62624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Notices 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register, whichever date is later. The 

matching program will continue for 18 

months from the effective date and may 

be extended for an additional 12 months 

thereafter, if certain conditions are met. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25526 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7201] 

Waiver Pursuant to Section 7076(d)(2) 

of the Department of State, Foreign 

Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, P.L. 

111–117) Relating to Assistance for the 

Government of Afghanistan 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

as Secretary of State, including under 

section 7076(d)(2) of the Department of 

State, Foreign Operations, and Related 

Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Div. F, P.L. 111–117) (‘‘the Act’’), I 

hereby waive the requirement in section 

7076(d)(2) of the Act to certify that the 

Government of Afghanistan is 

cooperating fully with United States 

efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda 

and to reduce poppy cultivation and 

illicit drug trafficking and report that it 

is vital to the national security interests 

of the United States to do so. 

This waiver shall be reported to the 

Congress promptly and published in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 

Secretary of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25609 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–17–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

[Docket No. USTR–2010–0025] 

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding 

Regarding United States—Final 

Antidumping Measures on Stainless 

Steel from Mexico 

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 pursuant to a 

request by Mexico under the Marrakesh 

Agreement Establishing the World Trade 

Organization (‘‘WTO Agreement’’), the 

Dispute Settlement Body of the World 

Trade Organization (‘‘WTO’’) has 

referred a matter concerning the dispute 

United States—Final Antidumping 

Measures on Stainless Steel from 

Mexico to a panel. The request may be 

found at http://www.wto.org in 

document WT/DS344/20. 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 on or 

before November 12, 2010, to be assured 

of timely consideration by USTR. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted electronically to 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

USTR–2010–0025. If you are unable to 

provide submissions by http:// 

www.regulations.gov, please contact 

Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to 

arrange for an alternative method of 

transmission. If (as explained below), 

the comment contains confidential 

information, then the comment should 

be submitted by fax only to Sandy 

McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marı ́a L. Paga ́n, Associate General 

Counsel, Office of the United States 

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395– 

7305. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is 

providing notice that the Dispute 

Settlement Body (‘‘DSB’’) has, at the 

request of Mexico, referred a matter to 

a dispute settlement panel pursuant to 

the WTO Understanding on Rules and 

Procedures Governing the Settlement of 

Disputes (‘‘DSU’’). The panel will hold 

any meetings with the parties to the 

dispute in Geneva, Switzerland. 

Major Issues Raised by Mexico 

In its request for the establishment of 

a panel, Mexico alleges that the United 

States has not fully implemented the 

recommendations and rulings of the 

DSB in the dispute United States—Final 

Antidumping Measures on Stainless 

Steel from Mexico. The 

recommendations and rulings stem from 

the DSB’s adoption of the panel and 

Appellate Body reports in that dispute, 

which can be found at http:// 

www.wto.org in documents WT/DS344/ 

R and WT/DS344/AB/R, respectively. 

Mexico states that the DSB made 

recommendations and rulings that the 

use of simple zeroing in administrative 

reviews is ‘‘as such’’ inconsistent with 

Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and 

Article 9.3 of the Antidumping 

Agreement. Mexico alleges that the 

United States has taken no steps to 

eliminate simple zeroing in 

administrative reviews, thereby failing 

to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings in this 

regard by the end of the reasonable 

period of time (‘‘RPT’’) or thereafter. 

Mexico alleges that the United States 

continues to act inconsistently with 

Articles 17.14, 21.1, and 21.3 of the 

DSU, Articles 2.1, 2.4, and 9.3 of the 

Antidumping Agreement, and Article 

VI:2 of the GATT 1994. 

In addition, Mexico states that the 

DSB made recommendations and 

rulings that the United States acted 

inconsistently with Article VI:2 of the 

GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the 

Antidumping Agreement by applying 

simple zeroing in five administrative 

reviews at issue in the dispute 

(identified as cases 1 through 5 in the 

Annex to Mexico’s request). Mexico 

alleges that the margins of dumping 

calculated in these five administrative 

reviews continue to have legal effects 

after the end of the RPT and have been 

relied upon by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘USDOC’’) in several 

subsequent closely connected measures, 

including in the 2005 and 2010 ‘‘sunset’’ 

reviews and in revocation decisions 

made in the context of subsequent 

antidumping administrative reviews, 

including the 7th and 9th administrative 

reviews. Mexico alleges that the United 

States has failed to adopt any measures 

by the end of the RPT or thereafter to 

implement the DSB’s recommendations 

and rulings regarding the use of simple 

zeroing in administrative reviews 1 

through 5, and therefore is acting 

inconsistently with Articles 17.14, 21.1, 

and 21.3 of the DSU, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 

and 9.3 of the Antidumping Agreement, 

and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. 

Furthermore, Mexico alleges that the 

United States has failed to take action to 

bring certain ‘‘closely connected 

measures’’ into compliance with U.S. 

WTO obligations and, that by 

continuing to use simple zeroing in 

subsequent ‘‘closely connected 

measures,’’ has imposed, assessed, and/ 

or collected antidumping duties in 

excess of the proper margin of dumping. 

Mexico alleges that the United States is 

therefore imposing duties on the 

importation of Mexican goods in excess 

of the duties permitted under the U.S. 

Schedule of Concessions and otherwise 

nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to 

Mexico under the covered agreements. 

Mexico alleges that as a result the 

United States is acting inconsistently 

with Articles 17.14, 21.1, and 21.3 of the 

DSU, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.3, 11.2, and 

11.3 of the Antidumping Agreement, 

and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. The 

alleged ‘‘closely connected measures’’ 

are: 

(i) The six subsequent administrative 

reviews of the same antidumping duty 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES