35970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

N.W., Washington, D.C. 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–

194, Export Restraint Dispute) may be

made by calling Brenda Webb, (202)

395–6186. 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. 00–14209 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS–184]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding United States—

Antidumping Measures on Certain HotRolled Steel Products From Japan

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 the establishment of

a dispute settlement panel under the

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the

World Trade Organization (‘‘WTO’’),

requested by the Government of Japan.

The Government of Japan has asked the

panel to review the determinations of

the U.S. Department of Commerce

(‘‘DOC’’) and the U.S. International

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that led to

the issuance of an antidumping duty

order covering imports of certain hotrolled steel products from Japan (64 FR

34778, June 29, 1999). Specifically, DOC

published a preliminary determination

of critical circumstances on November

30, 1998 (63 FR 65750), and preliminary

and final determinations of sales at less

than fair value on February 19, 1999 (64

FR 8291) and May 6, 1999 (64 FR

24329), respectively. The ITC published

preliminary and final determinations of

injury on November 25, 1998 (63 FR

65221) and June 23, 1999 (64 FR 33514),

respectively.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted by July

3, 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: HotRolled Steel Products from Japan, Office

of the United States Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.

Daniel Mullaney, Assistant General

Counsel, at (202) 395–3581.

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 the Government of Japan submitted

a request for the establishment of a

WTO dispute settlement panel to

examine the imposition of antidumping

duties on certain hot-rolled steel

products from Japan. At its meeting on

March 20, 2000, the WTO Dispute

Settlement Body (‘‘DSB’’) established

the panel, and the panel was composed

on May 19, 2000. Pursuant to Article 8.7

of the WTO Dispute Settlement

Understanding, the WTO DirectorGeneral appointed the following

persons to serve as panelists in this

dispute: Mr. Harsha V. Singh, Chairman;

Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach, Member; and

Ms. Lidia di Vico, Member. Under

normal circumstances, the panel, which

will hold its meetings in Geneva,

Switzerland, is expected to issue a

report detailing its findings and

recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised and Legal Basis of

the Complaint

In its request for the establishment of

a panel, the Government of Japan

challenges the issuance of an

antidumping duty order concerning

certain hot-rolled carbon steel products

from Japan (64 FR 34778 (June 29,

1999)), and the underlying

determinations of DOC and the ITC. The

Government of Japan alleges that these

determinations, as well as the

applicable law, regulations, policies and

procedures, were not in accordance

with several provisions of the

Marrakesh Agreement, the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(‘‘GATT 1994’’) and the Agreement on

Implementation of Article VI of GATT

1994 (‘‘Antidumping Agreement’’).

Specific allegations with respect to

DOC’s dumping margin calculations and

critical circumstances findings include:

1. DOC’s exclusion of certain home

market sales to affiliated companies

from the calculation of normal value,

based on their price levels, was

inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1 and 2.4

of the Antidumping Agreement;

2. DOC’s application of facts available

to Kawasaki Steel Corporation was

inconsistent with the standards of

Articles 2.3 and 6.8 and Annex II of the

Antidumping Agreement; and the

application of facts available to Nippon

Steel Corporation and NKK Corporation

was inconsistent with the standards of

Article 2.4 and 6, in particular 6.1, 6.2,

6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13, and Annexes I and II

of the Antidumping Agreement;

3. DOC’s calculation of the ‘‘all

others’’ rate of dumping applicable to

companies not investigated, which was

based on the average of the rates of the

investigated companies, was

inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the

Antidumping Agreement; and the law

on which this calculation was based—

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended—is itself inconsistent

with this article;

4. DOC’s calculation of dumping

margins, due to the above alleged

inconsistencies, is excessive and thus

inconsistent with Article 9.3 of the

Antidumping Agreement;

5. DOC’s findings of critical

circumstances, potentially subjecting to

antidumping duties imports made up to

90 days prior to the preliminary

determination of dumping, were

inconsistent with Articles 10.1, 10.2,

10.4, 10.6, and 10.7 of the Antidumping

Agreement; and the law under which

DOC made these findings—sections

733(e) and 735(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, is itself inconsistent

with these articles.

Specific allegations with respect to

the injury determination by ITC include:

6. ITC’s examination of the causal

relationship between dumped imports

and injury to the domestic industry,

which the Government of Japan claims

was not objective and not based on an

examination of all of the evidence, was

inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.4, and

3.5 of the Antidumping Agreement;

7. ITC’s application of the ‘‘captive

production’’ provision of U.S. law,

which, under certain circumstances,

causes the ITC to focus primarily on the

merchant market for the subject

merchandise, was inconsistent with

Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 4.1 of

the Antidumping Agreement, because

the ITC, due to its application of this

provision, did not properly evaluate all

relevant economic factors and indices

bearing on the state of the U.S. industry,

assess injury and causation in relation

to the domestic production of the like

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35971

product, or undertake an objective

examination of all relevant evidence;

further, the Government of Japan alleges

that the captive production provision

itself, section 771(7)(c)(iv) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended, is inconsistent

with these articles of the Antidumping

Agreement.

Other allegations include:

8. The United States’ allegedly biased

approach to the investigation, including

with respect to the critical

circumstances determination, the

application of ‘‘facts available,’’ and the

determination of injury, was

inconsistent with Article X:3 of GATT

1994;

9. The above laws, regulations, and

rulings are not in conformity with

obligations under the WTO agreements,

and so are inconsistent with Article

XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement and

Article 18.4 of the Antidumping

Agreement.

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 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 non-confidential

summaries of submissions, to the panel

received from other parties 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/DS–184, ‘‘HotRolled Steel Products—Japan’’) may be

made by calling Brenda Webb, (202)

395–6186. The 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 U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–14208 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief From

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49

U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as

detailed below.

[Docket No. FRA-2000–6924]

Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. E.G. Peterson,

Assistant Chief Engineer, Design and

Construction, 4901 Belfort Road, Suite

130 (S/C J–350), Jacksonville, Florida

32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporated

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

manual block system (DCS Operating

Rules), on the single secondary track,

between Swamp, milepost 0.0 and

Wharf, milepost 12.0, near Fall River,

Massachusetts, Fall River Subdivision,

Albany Service Lane, and redesignation

of the secondary track to an industrial

track.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that density of traffic no

longer warrants this type of train

operation.

Any interested party desiring to

protest the granting of an application

shall set forth specifically the grounds

upon which the protest is made, and

contain a concise statement of the

interest of the Protestant in the

proceeding. Additionally, one copy of

the protest shall be furnished to the

applicant at the address listed above.

All communications concerning this

proceeding should be identified by the

docket number and must be submitted

to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket

Management Facility, Room PI–401,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

Communications received within 45

days of the date of this notice will be

considered by the FRA before final

action is taken. Comments received after

that date will be considered as far as

practicable. All written communications

concerning these proceedings are

available for examination during regular

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at DOT

Central Docket Management Facility,

Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. All documents in the public

docket are also available for inspection

and copying on the internet at the

docket facility’s Web site at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FRA expects to be able to determine

these matters without an oral hearing.

However, if a specific request for an oral

hearing is accompanied by a showing

that the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by written

statements, an application may be set

for public hearing.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 25,

2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 00–14055 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Emergency Medical Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

SUMMARY: This notice is issued pursuant

to the Aviation Medical Assistance Act

of 1998, which requires the Federal

Aviation Administration to determine

whether or not to require automatic

external defibrillators at airports. To

carry out this mandate, the agency

reviewed data on the medical capability

at the airports most used by passengers

to respond to cardiac events. Based