Coastal Communities, Wildlife Rebound After Hurricane Sandy
Fish & Wildlife Services / http://www.fws.gov/hurricane/sandy/index.cfm
July 23, 2014 - Today the Service launches the first in a series of videos highlighting communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy and their journey toward recovery. This first video outlines a $1.65 million beach habitat restoration project along the shores of Delaware Bay that will benefit native horseshoe crabs and migrating shorebirds. At the same time, the project will help local communities like Middle Township, New Jersey, whose Mayor Tim Donohue describes how strengthening natural defenses will in turn protect homes and support the area's ecotourism industry.
Watch Video:
FWS Hurricane Sandy Recovery website »
Determination to Approve CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability Request to Remove: Certain Ring Spun Single Yarns of Micro Modal Fibers - 186.2014.06.12.Yarn.Alston&BirdforBuhler
International Trade Administration / http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/fedregister.nsf/ca3e2f84c7f76d6b85256e5b00498a52/23cad1b79ad53a2585257d1800502da0?OpenDocument
Citation:
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA-DR Agreement”)
AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
ACTION: Determination to remove a product currently included in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement
EFFECTIVE DATE: [180 days following the date of publication]
SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) has determined that certain ring spun single yarn of micro modal fibers, as specified below, is available in the CAFTA-DR countries in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The product, which is currently included in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities, will be removed, effective 180 days after publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3651.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON-LINE: http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf under “Approved Requests,” Reference number: 186.2014.06.12.Yarn.Alston&BirdforBuhlerYarns
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: The CAFTA-DR Agreement; Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”), Pub. Law 109-53; the Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act; and Presidential Proclamation 7987 (February 28, 2006)
Background:
The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5) by adding or removing items when the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party; or when the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber currently on the list is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act authorizes the President to make such modifications to the list in Annex 3.25. See Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) and (E) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act.
The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamation 7987, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the list in Annex 3.25. Pursuant to this authority, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to CAFTA-DR (Modifications to Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, 73 FR 53200 (September 15, 2008)) (“CITA’s procedures”).
On June 12, 2014, the Acting Chairman of CITA received a request from Alston & Bird LLP, on behalf of Buhler Quality Yarns (“Buhler”) for a Commercial Availability determination to remove or restrict (“Request to Remove”) certain ring spun single yarns of micro modal fibers, currently listed in Annex 3.25. Buhler offered to supply the specified yarn and provided information demonstrating their ability to supply commercial quantities in a timely manner. On June 13, 2014, in accordance with CITA’s procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request to Remove, which was posted on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response to the Request to Remove must be submitted by June 26, 2014, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by July 2, 2014, in accordance with Sections 6, 7 and 9 of CITA’s procedures. No Response to the Request to Remove was placed on the record of the proceeding.
In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, Section 8(a) and (b), and Section 9(c)(1) of CITA’s procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request to Remove, CITA has determined to approve the Request to Remove the subject product from the list in Annex 3.25. Pursuant to Section 9(c)(3)(iii)(A), textile and apparel articles containing the subject product are not to be treated as originating in a CAFTA-DR country if the subject product is obtained from non-CAFTA-DR sources, effective for goods entered into the United States on or after 180 calendar days after the date of publication of this notice. A revised list in Annex 3.25, noting the effective date of the removal of the subject product, has been posted on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings.
SPECIFICATIONS: Certain Ring Spun Single Yarns of Micro Modal Fibers:
Certain ring spun single yarns of English yarn number 30 and higher of 0.9 denier or finer micro modal fibers, classified in subheading 5510.11.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)..
CBP Announces Additional Partnerships to Promote Trade and Travel
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/2014-07-23-000000/cbp-announces-additional-partnerships-promote
WASHINGTON— U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced today that it has made initial selections for 16 new reimbursable services agreements to promote economic growth in cross-border trade and travel across the country. These public-private partnerships in California, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Texas will allow approved private sector and state and local government entities to reimburse CBP for expanded services to improve processing and inspection times for incoming commercial and cargo traffic.
“CBP is transforming the way we do business to efficiently process the growing number of travelers each year. These partnerships allow us to remain a strong global competitor and destination for businesses and travelers,” said CBP Deputy Commissioner (Acting) Kevin K. McAleenan. “The five partnerships established last year through Section 560 have already proven to be beneficial for CBP, our stakeholders and the traveling public and this expansion will build on this important success.”
Last year, CBP entered into five reimbursable service agreements with the city of El Paso, Texas; the City of Houston Airport System; Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; Miami-Dade County; and the South Texas Assets Consortium under Section 560 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. As a result, CBP provided an additional 9,000 CBP officer assignments and opened primary lanes and booths for an additional 24,000 hours at the request of 560 partners, increasing border processing throughput at U.S. air and land ports of entry. Among the three participating airports, the added staffing and supplementary lane openings, in conjunction with Automated Passport Control deployments and other innovative technology efforts, have helped decrease wait times by an average of almost 30 percent while traveler volume has increased about 7 percent over the last year.
Section 559 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 expands this authority to enter into additional agreements to increase CBP’s ability to provide new or enhanced services on a reimbursable basis by creating partnerships with private sector and government entities. Reimbursable services under Section 559 include customs, agricultural processing, border security services, and immigration inspection-related services at ports of entry. The statute maintains several limitations at CBP-serviced airports, including a maximum of five reimbursable service agreements permitted per year, and reimbursable services being limited to overtime costs only. These agreements will not replace existing services.
The entities tentatively selected for these partnerships are:
• Los Angeles World Airports
• San Francisco International Airport
• Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
• McCarran International Airport (Las Vegas)
• Denver International Airport
• Penn Terminals, Inc. (Philadelphia)
• Independent Container Line, Ltd. (Philadelphia)
• Network Shipping Ltd. (Philadelphia)
• Greenwich Terminals LLC (Philadelphia)
• Gloucester Terminals LLC (Philadelphia)
•Turbana Corporation (Philadelphia)
• Interoceanica Agency, Inc. (Philadelphia)
• Diamond State Port Corp. (Port of Wilmington, Del.)
• Port of Houston Authority
• Broward County, Fla. (Port Everglades)
• South Texas Assets Consortium (STAC)
The reimbursable services proposals were evaluated and scored based on criteria including: impact on current CBP operations; funding reliability; community concerns; health and safety issues; the ability to receive support from other government agencies as necessary; community and economic benefits; and the feasibility of implementing the proposal in a timely manner.
The reimbursable services authority is a key component of CBP’s Resource Optimization Strategy, and will allow CBP to provide new or expanded services at domestic ports of entry reimbursed by the partner entity.
WTO Panel Issues a Mixed Result in China’s Challenge to U.S. Countervailing Duties
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative / http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/JulyWTO-Panel-Issues-Mixed-Result-in-Chinas-Challenge-to-US-Countervailing-Duties
Washington, D.C. – United States Trade Representative Michael Froman announced today that a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel issued a mixed result in a broad challenge brought by China against various aspects of 17 separate countervailing duty investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
“The Administration is committed to the strong enforcement of U.S. countervailing duty laws in order to respond to unfair subsidies, and to a strong defense of those duties when challenged by any U.S. trading partner,” said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. "The WTO panel’s decision to reject many of China’s challenges to U.S. countervailing duties on unfairly subsidized Chinese imports is a victory for American businesses and workers. With respect to the other findings in the panel report, the Administration is carefully evaluating its options, and will take all appropriate steps to ensure that U.S. remedies against unfair subsidies remain strong and effective.”
The WTO panel rejected most of the claims brought by China against U.S. countervailing duties under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement). The Chinese claims rejected by the WTO panel involved challenges to the use of facts available, the use of out-of-country benchmarks, important aspects of the analysis used to determine whether a subsidy is “specific”, and the initiation of investigations of particular subsidies. The claims on which China prevailed mainly involved issues where the WTO panel followed findings made in previous WTO reports.
Background:
In this dispute, China/CVD2 (DS437), China alleged that the United States had acted inconsistently with the SCM Agreement in 17 countervailing duty investigations with respect to Commerce’s determinations on public bodies, applications of facts available, calculations of benchmarks, determinations of specificity, and decisions to initiate investigations.
The panel made the following findings:
- On Facts Available, China brought 48 challenges under Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement to Commerce’s use of “facts available” when making findings of facts in the face of non-cooperation by respondent companies or China. The panel found that China had not established that the United States had acted inconsistently with the Agreement in 42 of those instances, and declined to make findings in the remaining six, finding that those claims were outside its terms of reference.
- On Benchmarks, China brought claims on 12 investigations. The panel found that China failed to establish that Commerce acted inconsistently with the obligations of Article 14(d) on all 12 investigations.
- On Specificity, with respect to 12 investigations, China brought four claims against Commerce’s determinations that the subsidies at issue were specific under Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement. The United States prevailed on three of those claims, and China prevailed on one.
- On Initiations, China brought 20 challenges to Commerce’s initiation of investigations of particular subsidies under Article 11 of the SCM Agreement, and the panel found that the China had not established that the United States had acted inconsistently with the Agreement in the challenges related to public bodies and specificity.
- On Public Bodies, the Panel found that, in 12 investigations, Commerce’s determinations that certain SOEs were public bodies were inconsistent with Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement.
- On Regional Specificity, China brought seven challenges to Commerce’s findings that certain subsidies were regionally specific under Article 2.2 of the SCM Agreement, and the panel found that China had established that Commerce acted inconsistently with the Agreement in six of those investigations.
- On Export Restraints, China brought claims on two investigations. The panel found that China established that Commerce acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 when it initiated these two investigations without adequate evidence of the existence of a subsidy.
Both parties have the right to seek adoption or appeal of the report within 60 days of the report’s circulation.
USITC: News Releases and New Documents
US International Trade Commission / http://www.usitc.gov/?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Company Claimed to Evaluate Made in USA Claims, but Instead Relied on Companies to Self Certify that Products Met Standard
A company that provides a “Made in USA” certification seal to marketers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by allowing companies to use the seal without either independently verifying that those companies’ products were made in the United States, or disclosing that the companies had certified themselves.
The company, Made in USA Brand, LLC, is required under the proposed settlement to stop its deceptive claims.
The FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims provides that products advertised or labeled as “Made in the USA” must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. Made in the USA Brand, LLC charges companies to use its certification mark and to be listed in a database of “certified” companies that comply with the FTC’s standard.
The Columbus, Ohio-based Made in the USA Brand, LLC charged $250 to $2,000 for a one-year license to use the certification mark, according to the FTC. But the company did not independently evaluate the products before certifying them, and had no procedures to determine whether marketers complied with the FTC’s Made in USA standard, according to the complaint.
In fact, the FTC charged that Made in the USA Brand has never rejected a company’s application to use its Certification Mark or terminated a company’s use of the mark. Instead, Made in the USA Brand, LLC awarded licenses to any company that self-certified that it was complying with the FTC’s standard.
“Seals can be very helpful when consumers purchase products based on claims that are difficult to verify – like the Made-in-the-USA claim,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “When marketers provide seals without any verification, or without telling consumers the seal is unverified, consumers are deceived and the value of all marketers’ seals is diminished. This case makes it clear that the FTC will not let that happen.”
In a promotional flyer, Made in the USA Brand, LLC claimed:
“The Made in USA Brand Certification Mark provides a standard symbol for Made in USA product identification . . . When printed on labels by accredited manufacturers, consumers are able to identify at a glance which products are made in the USA.”
“The Certification Mark is available to be downloaded by U.S. businesses that meet the accreditation standards based on the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations for complying with Made in USA origin claims.”
According to the complaint, Made in the USA Brand, LLC:
- falsely advertised that it independently and objectively evaluated whether certified products met its accreditation standard.
- made false or unsupported claims that companies listed in its database as certified marketers were in fact selling products that complied with the FTC’s Made in USA standard.
- provided the companies it licensed with the means to deceive consumers into believing that the companies were marketing products that were made in the United States.
Under the proposed administrative order, respondent Made in the USA Brand, LLC, is prohibited from:
- claiming that any products or companies meet its certification standard unless it either conducts an independent and objective evaluation, or discloses on its logo and all its promotional materials that companies and products are self-certified.
- claiming that any product is made in the USA or in any other country unless the claim is true and supported by competent and reliable evidence, or – if the certification mark is used –unless it discloses that companies and products are self-certified.
- providing the companies it certifies with the means to deceive consumers.
The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0.
The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through August 22, 2014, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice. Comments should be submitted electronically using the form here.
Instructions for submitting comments in paper form are listed in the “Accessibility” portion of the form.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.