Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35969

Review Board meeting. For more

information, contact the NWTRB, Karyn

Severson, External Affairs, 2300

Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300,

Arlington, Virginia 22201–3367; (tel)

703–235–4473, (fax) 703–235–4495; (email) info@nwtrb.gov.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987. The Board’s purpose is to

evaluate the technical and scientific

validity of activities undertaken by the

Secretary of Energy related to managing

the disposal of the nation’s spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste. In the same legislation, Congress

directed the DOE to characterize a site

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to

determine its suitability as the location

of a potential repository for the

permanent disposal of spent nuclear

fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Dated: May 31, 2000.

William D. Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 00–14103 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AM–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–194]

WTO Consultations Regarding

Measures Treating Export Restraints

as Subsidies

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 on May 19, 2000,

Canada requested consultations with the

United States under the Marrakesh

Agreement Establishing the World

Trade Organization (WTO Agreement),

regarding U.S. measures that treat a

restraint on exports of a product as a

subsidy to other products made using or

incorporating the restricted product if

the domestic price of the restricted

product is affected by the restraint. The

measures identified by Canada in its

consultation request are those

provisions of the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110,

H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. I, 103d Cong., 2d

Sess., 656, in particular at 925–926

(1994)) and the Explanation of the Final

Rules (the Explanation), U.S.

Department of Commerce,

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63

Federal Register 65,348, 65,349–51

(November 25, 1998)) interpreting

section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1677(5)), as amended by the

URAA. Canada alleges that the SAA and

the Explanation are inconsistent with

Article 1.1, 10 (as well as Articles 11, 17

and 19, as they relate to the

requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of

the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures (SCM

Agreement). Canada also alleges that by

maintaining these measures, the United

States violates Article 32.5 of the SCM

Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the

WTO Agreement. Pursuant to Article 4.3

of the WTO Dispute Settlement

Understanding (‘‘DSU’’), consultations

are to take place within a period of 30

days from the date of receipt of the

request, or within a period otherwise

mutually agreed between the United

States and Canada. 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 12 to be

assured of timely consideration by

USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation

Assistant, the Monitoring and

Enforcement Unit, Office of the General

Counsel, Room 122, Attn: Export

Restraint Dispute, Office of the United

States Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508,

(202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Hunter, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., (202) 395–

3582.

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

pursuant to the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding . If such

consultations should fail to resolve the

matter and a dispute settlement panel is

established pursuant to the DSU, such

panel, which would hold its meetings in

Geneva, Switzerland, would be

expected to issue a report on its findings

and recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by Canada

In its consultation request, Canada

alleges that the SAA and the

Explanation are measures that treat an

export restraint as a subsidy. Because

Canada appears to allege that an export

restraint cannot be considered to be a

subsidy within the meaning of Article

1.1 of the SCM Agreement, Canada

claims that the SAA and the

Explanation are inconsistent with

Articles 1.1, 10, 11, 17, 19 and 32.1 of

the SCM Agreement. Canada also

appears to allege that due to the

existence of the SAA and the

Explanation, the United States has

failed to ensure that its laws, regulations

and administrative procedures are in

conformity with its WTO obligations as

required by Article 32.5 of the SCM

Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the

WTO Agreement.

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,

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