Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices 53851

September 17, 1997, to CF Investment

Company to operate as a small business

investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 59.011, Small Business

Investment Companies)

Dated: October 6, 1997.

Don A. Christensen,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 97–27383 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster

#9598]

State of North Carolina

Buncombe and Haywood Counties

and the contiguous Counties of

Henderson, Jackson, Madison,

McDowell, Rutherford, Swain,

Transylvania, and Yancey in the State of

North Carolina constitute an economic

injury disaster loan area as a result of a

rockslide that occurred on July 1, 1997

closing Interstate 40 to all east and west

traffic. Eligible small businesses and

small agricultural cooperatives without

credit available elsewhere may file

applications for economic injury

assistance for this disaster until the

close of business on May 29, 1998 at the

address listed below or other locally

announced locations: U.S. Small

Business Administration, Disaster Area

2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite

300, Atlanta, GA 30308.

The interest rate for eligible small

businesses and small agricultural

cooperatives is 4 percent.

The Tennessee counties contiguous to

Haywood County have been previously

declared for the same occurrence.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.

59002)

Date: August 29, 1997

John T. Spotila,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–27455 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. 301–113]

Initiation of Section 302 Investigation

and Request for Public Comment:

Canadian Export Subsidies and Market

Access for Dairy Products

AGENCY: Ofice of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of

investigation; request for written

comment.

SUMMARY: The United States Trade

Representative (USTR) has initiated an

investigation under section 302(a) of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the

Trade Act), with respect to certain acts,

policies and practices of the

Government of Canada with respect to

export subsidies on dairy products, and

with respect to the operation of

Canada’s tariff rate quota (TRQ) for fluid

milk. USTR invites written comments

from the public on the matters being

investigated and the determinations to

be made under section 304 of the Trade

Act.

DATES: This investigation was initiated

on October 8, 1997. Written comments

from the public are due on or before

noon on Tuesday, November 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Early, Senior Advisor, Office of

Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395–6127,

Elizabeth Hyman, Office of the General

Counsel, (202) 395–3150, or Daniel

Brinza, Senior Advisor and Special

Counsel for Natural Resources, (202)

395–7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 5, 1997, the National Milk

Producers Federation, the U.S. Dairy

Export Council, and the International

Dairy Foods Association filed a petition

to section 302(a) of the Trade Act (19

U.S.C. 2412(a)) alleging that certain

export subsidies of the Government of

Canada and Canada’s failure to

implement a TRQ for fluid milk

constitute acts, policies and practices

that violate, or are inconsistent with and

otherwise deny benefits to the United

States under the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Agriculture and the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1994 (‘‘GATT 1994’’).

In particular, the petition alleges that

the Government of Canada maintains a

two-tier pricing scheme under which it

maintains high domestic prices and

exports manufactured dairy products to

world markets at lower, subsidized

prices. Under this system, the milk

producer receives a pooled price

controlled by government agencies.

Milk is sold to processors at a high price

for domestic consumption and, with a

government permit, as Class 5 industrial

milk at the world price when used as an

input in the production of milk

products for export. Subsidized dairy

product exports by Canada thus

systematically exceed the ceiling on

subsidized exports of such products

which Canada agreed to in the Uruguay

Round. The petition alleges that

subsidized Canadian exports are

undercutting U.S. prices to major U.S.

export markets, and have led at least

one exporting dairy processor to move

its manufacturing operations to Canada

in order to benefit from Canadian dairy

export subsidies.

The petition also alleges that the

Government of Canada agreed in the

Uruguay Round to provide a TRQ of

64,500 metric tons (product weight

basis) for commercial shipments of fluid

milk. Canada nevertheless does not

open the quota on the first day of the

quota year nor does it announce the

closure of the quota when it is filled.

Instead, Canada excludes commercial

milk imports on the basis of the claim

that tourists and returning Canadian

citizens carry pints, quarts and half

gallon containers of fluid milk in such

quantity as to fill the TRQ. The petition

alleges that if Canada implemented its

TRQ for fluid milk, U.S. dairy exports

to Canada would increase by at least

twenty million dollars annually.

Investigation and Consultations

On October 11, 1997, the USTR

determined that an investigation should

be initiated to determine whether

certain acts, policies or practices of the

Government of Canada regarding export

subsidies and the failure to open the

tariff-rate quota for fluid milk are

actionable under section 301.

As required in section 3903(a) of the

Trade Act, the USTR has requested

consultations with the Government of

Canada regarding the issues under

investigation. The request was made

pursuant to Article 4 of the

Understanding on Rules and Procedures

Governing the Settlement of Disputes

(DSU), Article XXII of the GATT 1994,

Article 19 of the Agreement on

Agriculture to the extent it incorporates

Article XXII of the GATT 1994, and

Article 30 of the Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

to the extent it incorporates Article XXII

of the GATT 1994. If the consultations

do not result in a satisfactory resolution

of the matter, the USTR will request the

establishment of a panel pursuant to

Article 6 of the DSU. USTR will seek

information and advice from the

petitioner and appropriate

representatives provided for under

section 135 of the Trade Act in

preparing the U.S. presentations for

such consultations.

Under section 304 of the Trade Act,

the USTR must determine within 18

months after the date on which this

investigation was initiated, or within 30
53852 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices

days after the conclusion of WTO

dispute settlement procedures,

whichever is earlier, whether any act,

policy, or practice or denial of trade

agreement rights described in section

301 of the Trade Act exists and, if that

determination is affirmative, the USTR

must determine what action, if any, to

take under section 301 of the Trade Act.

Public Comment: Requirement for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the acts, policies and practices of

Canada which are the subject of this

investigation, the amount of burden or

restriction on U.S. commerce caused by

these acts, policies and practices, and

the determinations required under

section 304 of the Trade Act. Comments

must be filed in accordance with the

requirements set forth in 15 CFR

2006.8(b) (55 FR 20593) and must be

filed on or before noon on Tuesday,

November 11, 1996. Comments must be

in English and provided in twenty

copies to: Sybia Harrison, Staff Assistant

to the Section 301 Committee, Room 22,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20508.

Comments will be placed in a file

(Docket 301–113) open to public

inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13,

except confidential business

information exempt from public

inspection in accordance with 15 CFR

2006.15. Confidential business

information submitted in accordance

with 15 CFR 2006.15 must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

in a contrasting color ink at the top of

each page on each of 20 copies, and

must be accompanied by a

nonconfidential summary of the

confidential information. The

nonconfidential summary shall be

placed in the file that is open to public

inspection. Copies of the public version

of the petition and other relevant

documented are available for public

inspection in the USTR Reading Room.

An appointment to review the docket

(Docket No. 301–107) may be made by

calling Brenda Webb (202) 395–6186.

The USTR Reading Room is open the

public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1

p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

and is located in Room 101.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 97–27306 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. 301–114]

Initiation of Section 302 Investigation

and Request for Public Comment: EU

Circumvention of Export Subsidy

Commitments on Dairy Products

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of

investigation; request for written

comments.

SUMMARY: The United States Trade

Representative (USTR) has initiated an

investigation under section 302(b)(1) of

the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the

Trade Act), with respect to certain acts,

policies and practices of the European

Union (EU) concerning export subsidies

on processed cheese. The EU is bound

by commitments it made in the Uruguay

Round limiting the amount of cheese

that may be exported with export

subsidies. The EU is circumventing

these commitments by exporting

processed cheese under subsidy and

counting these exports against other

export subsidy commitments relating to

powdered milk and butterfat. The USTR

is investigating whether these acts,

policies and practices are inconsistent

with certain provisions of the

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures and the

Agreement on Agriculture. USTR invites

written comments from the public on

the matters being investigated.

DATES: This investigation was initiated

on October 8, 1997. Written comments

from the public are due on or before

noon on Tuesday, November 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Early, Senior Advisor, Office of

Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395–6127,

Elizabeth Hyman, Office of the General

Counsel, (202) 395–3150, or Daniel

Brinza, Senior Advisor and Special

Counsel for Natural Resources, (202)

395–7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

302(b)(1) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C.

2412(b)(1), authorizes the USTR to

initiate an investigation under chapter 1

of Title III of the Trade Act (commonly

referred to as ‘‘section 301’’) with

respect to any matter in order to

determine whether the matter is

actionable under section 301. Matters

actionable under section 301 include,

inter alia, the denial of rights of the

United States under a trade agreement,

or acts, policies, and practices of a

foreign country that violate or are

inconsistent with the provisions of, or

otherwise deny benefits to the United

States under, any trade agreement.

Investigation and Consultations

On October 8, 1997, having consulted

with the appropriate private sector

advisory committees, the USTR

determined that an investigation should

be initiated to assess whether certain

acts, policies and practices of the EU

regarding export subsidies on processed

cheese are actionable under section

301(a).

The EU is bound by a schedule of

commitments it made in the Uruguay

Round limiting the amount of cheese

that may be exported with export

subsidies, as well as separate

commitments limiting subsidized

exports of various other agricultural

products. The EU appears to be

circumventing its commitments on

processed cheese by exporting

processed cheese under subsidy and

counting these exports against other

export subsidy commitments relating to

components of processed cheese such as

powdered milk, butterfat and natural

cheese. Beginning in February, 1997,

new rules implemented by the EU

(including Commission Regulations

300/97, 417/97 and 418/97) recast the

EU’s ‘‘inward processing’’ regime to

count the export subsidies on processed

cheese as subsidies on the components

of the cheese, instead. These acts,

policies and practices appear to be

inconsistent with certain provisions of

the Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures and the

Agreement on Agriculture.

As required in section 303(a) of the

Trade Act, the USTR has requested

consultations with the EU regarding the

issues under investigation. The request

was made pursuant to Article 4 of the

Understanding on Rules and Procedures

Governing the Settlement of Disputes

(DSU), Article XXII of the GATT 1994,

Article 19 of the Agreement on

Agriculture to the extent it incorporates

Article XXII of the GATT 1994, and

Article 30 of the Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

to the extent it incorporates Article XXII

of the GATT 1994. If the consultations

do not result in a satisfactory resolution

of the matter, the USTR will request the

establishment of a panel pursuant to

Article 6 of the DSU. USTR will seek

information and advice from the

petitioner and appropriate

representatives provided for under

section 135 of the Trade Act in

preparing the U.S. presentations for

such consultations.