Contents

• Background
• GSP Agricultural Imports
• Legislative and Administrative Changes
• Changes Regarding Product Coverage
• Changes Regarding Country Eligibility
Implications of Possible Program Changes

Summary

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) provides duty-free tariff treatment for certain products from designated developing countries. Agricultural imports under GSP totaled $2.5 6 billion in 20122015, nearly 1315% of the value of all U.S. GSP imports. Leading agricultural imports (based on value) include processed foods and food processing inputs, sugar and sugar confectionery, cocoa, processed and fresh fruits and vegetables, beverages and drinking waters, olive oil, processed meats,; beverages and drinking waters; processed and fresh fruits and vegetables; sugar and sugar confectionery; olive oil; and miscellaneous food preparations and inputs for further processing. The majority of these imports are from Thailand, Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Turkey, which combined account for nearlyroughly two-thirds of total agricultural GSP imports.

GSP was most recently extended until July 31, 2013 (P.L. 112-40), but was not renewed before it expired. In the past few years, Congress has extended GSP through a series of short-term extensions. Previously Congress has renewed GSP retroactively, and not prior to expiration.

The expiration of GSP means that renewal of the program may continue to be a legislative issue in the 114^th Congress. In recent years, GSP renewal has been somewhat controversial. Some in Congress have continued to call for changes to the program that could limit GSP benefits to certain countries, among other changes. Opinion within the U.S. agriculture industry is mixed, reflecting both support for and opposition to the current program. The 113^th Congress introduced but did not enact legislation to renew GSP. Additional background information on such legislation is available in CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate.

Leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have continued to express an interest in evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. trade preference programs, including GSP, and broader reform of these programs might be possible. Congress made changes to the program in 2006, tightening its requirements on imports under certain circumstances.

In addition, recently some countries have been suspended from or included in GSP. Many in Congress were critical of Russia's status as a GSP beneficiary following its invasion of Crimea in 2014. In May 2014, President Obama notified Congress that he intended to graduate Russia from the program, and later officially terminated Russia's GSP status in October 2014. Also, in June 2013, the President announced the suspension of GSP benefits for Bangladesh, but is currently reviewing this decision.

Previously, in March 2012, President Obama suspended GSP benefits for Argentina. Argentina had been among one of the top two beneficiary countries of agricultural imports under the program, after Thailand, accounting for more than one-tenth of all agricultural imports under GSP (ranked by import value). Under the program, Argentina exported more than $380 million of agricultural products in 2012, including casein, olive oil, prepared meats, gelatin derivatives, cheese and curd, sugar confectionery, wine, and other food products. The President suspended GSP benefits for Argentina because "it has not acted in good faith in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership, or association that is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens."

---

Background

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was established by the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465; §505) and now provides preferential duty-free entry of up to 5,000 agricultural and non-agricultural products from 126 designated beneficiary countries and territories.¹ Agricultural products under the program totaled $2.5 billion in 2013, accounting for nearly 13% of the total value of annual GSP imports. Duty-free access for agricultural imports under GSP is an important issue for many in the U.S. agriculture industry who either support or oppose the program. However, some in Congress have called for changes to the program that could limit or curtail benefits to certain countries, among other changes.

In recent years, GSP has been reauthorized through a series of one-year extensions. The program was more recently extended until July 31, 2013 (P.L. 112-40, §1). However, it was not renewed before it expired.

GSP Agricultural Imports

In 2012, U.S. imports under GSP totaled $19.9 billion, accounting for roughly 1% of all commodity imports. Leading U.S. imports under the program are manufactured products and parts, chemicals, plastics, minerals, and forestry products. Roughly one-fourth of all GSP imports consist of jewelry, electrical, and transportation equipment, both finished products and parts.² (Data are reported for 2012 since this was the last full program year prior to GSP's expiration.)

Agricultural products accounted for nearly 13% of all imports under GSP, totaling $2.5 billion in 2012. Compared to 2000, the value of agricultural imports under the program has nearly tripled. Imports under the program account for about 3% of total U.S. agricultural imports.³ Table 1 shows the leading agricultural products (ranked by value) imported into the United States under the program. Leading imports include processed foods and food processing inputs, sugar and sugar confectionery, cocoa, processed and fresh fruits and vegetables, drinking waters, olive oil, processed meats, and miscellaneous food preparations and inputs for further processing.

Most GSP agricultural imports are supplied by beneficiary countries that have been identified for possible graduation from the program. In 2012, five beneficiary countries ranked by import value—Thailand, Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Turkey—accounted for nearly two-thirds of the value of agricultural imports under the GSP program (see Table 2). Thailand and Brazil alone accounted for 40% of agricultural imports under the program.

About one-fourth of GSP agricultural imports consist of sugar and sugar-based products, and cocoa and cocoa-containing products (Table 1). Major GSP suppliers of cane and beet sugar imports were the Philippines, Paraguay, Peru, Panama, and South Africa. Major suppliers of confectionery were Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. Cocoa and cocoa-containing products were supplied mainly by Brazil, the Côte d'Ivoire, and other African nations. Indonesia, among other countries, is a supplier of imports of sugar alcohols and other agriculture-based organic chemicals, such as sorbitol.

Another nearly 40% of agricultural imports under GSP include food processing inputs, such as miscellaneous processed foods, processed oils and fats, fruit and vegetable preparations, and ag-based chemicals and byproducts. Other product categories and suppliers are as follows. Olive oil accounted for 5% of GSP agricultural imports, supplied by Tunisia, Turkey, and Argentina. Mineral waters and other types of beverages (8%) were supplied by Fiji and Thailand, among others. Imports of fresh fruits and vegetables (7%) include bananas and other tropical produce.

Legislative and Administrative Changes

GSP was most recently extended until July 31, 2013 (P.L. 112-40, §1), but has not been renewed. Previously Congress has renewed GSP retroactively, but not always prior to expiration.⁴ In the past few years, Congress has extended the program through a series of short-term extensions. In both 2008 and 2009, GSP was reauthorized through a series of one-year extensions. The 111^th Congress did not extend GSP in 2010, and it expired December 31, 2010 (P.L. 111-124).⁵ It was later renewed in the 112^th Congress (through July 2013), and was retroactively extended to eligible merchandise that entered the United States between the expiration date, December 31, 2010, also the date the GSP renewal entered into force. Therefore, importers of GSP-eligible products were able to seek reimbursement for tariffs paid during the lapse of GSP coverage.

The expiration of GSP means that renewal of the program may continue to be a legislative issue in the 114^th Congress. In recent years, GSP renewal has been somewhat controversial. Some in Congress have continued to call for changes to the program that could limit GSP benefits to certain countries, among other changes. The 113^th Congress introduced but did not enact legislation to renew GSP. Additional background information on such legislation is available in CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate.

Totals may not add due to rounding. a. Based on compound annual rate of growth, or the year-over-year growth rate, over period. Data are actual (nominal) and not corrected for inflation. Legislative and Administrative Changes GSP was most recently extended until December 31, 2017 (Title II of P.L. 114-27). Over the past decade, GSP renewal has been somewhat controversial. Some in Congress have continued to call for changes to the program, including tightening the program's requirements on products that can be imported under the program and limiting GSP benefits for certain eligible countries. Leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have continued to express an interest in evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. trade preference programs, including GSP, and broader reform of these programs might be possible.⁵.⁶ Both committees have conducted a series of oversight hearings in recent years,⁷6 focused on determining the effectiveness of U.S. trade preference programs and discussing ways to reform them. Some Members have expressed their reluctance to renew GSP without also enacting meaningful reform legislation.⁸Others have continued to call for meaningful reforms to GSP.⁷ The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published a series of reports highlighting the perceived benefits and shortcomings of U.S. preference programs, including GSP.⁹ Opinion within the U.S. agriculture industry is mixed, reflecting both support for and opposition to the current program.

8

Amendments to GSP in 2006 followed extensive debate about the program during the 109^th Congress. Specifically, some in Congress questioned the inclusion of certain more advanced "beneficiary developing countries" (BDCs)¹⁰ as beneficiaries 9 under GSP and also commented that certain BDCscountries had contributed to the ongoing impasse in multilateral trade talks in the WTO Doha Development Agenda.¹¹10 In response to these concerns, Congress amended the program in 2006 by tightening the both Congress and the previous Administrations have made changes to the program regarding product coverage (e.g., the type of products that can be imported under the program) and country eligibility (e.g., limiting GSP benefits to certain countries). Changes Regarding Product Coverage Congress enacted a number of amendments to GSP as part of its annual review in 2006 by tightening the program's rules on "competitive need limits" (CNL)rules on "competitive need limits" (CNL)¹² waivers that allow imports from beneficiary countries in excess of GSP statutory thresholds for some products (P.L. 109-432). Historically, there have been few CNL waivers to the GSP for agricultural products and it is unlikely that these program changes will greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. In 2006, Congress had also renewed the GSP for two years through 2008.

Also, in 2006, the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), an advisory committee chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative, instituted a series of investigations to evaluate possible changes to the GSP.¹³ In its 2006 review TPSC announced that the more than 80 previously granted CNL waivers would be individually evaluated, in addition to the standard practice of examining petitions for new CNL waivers. TPSC said that it would also examine the eligibility status of several "middle income" economies.¹⁴ Among the countries identified for possible removal as beneficiaries under the program were Argentina, Brazil, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey. These countries account for over 60% of the value of U.S. agricultural products imported duty-free under the program. Although none of the countries cited lost their overall GSP eligibility as a result of these reviews, several previously granted CNL waivers from these countries were revoked. For agricultural imports under GSP, the Côte d'Ivoire lost CNL waivers for fresh or dried, shelled kola nuts (HTS 0802.90.94), as part of the 2006 review. Argentina lost CNL waivers for cooked, shelled, fresh or dried peanuts (HTS 1202.20.40), as part of the 2007 review. These waivers had allowed for these products to be imported from the Ivory Coast and Argentina duty-free under GSP despite the statutory import thresholds. Other countries lost CNL waivers for some non-agricultural products, but not for agricultural products. The 2006 review included decisions on other country and product petitions involving agricultural products, but these changes are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under GSP.

For more information and for a discussion of possible legislative options, see CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate.

In early 2012, the Obama Administration implemented a number of actions affecting certain countries' eligibility under the GSP program. Included was the suspension of GSP eligibility of Argentina. Argentina isCNLs are quantitative ceilings on GSP benefits for a particular product from a particular BDC. CNL waivers allow for certain products to be imported from a country duty-free under GSP despite the statutory import thresholds. Periodically USTR has revoked a country's CNL waiver, as part of the agency's program review. For example, as part of USTR's 2006 review, Côte d'Ivoire lost its CNL waivers for fresh or dried shelled kola nuts (HTS 0802.90.94).¹¹ In 2006, the statute was amended to allow for the revocation of any waiver that has been in effect for at least five years, if a GSP eligible product from a specific country has an annual trade level in the previous calendar year that exceeds 150% of the annual dollar value limit or exceeds 75% of all U.S. imports.¹²

In July 2015, USTR granted a CNL waiver for coconut products (HTS 2008.19.15) from Thailand.¹³ USTR further granted CNL waivers, in July 2016, for the following products: (1) certain pitted dates (HTS 0804.10.60) from Tunisia; (2) certain inactive yeasts (HTS 2102.20.60) from Brazil; and (3) certain nonalcoholic beverages (HTS 2202.90.90) from Thailand.¹⁴ Other existing waivers include sugar and preserved bananas (Philippines); sugar, carnations, figs, yams, and gelatin derivatives (Colombia); and animal hides (South Africa and Thailand).¹⁵

A listing of all current CNL waivers, including for agricultural products under GSP, is available in USTR's GSP Guidebook.¹⁶

In addition, the most recent GSP extension in 2015¹⁷ broadly designated five new cotton products as eligible for GSP status (for least-developed beneficiary developing countries only), along with some other non-agricultural products (Table 3).¹⁸ Some African cotton-producing nations, such as Benin, Burkino Faso, Chad, and Mali, are among the current list of eligible countries. To date, no cotton imports have been reported under these new import categories. Table 3. GSP-Eligible Cotton Products (Least-Developed Beneficiaries), P.L. 114-27

Harmonized Tariff Schedule Number	Description	Normal Trade Relations Tariff
5201.00.18	Cotton, not carded or combed; harsh or rough, having a staple length under 19.05 mm (3/4 inch); Other	31.4¢ per kilogram
5201.00.28	Cotton, not carded or combed; other, harsh or rough, having a staple length of 29.36875 mm (1-5/32 inches) or more and white in color (except cotton of perished staple, grabbots and cotton pickings); Other	31.4¢ per kilogram
5201.00.38	Cotton, not carded or combed; having a staple length of 28.575 mm (1-1/8 inches) or more but under 34.925 mm (1-3/8 inches); Other	31.4¢ per kilogram
5202.99.30	Cotton waste (including yarn waste and garnetted stock); Other	7.8¢ per kilogram
5203.00.30	Cotton, carded or combed; fibers of cotton processed, but not spun; Other	31.4¢ per kilogram

Changes Regarding Country Eligibility In early 2012, the Obama Administration implemented a number of actions affecting certain countries' eligibility under the GSP program. Included was the suspension of GSP eligibility of Argentina. Argentina was among the program's top beneficiary countries, accounting for more than 10% of all agricultural imports under the GSP (ranked by import value). The President suspended GSP benefits for Argentina because "it has not acted in good faith in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership, or association that is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens."¹⁵ Also, in 2012, the Administration designated the Republic of South Sudan and Senegal as least-developed beneficiary developing countries under GSP.

Recently other countries have been suspended from GSP. In 2014, many in Congress were critical of Russia's status as a GSP beneficiary following its invasion of Crimea. In May 2014, President Obama notified Congress that he intended to graduate Russia from the program,¹⁶ and later he officially terminated Russia's GSP status in October 2014.¹⁷ Under GSP, Russia exported nearly $20 million of agricultural products in 2012, 19 (In October 2016, the Government of Argentina requested designation as a beneficiary of the GSP, which is under review by USTR.)²⁰ In 2012, Gibraltar and the Turks and Caicos were graduated from the program after they were determined to have become "high income" countries, while the Republic of South Sudan and Senegal were designated as "least-developed beneficiary developing countries" (LDBDCs),²¹ becoming eligible under GSP. Other countries have since been suspended from GSP. The Administration announced the suspension of GSP benefits for Bangladesh in June 2013. To date, USTR has not reinstated Bangladesh's GSP status. In 2014, following Russia's invasion of Crimea, many in Congress became critical of Russia's status as a GSP beneficiary.²² Russia's GSP status was officially terminated in October 2014.²³ Under GSP, Russia had exported nearly $20 million of agricultural products in 2012, duty-free, including grain-based products, cocoa preparations, sugar and molasses-based confectionary, tree nuts, and other products. Previously, in June 2013, the Administration had announced the suspension of GSP benefits for Bangladesh, but it is currently reviewing this decision.

The European Union (EU) is implementing additional reforms to its own GSP program.¹⁸ Under the EU's so-called "GSP+" program, preferential access will be provided for certain "vulnerable developing countries" including Armenia, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Georgia, Mongolia, Paraguay, Pakistan and Peru. Pakistan will enter the scheme for the first time. The program is intended to provide an "incentive to respect core human and labour rights, the environment and good governance principle,"¹⁹ and entered into force January 1, 2014

In September 2015, President Obama announced, among other things, that Seychelles, Uruguay, and Venezuela had become "high income" countries and were no longer eligible to receive GSP benefits, effective January 1, 2017.²⁴ In September 2016, USTR reinstated Burma's (Myanmar's) eligibility for GSP benefits as an LDBDC, effective November 13, 2016.²⁵

For more information and for a discussion of possible legislative options, see CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Overview and Issues for Congress.

Implications of Possible Program Changes

Changes made to GSP in 2006 and later in 2012the past decade have affected the overall distribution and volume of both agricultural and non-agricultural product imports under the program.

The 2012 Administration changes, removing Argentina from the list of GSP countries effective January 2013, reduced the total value of GSP agricultural imports and limiting preferential access for certain products imported from Argentina under the program. Argentina had been among one of the top two beneficiary countries of agricultural imports under GSP, after Thailand,suspension from GSP of some countries, such as Argentina, likely has had an impact on agricultural trade under the program. Argentina had been among the main beneficiary countries under GSP and in earlier years accounted for more than one-tenth of all agricultural imports under GSP (ranked by import value). In recent years imports from Argentina under the program have been much lower. In 2012, Argentina 2012, Argentina had exported $116 million of agricultural products under the program, accounting for nearly 5% of the total value of GSP agricultural imports. Products imported from Argentina under GSP included casein, olive oil, prepared meats, gelatin derivatives, cheese and curd, sugar confectionery, wine, and other food products (Table 2).

The 2006 statutory changes to GSP tightening rules for CNL waivers likely did not greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. Historically, there have been few CNL waivers for agricultural products imported duty-free under GSP. Current waivers include sugar and preserved bananas (Philippines), sugar, carnations, figs, yams, and gelatin derivatives (Colombia), certain nuts (Argentina), animal hides (Argentina, South Africa, and Thailand), and caviar (Russia). Other types of program changes, however, could affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program, including additional limits on CNL waivers from certain countries or graduation of some beneficiary countries. Countries that account for the majority of U.S. agricultural imports under GSP are Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, India, and Turkey.

Comments submitted to USTR as part of its 2006 review from U.S. agricultural industry groups are mixed.²⁰. Other countries whose GSP beneficiary status has been suspended or who have graduated out of the program had not been major suppliers of U.S. agricultural imports under the program.

Aside from changes made to the list of eligible GSP countries, other statutory changes to GSP tightening rules for CNL waivers may not have greatly affected U.S. agricultural imports under the program. Historically, there have been few CNL waivers for agricultural products imported duty-free under GSP. Other types of program changes, however, could affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program, including additional limits on CNL waivers from certain countries or graduation of some beneficiary countries. Some African cotton-producing nations are now eligible to supply certain cotton products to the United States, but data are not yet available to determine whether imports will consequently increase under these new categories.

Although USTR has continued to conduct annual reviews of the program, it has not conducted a broad review that has solicited extensive stakeholder comment. However, previous comments submitted to USTR as part of its 2006 review from U.S. agricultural industry groups indicate that opinions vary among U.S. agricultural groups regarding the program.²⁶ For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) expressed its general opposition to the GSP program, stating that products imported duty-free under the program compete with U.S.-produced goods without granting a commensurate level of opportunity for U.S. producers in foreign markets. AFBF further supported withdrawal of CNL waivers for the Philippines, Argentina, and Colombia. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) expressed support for the current GSP program and identified certain agricultural products of importance to GMA under the program, including sugar confections, spices, and certain processed foods and inputs from Brazil, India, and Argentina. GMA's position was generally supported by comments from the American Spice Trade Association, the National Confectioners Association, and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association. GMA has previously supported congressional efforts to extend GSP.²¹

27

What remains unclear is whether duty-free access for most agricultural imports under the GSP greatly influences a country's willingness to export these products to the United States. In most cases, costs associated with import tariffs are borne by the importer. These costs may be passed on to the BDCs in terms of lower import prices. However, import tariffs to the United States for most of these products tend to be low. As calculated by CRS, ad valorem equivalent tariffs range from 3% to 4% for sugar, 2% to 10% for cocoa-containing products, 5% to 12% for confectionery, 1% to 2% for most processed meats, about 2% for olive oil, less than 1% for mineral water, and about 5% for agriculture-based organic chemicals.²²28 In general, any additional costs that might be incurred by the BDCs as a result of the proposed changes could be more than offset by the generally higher U.S. prices for most products compared to prices in other world markets. Nevertheless, the imposition of even relatively low import tariffs could represent an increase in input costs to some U.S. food processors and industrial users. These costs could be passed on to consumers through higher prices for these and other finished agricultural or manufactured products. As shown in Table 1, about one-half ofmost GSP agricultural imports are intermediate goods and inputs, such as raw sugar, miscellaneous processed foods, preparations, and byproducts, and agriculture-based organic chemicals.

Footnotes

For additional general information, see U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Estimated Impacts of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences to U.S. Industry and Consumers, October, 2006.

For more information, see USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences Guidebook, September 2016, p. 11. The previous law stipulated a CNL requiring that countries export no more than 50% of total U.S. imports of each product or no more than a specified dollar amount of the imports for a given year. The amended law further tightened these requirements.

81 Federal Register 81: 47488, July 21, 2016 (2015/2016 Annual GSP Review).

Presidential Proclamation 8788 of March 26, 2012; 77 Federal Register 61: 18899, March 29, 2012. See also USTR, "U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Comments on Presidential Actions Related to the Generalized System of Preferences," March 26, 2012, press release. In June 2012, the United States terminated GSP beneficiary status of Gibraltar and the Turks and Caicos as they had become "high income" countries. These two countries are not major suppliers of U.S. agricultural imports under the program.

22.

1.	Effective as of January 2017. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Generalized System of Preferences, http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html.
2.	's website: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp. See also USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences Guidebook, September 2016, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP-Guidebook-September-16-2016.pdf. Regulations for implementing the GSP are at 15 C.F.R. Part 2007.
2.	The program was also retroactively renewed for all GSP-eligible entries between July 31, 2013 (the latest expiration date), and the effective date of the current GSP renewal (July 29, 2015). For more background information on GSP, see CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Overview and Issues for Congress.
3.
34.	The value of selected U.S. agricultural imports totaled $88111 billion in 20102015 (compiled by CRS using trade data from U.S. International Trade Commission). Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. AgricultureBased on agriculture commodities as defined by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (USDA, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets, AER-796, Appendix, January 2001).
4.	See Table B-1, CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate.
5.	The African Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-274) extended GSP preferences for all beneficiary developing sub-Saharan African countries under the act through September 30, 2015.
6 Includes U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) chapters 1-24, excluding chapter 3 (fish and fish products, except processed), and parts of chapters 29, 33, 35, 38, 41, 43, and 50-53. Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. 5.	For an overview of U.S. trade preference programs, see CRS Report R41429, Trade Preferences: Economic Issues and Policy Options.
76.	See, for example, general trade hearings on President Obama's Trade Policy Agenda, including hearings on April 3, 2014 (House Ways and Means) and on April 22, 2015 (Senate Finance Committee). See also House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, "Hearing on the Operation, Impact, and Future of the U.S. Preference Programs," November 17, 2009; and Senate Finance Committee, "Oversight of Trade Functions: Customs and Other Trade Agencies," June 24, 2008.
87.	See, e.g., remarks of Senator Charles Grassley, Ranking Member of Senate Finance Committeefor example, R. Olson, "The Generalized System of Preferences: Time to Renew and Reform the U.S. Trade Program," The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #2942, September 10, 2014. See also M. Wein, "The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets Should Congress Renew GSP?" Forbes, February 18, 2014; and remarks of Senator Charles Grassley, Washington International Trade Association, June 18, 2009.
98.	See, for example, GAO, "Options for Congressional Consideration to Improve U.S. Trade Preference Programs," GAO-10-262T, November 17, 2009; GAO, "The United States Needs an Integrated Approach to Trade Preference Programs," GAO-08-907T, June 12, 2008; GAO, "U.S. Trade Preference Programs Provide Important Benefits, but a More Integrated Approach Would Better Ensure Programs Meet Shared Goals," GAO-08-443, April 8, 2008; GAO, "An Overview of Use of U.S. Trade Preference Programs by Beneficiaries and U.S. Administrative Reviews," GAO-07-1209, Oct 29, 2007.
109.	A current listing of BDCs under the GSP is available in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (General Notes).
1110.	See, e.g.for example, U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Opening Statement of Senator Charles Grassley, Hearing on the Nomination of Susan C. Schwab to be U.S. Trade Representative, May 16, 2006.
12.	11.	Presidential Proclamation 8157 of June 28, 2007; 72 Federal Register 127: 36528, July 3, 2007 (2006 Review). Historically, there have been few CNL waivers to the GSP for agricultural products and it is unlikely that these program changes greatly affected U.S. agricultural imports under the program.	12.
13.	7280 Federal Register 35895, June 28, 2007 (2006 Review); and 73 Federal Register 38297, June 3, 2008 (2007 Review). Regulations for implementing the GSP are at 15 C.F.R. Part 2007. 128: 60731, October 7, 2015.	14.
14.	Countries may "graduate" or be removed as a beneficiary developing country if the country is determined to be sufficiently competitive or developed (19 U.S.C. 2462(e)). For example, in 2008, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago graduated from the GSP program when it was determined to have become a ''high income'' country. Also, countries that formally enter into a bilateral trading relationship with another developed country may also become ineligible, as happened in 2007 for Bulgaria and Romania when they joined the European Union.
15.	Proclamation 8788 of March 26, 2012, and 77 Federal Register 18899, March 29, 2012. Also see15.	Previously, CNLs were designated for Argentina (certain nuts, animal hides) and Russia (caviar).
16.	USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences Guidebook, September 2016, p. 22.
17.	P.L. 114-27, §202.
18.	Congress gave the President the authority to designate certain cotton products as eligible for GSP if imported by least-developed beneficiaries in Title II of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, P.L. 114-27. See 80 Federal Register 128: 60731, October 7, 2015.
19.
16
20.	81 Federal Register 224: 83325, November 21, 2016.
21.	A current listing of LDBDCs s under the GSP is available in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (General Notes).
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Withdrawal of Russia as a Beneficiary Developing Country under the Generalized System of Preferences, Executive Communication from Obama, Barack H., 113th Cong., May 7, 2014, H.Doc.113-107.
1723.	Presidential Proclamation 9188 of October 3, 2014; 79 Federal Register 195: 60945, October 8, 2014, Presidential Proclamation 9188. The President's withdrawal of the preference was based on Section 502(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2)), which states that one of the factors determining country eligibility is its level of economic development.
1824.	European Commission memo, "Revised EU trade scheme to help developing countries applies on 1 January 2014," December 19, 2013, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/december/tradoc_152015.pdf Presidential Proclamation 9333 of September 30, 2015; 80 Federal Register 192: 60249, October 5, 2015.
1925.	European Commission memo, "10 countries to benefit from EU preferential trade scheme GSP+ as of 1 January 2014," December 30, 2013, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1006Presidential Proclamation 9492 of September 14, 2016; and USTR, "United States Reinstates Trade Preference Benefits for Burma Following Review of Eligibility Criteria," September 2016 press release.
2026.	Based on public comments to the 2006 TPSC recommendations, posted at USTR's websiteTrade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) recommendations submitted to USTR.
2127.	See, for example, the letter to Representatives Sander Levin and Dave Camp, and Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, from several U.S. companies and manufacturing associations, including GMA, November 10, 2010.
2228.	Calculated tariffs based on the in-quota rate. Under the GSP, agricultural products subject to a TRQ exceeding the in-quota quantity is ineligible for duty-free import (19 U.S.C. 2463(b)(3)).