Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Notices 34525

Dated: May 19, 2000.

William B. Bader,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and

Cultural Affairs, United States Department

of State.

[FR Doc. 00–13451 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–186]

WTO Consultations Regarding Section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the United

States Trade Representative (USTR) is

providing notice that the European

Communities (‘‘EC’’) has requested

consultations with the United States

under the Marrakesh Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO), regarding section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1337) and the related rules of practice

and procedure of the International

Trade Commission contained in chapter

II of Title 19 of the U.S. Code of Federal

Regulations. The EC alleges that section

337 is inconsistent with Article III of the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1994 (‘‘GATT 1994’’) and Articles 2 (in

conjunction with Article 2 of the Paris

Convention), 3, 9 (in conjunction with

Article 5 of the Berne Convention), 27,

41, 42, 49, 50, and 51 of the WTO

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights (‘‘TRIPS

Agreement’’). A first round of

consultations with the EC was held on

February 28, 2000, in Geneva,

Switzerland. The Government of Canada

and the Government of Japan

participated as third parties. USTR

invites written comments from the

public concerning the issues raised in

this dispute.

DATES: Although the USTR will accept

any comments received during the

course of the dispute settlement

proceedings, comments should be

submitted on or before June 30 to be

assured of timely consideration by

USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to the Monitoring and

Enforcement Unit, Office of the General

Counsel, Attn: Section 337 Dispute,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rhonda K. Schnare, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC, (202) 395–3150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

127(b) of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C.

3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and

opportunity for comment be provided

after the United States receives a request

for the establishment of a WTO dispute

settlement panel. Consistent with this

obligation, but in an effort to provide

additional opportunity for comment,

USTR is providing notice that

consultations have been requested by

the EC concerning whether section 337

of the Tariff Act of 1930 is inconsistent

with the United States’ obligations

under GATT 1994 and the TRIPS

Agreement. The EC has not requested

the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel. If the EC decides to

proceed to a dispute settlement panel,

under normal circumatances, the panel,

which will hold its meetings in Geneva,

Switzerland, would be expected to issue

a report detailing its findings and

recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the European

Communities

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1337) addresses unfair

methods of competition and unfair acts

in the importation and sale of products

in the United States, the threat or effect

of which is to destroy or substantially

injure a domestic industry, prevent the

establishment of such an industry, or

restrain or monopolize trade and

commerce in the United States.

However, in cases of alleged

infringement of a valid and enforcable

U.S. patent, registered trademark,

copyright, or mask work, there is no

injury requirement.

In 1989, a GATT panel established at

the request of the EC concluded that

section 337 was inconsistent with GATT

Article III. Subsequently, section 337

was amended by the URAA to bring it

into conformity with the findings of the

GATT panel report.

In January 2000, the EC requested

consultations with the United States

under certain WTO agreements

regarding section 337. The EC’s

consultation request alleged that the

amendments to section 337 failed to

bring it into compliance with the GATT

and that section 337 continues to

provide less favorable treatment to

imported goods than to domestic goods

in violation of GATT Article III. The

EC’s consultation request also alleged

that section 337 is inconsistent with

Articles 2 (in conjunction with Article

2 of the Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in

conjunction with Article 5 of the Berne

Convention), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50, and 51

of the TRIPS Agreement. A first round

of consultations with the EC was held

in February 2000 in Geneva,

Switzerland. The EC has not requested

the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel, but maintains the right

to do so.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. A person

requesting that information contained in

a comment submitted by that person be

treated as confidential business

information must certify that such

information is business confidential and

would not customarily be released to

the public by the commenter.

Confidential business information must

be clearly marked ‘‘BUSINESS

CONFIDENTIAL’’ in a contrasting color

ink at the top of each page of each copy.

Information or advice contained in a

comment submitted, other than business

confidential information, may be

determined by USTR to be confidential

in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2). If the submitter believes that

information or advice may qualify as

such, the submitter—

(1) Must so designate the information

or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in a

contrasting color ink at the top of each

page of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the

information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will

maintain a file on this dispute

settlement proceeding, accessible to the

public, in the USTR Reading Room:

Room 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public

file will include a listing of any

comments received by USTR from the

public with respect to the proceeding;

the U.S. submissions to the panel in the

proceeding, the submissions, or nonconfidential summaries of submissions,

to the panel received from other

participants in the dispute, as well as

the report of the dispute settlement

panel, and, if applicable, the report of

the Appellate Body. An appointment to

review the public file (Docket WTO/D–

186, Section 337 Dispute) may be made

by calling Brenda Webb, (202) 395–

34526 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Notices

6186. The USTR Reading Room is open

to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon

and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant United States Trade Representative

for Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–13419 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS–192]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding United States—Transitional

Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton

Yarn from Pakistan

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the United

States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is

providing notice of Pakistan’s request

for the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel under the Marrakesh

Agreement Establishing the World

Trade Organization (‘‘WTO’’). Pakistan

challenges the United States’ action of

imposing a transitional safeguard on

imports of combed cotton yarn from

Pakistan. In this dispute, Pakistan

alleges that ths safeguard measure is

inconsistent with certain ogligations

under the WTO Agreement on Textiles

and Clothing. USTR invites written

comments from the public concerning

the issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted by July

7, 2000, to be assured of timely

consideration by USTR in preparing its

first written submission to the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation

Assistant, Office of Monitoring and

Enforcement, Room 122, Attn: Combed

Cotton Yarn, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC, 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Demetrios Marantis, Associate General

Counsel at (202) 395–3581 or Caroyl

Miller, Deputy Chief Textile Negotiator

at 395–3026.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C.

3537(b)(1)), USTR is providing notice

that Pakistan has submitted a request for

the establishment of a WTO dispute

settlement panel to examine the U.S.

transitional safeguard measure on

imports of combed cotton yard from

Pakistan. The WTO Dispute Settlement

Body (‘‘DSB’’) is expected to establish a

panel for this purpose in June 2000.

Major Issues Raised and Legal Basis of

the Complaint

Pakistan challenges the transitional

safeguard measure the United States

imposed on March 17, 1999, on imports

of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan. In

its request for a panel to examine the

measure, Pakistan alleges that the U.S.

transitional safeguard measure is

inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the

WTO Agreement on Textiles and

Clothing (‘‘ATC’’) and is not justified by

Article 6 of the ATC. Pakistan further

maintains that the U.S. measure does

not meet the requirements for

transitional safeguards set out in

paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 7 of Article 6 of

the ATC because the United States

allegedly:

• Made its determination of serious

damage, or actual threat thereof, to its

domestic industry producing like and/or

directly competitive products, by (a)

excluding from its determination a

significant proportion of the production

of like products by its domestic industry

and (b) without taking into account all

factors relevant to the state of its

domestic industry;

• Failed to demonstrate that the

alleged serious damage, or actual threat

thereof to the domestic industry was

being caused by increased imports;

• Attributed the alleged damage, or

actual threat thereof, to its domestic

industry solely to imports from Pakistan

to the exclusion of imports from other

sources, including unrestrained sources;

• Based its determination of serious

damage, or actual threat thereof, on a

comparison of data for an eight-month

period in 1997 and 1998, which is in the

view of Pakistan a period too short to

determine whether the alleged damage,

or actual threat thereof, was serious; and

• Relied on partial and unverified

information.

The United States and Pakistan

consulted on this issue on February 10

and 11, 1999, but were unable to reach

a mutually satisfactory solution to the

matter. The WTO Textile Monitoring

Body (‘‘TMB’’) reviewed the U.S.

measure on April 29, 1999, but

determined in its report that ‘‘it was not

in a position to assess without doubt

whether or not serious damage had been

caused to the US’ industry producing

products like and/or directly

competitive with combed cotton yarn

* * *’’ (G/TMB/18). The TMB therefore

recommended that the United States

rescind the measure. On May 27, 1999,

the United States informed the TMB

that it was unable to conform to this

recommendation. The TMB

subsequently reviewed and reaffirmed

its recommendation, and in an August

6, 1999, letter to the TMB the United

States renewed its determination to

retain the temporary safeguard measure.

Pakistan considers this matter to be

unresolved and that the parties have—

through the TMB—satisfied the

consultation requirement of Article 4 of

the Understanding on Rules and

Procedures Governing the Settlement of

Disputers (‘‘DSU’’). Accordingly, on

April 3, 2000, Pakistan requested the

establishment of a dispute settlement

panel pursuant to Article 8:10 of the

ATC, Article XXIII:2 of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(‘‘GATT 1994’’), and Article 6 of the

DSU.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in this dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies to Sandy

McKinzy at the address provided above.

A person requesting that information

contained in a comment submitted by

that person be treated as confidential

business information must certify that

such information is business

confidential and would not customarily

be released to the public by the

submitting person. Confidential

business information must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

in a contrasting color ink at the top of

each page of each copy. Information or

advice contained in a comment

submitted, other than business

confidential information, may be

determined by USTR to be confidential

in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2)). If the submitting person

believes that information or advice may

qualify as such, the submitting person—

(1) Must so designate the information

or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in a

contrasting color ink at the top of each

page of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the

information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will

maintain a file on this dispute

settlement proceeding, accessible to the

public, in the USTR Reading Room:

Room 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20508. The public