon
marketable Treasury securities oflikematurity. Thisincludes thecashflows specified intheloanor
guaranteecontractaswellas"expected"deviationsfromcontracttermsincludingdelinquencies,defaults,
prepayments, andother factors.
Fordirect loans, cashoutflows include loandisbursements andcashinflows include repayment
ofprincipal andinterest netofdefaults, fees,andother recoveries. Forloanguarantees, cashoutflows
include payments tocover default claims andinterest supplements, andcashinflows include feesand
recoveries. Thecostiscalculated from thecashflows using amodel developed bytheUSOffice of
Management andBudget.
Thefollowing tables show theUSgovernment budget authority value fortheEximbank direct
loan,loanguarantee andinsurance programs. Duetotheunique nature ofUScredit reform calculations,
thenumbers presented inthetables arenotcomparable withshort-term cash-flow datapresented by
othergovernmentexportcreditagencies.However,bywayofcomparison,theUSEximbank'sguarantee
andinsurance programs havebeeninsurplus inrecent years by$67million in1991, $100 million
in1992, and$381 million in1993, based onthemore standard short-term cash-flow accounting
methodology. Datafor1994 and1995 arenotyetavailable.
TABLE I
Direct Loan Budget Authority
$millions)
Direct Loan
Fiscal Year Levels Budget Authority %
1992 817.1 31.9 3.9%
1993 1,748.0 96.3 5.5%
1994 3,016.4 387.4 12.8%
Est.1995 4,667.0 158.0 3.4%G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page72
TABLE II
Loan Guarantees andInsurance Budget Authority
($millions)
G'tee&Insurance
Fiscal Year Levels Budget Authority %
1992 11,521.0 570.6 5.0%
1993 13,315.3 533.1 4.0%
1994 11,870.0 536.8 4.5%
Est.1995 14,340.0 558.2 3.9%
Duration
Eximbank activities aresubject toperiodic renewal under USlaw.Current Eximbank activities
extend through September 1997.
Trade effects
Itisimpossible toestimate thequantitative tradeeffects oftheEximbank 'slending, guarantee
andinsurance activities without examining theexport credit subsidies offered byother countries. In
most cases, theEximbank hasoffered subsidies onlywhen amajor export competitor hadoffered,
orwasabout tooffer, asubsidy. Thus, theeffect oftheEximbank 'sassistance wasfrequently toprevent
theloss-duetoforeign subsidization -ofexports thatwould otherwise have come from the
United States.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page73
APPENDIX
United States
Statistics ofProduction, Consumption, Imports andExports
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Wheat (July-June) Million metric tons
1988/89 49.3 26.6 0.6 37.6
1989/90 55.4 27.0 0.6 33.5
1990/91 74.5 37.1 0.9 28.3
1991/92 53.9 30.8 1.2 35.1
1992/93 67.1 30.7 1.9 37.1
1993/94 (estimate) 65.2 33.7 3.1 33.1
1994/95 (projected) 63.2 34.5 2.3 33.0
Million metric tonsFeedgrains (marketing year)
1988/89 149.3 157.8 1.4 61.2
1989/90 221.5 173.8 1.5 69.7
1990/91 230.5 178.7 1.6 51.5
1991/92 218.6 185.1 2.4 49.7
1992/93 277.4 198.6 1.5 51.5
1993/94 186.4 185.8 4.0 40.3
1994/95 (projected) 285.0 211.4 3.5 60.1
Million metric tonsRice(rough equivalent)
(August-July)
1988/89 7.3 3.5 0.2 3.8
1989/90 7.0 3.7 0.2 3.4
1990/91 7.1 4.1 0.2 3.1
1991/92 7.2 4.1 0.2 2.8
1992/93 8.1 3.9 0.2 3.4
1993/94 7.0 4.5 0.3 3.4
1994/95 (projected) 9.0 4.6 0.3 4.0G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page74
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Soybeans (September-August) Million metric tons
1988/89 42.2 31.2 0.1 14.4
1989/90 52.4 33.9 0.1 16.9
1990/91 52.4 34.9 0.1 15.2
1991/92 54.1 36.9 0.1 18.6
1992/93 59.6 38.3 0.1 20.9
1993/94 50.9 37.3 0.2 16.0
1994/95 (projected) 69.6 42.3 0.2 22.0
Million metric tonsSunflowerseed
(September-August)
1988/89 0.8 0.9 * 0.1
1989/90 0.8 0.8 * 0.1
1990/91 1.0 0.9 * 0.1
1991/92 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.2
1992/93 1.2 1.3 * 0.1
1993/94 1.2 1.1 * 0.1
1994/95 (projected) 1.9 1.4 * 0.2
Million metric tonsFlaxseed (June-May)
1988/89 * 0.2 0.2 *
1989/90 * 0.2 0.2 *
1990/91 0.1 0.2 0.2 *
1991/92 0.2 n.a. 0.1 *
1992/93 0.1 n.a. 0.2 *
1993/94 0.1 n.a. 0.1 *G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page75
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Rapeseed/Canola
(September/August)Million metric tons
1988/89 * * * *
1989/90 0.1 0.1 0.1 *
1990/91 0.1 0.1 0.1 *
1991/92 0.1 0.1 * *
1992/93 0.1 * * *
1993/94 0.1 0.4 0.4 *
Million metric tonsSafflowerseed
(September-August)
1988/89 0.1 0.1 * *
1989/90 0.2 0.1 * 0.1
1990/91 0.1 0.1 * 0.1
1991/92 0.1 n.a. * *
1992/93 0.2 n.a. * *
1993/94 0.2 n.a * 0.1
Million metric tonsMustardseed (June-May)
1988/89 * 0.1 * *
1989/90 * 0.1 * *
1990/91 * 0.1 0.1 *
1991/92 * 0.1 0.1 *
1992/93 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1993/94 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
* Lessthan50,000 tons.
n.a. Notavailable.G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page76
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Peanuts (August-July) 1,000 metric tons
1988/89 1,806 1,491 1 312
1989/90 1,810 1,427 2 449
1990/91 1,634 1,358 12 296
1991/92 2,235 1,616 2 452
1992/93 1,943 1,380 1 431
1993/94 1,539 1,419 1 252
1,000 metric tonsDairy/Butter (Calendar year)
1988 547 498 2 20
1989 588 491 2 72
1990 591 498 2 31
1991 606 482 2 66
1992 619 505 2 159
1993 596 532 2 161
1994 (preliminary) 588 578 2 87
1995 (forecast) 615 573 2 70
1,000 metric tonsDairy/Cheese (Calendar year)
1988 2,527 2,652 114 17
1989 2,546 2,695 125 10
1990 2,749 2,822 135 12
1991 2,730 2,870 135 6
1992 2,943 3,032 129 15
1993 2,961 3,093 145 16
1994 3,045 3,183 150 25
1995 (forecast) 3,200 3,313 150 30G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page77
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Dairy/Non-fat DryMilk
(Calendar year)1,000 metric tons
1988 444 312 1 189
1989 397 254 1 146
1990 399 339 1 10
1991 398 308 1 67
1992 396 331 1 126
1993 430 280 1 147
1994 543 394 1 131
1995 (forecast) 550 401 1 170
In1,000 short tons, rawvalue equivalent, deliveriesBeetandCane Sugar
(October-September)
1988/89 6,712 8,350 1,376 -
1989/90 6,623 8,591 1,950 -
1990/91 6,904 8,857 2,298 -
1991/92 7,238 8,846 1,486 -
1992/93 7,773 9,103 1,335 -
1993/94 (estimate) 7,510 9,150 1,125 -
1994/95 (projected) 7,670 n.a. n.a. -
Millions ofpoundsHoney (Calendar year)
1988 214.1 286.8 55.9 14.7
1989 176.9 281.2 77.3 9.9
1990 197.8 287.4 77.0 12.4
1991 218.3 303.4 92.2 9.6
1992 220.6 298.2 114.6 10.4
1993 229.3 304.2 133.6 8.5
1994 (estimate) 220.5 354.9 123.5 8.8G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page78
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Shorn wool (clean)
(Calendar year)Millions ofpounds
1988 48.0 133.9 96.7 1.2
1989 47.8 135.9 106.9 1.2
1990 47.2 135.4 71.7 2.7
1991 46.7 155.4 86.5 3.9
1992 45.3 158.0 89.3 3.4
1993 (estimate) 40.8 165.0 100.3 2.5
1994 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Millions ofpoundsMohair (greasy)
(Calendar year)
1988 13.2 0.2 * 14.4
1989 13.1 1.0 * 11.5
1990 12.4 1.0 * 11.6
1991 12.4 3.5 * 8.1
1992 12.2 3.5 * 7.9
1993 (estimate) 12.2 3.4 * 9.0
1994 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Million 480lb balesUpland andELScotton
(August-July)
1988/89 15.41 7.78 0.005 6.15
1989/90 12.20 8.76 0.002 7.69
1990/91 15.51 8.66 0.004 7.80
1991/92 17.61 9.61 0.013 6.65
1992/93 16.22 10.25 0.001 5.20
1993/94 16.13 10.42 0.006 6.86
1994/95 (projected) 19.66 11.25 0.020 9.80G/SCM/N/3/USA
Page79
Commodity/Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
Tobacco (unmanufactured, dry
weight)1,000 metric tons
1988/89 558 619 194 220
1989/90 663 691 199 223
1990/91 679 693 268 226
1991/92 703 755 325 260
1992/93 652 725 360 208
1993/94 641 667 264 197
1994/95 (projected) 588 670 235 215
* Lessthanfivemetric tons.