37596 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices

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 and Legal Basis of

the Complaint

The United States claims that Public

Notice 60; the Foreign Trade

(Development and Regulation) Act 1992;

the Export and Import Policy, 1997–

2002; memoranda of understanding

signed by the Government of India with

manufacturing firms in the motor

vehicle sector pursuant to Public Notice

No. 60; and certain related Indian

legislative and administrative measures

are inconsistent with India’s obligations

under the WTO Agreement. The

foregoing measures require

manufacturing firms in the motor

vehicle sector to achieve specified levels

of purchase or use of domestic content;

to achieve a neutralization of foreign

exchange and to balance the value of

certain imports with the value of

exports of cars and components over a

stated period; and to limit imports to a

value based on previous exports. These

requirements are enforceable under

Indian law and rulings, and

manufacturing firms in the motor

vehicle sector must comply with these

requirements in order to obtain certain

Indian import licenses. The United

States claims that the Indian measures

in question are therefore inconsistent

with India’s obligations under Article

III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and

Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on

Trade-Related Investment Measures.

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 the 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)), the 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 the 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/D–175, India

Motor Vehicle 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.

[FR Doc. 00–15138 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–195]

WTP Consultations Regarding Certain

Measures in the Philippines’ Motor

Vehicle Development Program

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 23, 2000,

the United States requested

consultations with the Government of

the Philippines under the Marrakesh

Agreement Establishing the World

Trade Organization (WTO), regarding

tariff advantages to motor vehicle

manufacturers located in the

Philippines who meet certain

requirements, including a requirement

to use parts and components produced

in the Philippines and a requirement to

earn a percentage of the foreign

exchange needed to import those parts

and components by exporting finished

vehicles. The US alleges that these

measures are inconsistent with Articles

III:4, III:5 and XI:1 of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(‘‘GATT 1994’’), Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of

the Agreement on Trade-Related

Investment Measures, and Article 3.1(b)

of the Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures. Pursuant to

Article 4.3 of the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding (‘‘DSU’’),

such consultations are to take place

within a period of 30 days from the date

of the request, or within a period

otherwise mutually agreed between the

United States and the Philippines.

USTR invites written comments from

the public concerning the issues raised

in the dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before July 28, 2000, to be assured of

timely consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Sandy

McKinzy, Monitoring and Enforcement

Unit, Office of the General Counsel, 122,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC, 20508, Attn:

Philippines Motor Vehicle Dispute.

Telephone: (202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven F. Fabry, Associate General

Counsel, telephone: (202) 395–7271; or

Sean Murphy, Director for ASEAN

Affairs, telephone: (202) 395–6813.

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 submits or

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices 37597

Major Issues Raised by the United

States

The Philippines’ Motor Vehicle

Development Program (the ‘‘MVDP’’)

provides tariff advantages to motor

vehicle manufacturers located in the

Philippines who meet certain

requirements, including at least the

following. First, manufacturers are

required to use parts and components

produced in the Philippines; the

amount required varies by type and size

of vehicle. Second, manufacturers are

required to earn a percentage of the

foreign exchange needed to import those

parts and components by exporting

finished vehicles; again, the percentage

varies by type and size of vehicle.

Compliance with these requirements

entitles manufacturers to import parts,

components and finished vehicles at a

preferential rate. The United States also

understands that foreign manufacturers’

import licenses for parts, components

and finished vehicles are conditioned

on compliance with these requirements.

The MVDP appears to require outright

that manufacturing firms in the motor

vehicle sector must achieve specified

levels of purchase or use of domestic

content, and that they must achieve a

neutralization of foreign exchange and

balance the value of certain imports

with the value of exports of motor

vehicles and components. Moreover, it

appears that manufacturing firms in the

motor vehicle sector must comply with

these requirements in order to obtain

import licenses for certain motor vehicle

parts and components; to obtain foreign

exchange for those imports; and to

obtain the right to import at preferential

rates. Finally, it appears that the

Philippines is providing a subsidy that

is contingent upon the use of domestic

over imported goods.

The Philippines notified the WTO in

1995 that it was applying these

measures. The Philippines made that

notification pursuant to Article 5.1 of

the Agreement on Trade-Related

Investment Measures, which allowed

WTO Members to notify measures that

were not in conformity with the

provisions of that Agreement and

thereby obtain an additional five years

(until January 1, 2000) to bring such

measures into conformity with that

Agreement.

On May 23, 2000, the United States

requested consultations with the

Philippines under certain WTO

agreements regarding those provisions

of the MDVP. The U.S. consultation

request alleged that these MVDP

provisions are inconsistent with the

Philippines’ obligations under Articles

III:4, III:5 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994,

Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on

Trade-Related Investment Measures,

and Article 3.1(b) of the Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be 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 dispute; if a

dispute settlement panel is convened,

the U.S. submissions to that panel, the

submissions, or non-confidential

summaries of submission, to the panel

received from other participants in the

dispute, as well as the report of the

panel; and, if applicable, the report of

the Appellate body. An appointment to

review the public file (Docket WTO/D–

195, Philippines Motor Vehicle 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. 00–15137 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements

Filed During the Week Ending June 2,

2000

The following Agreements were filed

with the Department of Transportation

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412

and 414. Answers may be filed within

21 days after the filing of the

application.

Docket Number: OST–2000–7434.

Date Filed: May 30, 2000.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: CTC COMP 0284 dated 26

May 2000, Expedited Resolution 002kk,

Special Amending Resolution (Except

USA/US Territories), Intended effective

date: 1 August 2000.

Docket Number: OST–2000–7435.

Date Filed: May 30, 2000.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC31 SOUTH 0084 dated 26

May 2000, Expedited TC31 South

Pacific Resolutions r1–r7, Intended

effective date: 1 July 2000.

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00–15085 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates

of Public Convenience and Necessity

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed

Under Subpart Q During the Week

Ending June 2, 2000

The following applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart Q of

the Department of Transportation’s

Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR

302.1701 et seq.). The due date for

Answers, Conforming Applications, or

Motions to Modify Scope are set forth

below for each application. Following

the Answer period DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.