United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, complaints by Venezuela (WT/DS2) and Brazil (WT/DS4): Report of the Appellate Body

Summary

INTRODUCTORY

The United States appeals from certain conclusions on issues of law and certain legal interpretations contained in the Panel Report, United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, 29 January 1996 (the “Panel Report”). That Panel had been established to consider a dispute between the United States, on the one hand, and Venezuela, later joined by Brazil, on the other. The dispute related to the implementation by the United States of its domestic legislation known as the Clean Air Act of 1990 (the “CAA”) and, more specifically, to the regulation enacted by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) pursuant to that Act, to control toxic and other pollution caused by the combustion of gasoline manufactured in or imported into the United States. This regulation is formally entitled “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline”, Part 80 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and is commonly referred to as the Gasoline Rule.

Procedural Matters

On 21 February 1996, the United States notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain conclusions on issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) and simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”). Thereafter, on 4 March 1996, the United States filed its Submission as Appellant. Venezuela in turn filed, on 18 March 1996, its Appellee's Submission; Brazil filed on the same day its Appellee's Submission. The third participants followed, the European Communities and Norway filing Submissions, on 18 March 1996.

The complete record of the Panel proceedings was duly transmitted to the Appellate Body.

The oral hearing contemplated by Rule 27 of the Working Procedures was held on 27 and 28 March 1996. At the hearing, oral arguments were made respectively by the participants and the third participants. Questions were put to them by the Members of the Appellate Body hearing the appeal. Most of these questions were answered orally, and some were responded to in writing with the responses being furnished both to the Appellate Body and the other participants and third participants.