Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2005-01-18 · Office of the United States Trade Representative · Notices

Notices. Notice

465 words·~2 min read·/register/2005/01/18/05-865

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), as Amended: Notice Regarding the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reviews AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)received petitions in September 2004 to review certain practices in certain beneficiary developing countries to determine whether such countries are in compliance with the ATPA eligibility criteria. In a November 15, 2004 notice, USTR published a list of responsive petitions that were accepted for review. This notice specifies the results of the preliminary review of those petitions as well as the status of the petitions filed in 2003 that have remained under review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bennett M. Harman, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Latin America, at
(202)395-9446. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ), as renewed and amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act of 2002 (ATPDEA) in the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210), provides trade benefits for eligible Andean countries. Pursuant to section 3103(d) of the ATPDEA, USTR promulgated regulations (15 CFR part 2016) (68 FR 43922) regarding the review of eligibility of countries for the benefits of the ATPA, as amended. In a **Federal Register** notice dated August 17, 2004, USTR initiated the 2004 ATPA Annual Review and announced a deadline of September 15, 2004 for the filing of petitions (69 FR 51138). Several of these petitions requested the review of certain practices in certain beneficiary developing countries regarding compliance with the eligibility criteria set forth in sections 203(c) and
(d)and section 204(b)(6)(B) of the ATPA, as amended (19 U.S.C. 3203
(c)and (d); 19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(6)(B)). In a **Federal Register** notice dated November 15, 2004, USTR published a list of the responsive petitions filed pursuant to the announcement of the annual review (69 FR 65674). The Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC)has conducted a preliminary review of these petitions. It has determined that the petition filed by the American Cast Iron Pipe Company concerning Ecuador does not require action and terminates its review. With respect to the remaining 2004 petitions, the TPSC is modifying the schedule for this review, in accordance with 15 CFR 2016.2(b). The results will be announced on or about May 31, 2005. The TPSC is similarly modifying the date of the announcement of the results of preliminary review for the remaining 2003 petitions to May 31, 2005. Following is the list of all petitions that remain under review: Peru: Engelhard; Peru: Princeton Dover; Peru: LeTourneau; Peru: Duke Energy; Ecuador: AFL-CIO; Human Rights Watch; and US/LEAP; Ecuador: Chevron Texaco; Ecuador: Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Peru: Parsons Corporation. Carmen Suro-Bredie, Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. 05-865 Filed 1-14-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 3
2 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 107-210
  • 15 CFR 2016
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Pub. L.Pub. L. 107-210
Cite15 CFR 2016
Cites 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.