63740 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Notices

South Building, 2430 E Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037–2800.

Harold S. Burman,

Executive Director, Secretary of State’s

Advisory Committee on Private International

Law.

[FR Doc. 97–31662 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–23]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding U.S. Antidumping Duties on

Dynamic Random Access

Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One

Megabyte or Above From Korea

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1), the Office

of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that the government of Korea has

requested the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel under the Marrakesh

Agreement Establishing the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to examine

the continuing imposition by the United

States of antidumping duties on

dynamic access memory

semiconductors (DRAMS) of one

megabyte or above from Korea.

Specifically, on July 16, 1997, in its

final determination in the

administrative review of an

antidumping order on DRAMS from

Korea, the Department of Commerce

determined not to revoke the order. 62

FR 39809 (July 24, 1997). Commerce

declined to revoke the order because it

found that one of the regulatory criteria

for revocation had not been satisfied;

namely, based on the evidence before it,

Commerce was not satisfied that future

dumping of DRAMS by the Korean

producers in question was ‘‘not likely.’’

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before January 5, 1998, to be assured of

timely consideration by USTR in

preparing its first written submission to

the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Ileana Falticeni, Litigation

Assistant, Office of Monitoring and

Enforcement, Room 501, Attn: Korea

DRAMS Dispute, Office of the U.S.

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Hunter, Office of the General

Counsel (202) 395–3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter

dated November 6, 1997, the

Government of Korea requested the

establishment of a panel to examine the

Department of Commerce’s continuing

imposition of an antidumping order on

DRAMS of one megabyte or above from

Korea. Although there currently are no

scheduled meetings of the WTO Dispute

Settlement Body (DSB) during the

remainder of 1997, it is possible that a

meeting could be scheduled during this

time and that the DSB could establish a

panel before the end of 1997. Under

normal circumstances, the panel, which

will 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 by the Government

of Korea and Legal Basis of Complaint

In its request for the establishment of

a panel, the Government of Korea has

identified as the measures at issue (1)

the July 16 determination by Commerce;

and (2) the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1673 et seq.) and

the relevant Commerce regulations (19

CFR Part 353 (1997), both as applied

and on their face. The Government of

Korea alleges that these measures are

inconsistent with several provisions of

the WTO agreements, including the

following specific allegations:

• Commerce’s final determination not

to revoke the antidumping order, after

findings of no or de minimis dumping

margins, and respondent companies’

certification that they would not dump

in the future and agreement to

reinstatement in the order in the event

they were to dump the merchandise in

the future, is inconsistent with Article

11 of the Antidumping Agreement and

Article VI of GATT 1994;

• The ‘‘not likely’’ criterion under

Commerce’s regulations gives

Commerce wide discretion in deciding

on revocation, and allows Commerce to

maintain an order in an arbitrary and

unjustifiable manner despite the

absence of dumping for several years,

respondents’ certification not to dump

in the future, and the agreement to

reinstatement of the order in the event

they dump DRAMS in the future. This

criterion, both as applied in Commerce’s

final determination and on its face, is

inconsistent with Article 11 of the

Antidumping Agreement and Article VI

of GATT 1994 and exceeds the scope of

those agreements;

• The negative standard of the ‘‘not

likely’’ criterion and Commerce’s

practice as applied in the final

determination shifted the burden of

proof from the United States to the

respondents in contradiction of Article

II of the Antidumping Agreement;

• The United States has failed to

publish promptly, and in such a manner

as to enable governments and traders to

become acquainted with them, objective

and specific factors regarding the ‘‘not

likely’’ criterion, and Commerce

impermissibly accepted and rejected

data in a biased fashion inconsistent

with Article X of GATT 1994 and

Articles 11 and 17 of the Antidumping

Agreement;

• The U.S. maintenance of the

antidumping order on DRAMS without

considering whether the injury to the

U.S. industry would be likely to

continue or recur if the duty were

removed is inconsistent with Article 11

of the Antidumping Agreement;

• Commerce’s decision regarding the

products subject to the order is

inconsistent with Articles 2 and 3 of the

Antidumping Agreement because it

included products that were never

found to have been dumped or to have

caused injury, and it arbitrarily

excluded products that were like

products to those investigated;

• Commerce’s final determination not

to revoke the order based on unverified

information from the petitioner and

mere conjecture without any substantial

data, and Commerce’s failure to give

adequate consideration to information

submitted by the Korean respondents in

the administrative review is

inconsistent with Articles 2, 6 and

17.6(I) of the Antidumping Agreement

and Article VI of GATT 1994;

• Commerce’s selection of the period

of review for the ‘‘not likely’’ criterion

was improper and not objective, and

therefore is inconsistent with Article

17.6(I) of the Antidumping Agreement

and Article X of GATT 1994;

• Commerce’s final determination is

inconsistent with Article I of GATT

1994 in that it denied to the Korean

respondents the revocation of the

antidumping order after three

consecutive reviews finding no or de

minimis dumping margins, and after

those respondents certified that they

would not dump in the future, and after

they agreed to the reimposition of the

order if dumping occurred, even though

Commerce revoked antidumping orders

in the same circumstances involving

other Members;

• Commerce’s standard for

determining whether to revoke

antidumping orders is impossible to

meet in proceedings involving cyclical

industries such as the DRAMS industry,

and, therefore, both on its face and as
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Notices 63741

applied in the final determination, is

inconsistent with Article 11 of the

Antidumping Agreement;

• The margin of dumping established

by the United States to be de minimis

in administrative review proceedings is

inconsistent with Article 5.8 of the

Antidumping Agreement; and

• The refusal by the United States to

revoke the antidumping order in light of

Korea’s data collection proposal is

inconsistent with Article I of GATT

1994, given the U.S. acceptance of such

proposals and consequent revocation of

antidumping orders in similar cases

involving other Members.

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 submitted

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 in

accordance with 15 CFR 2007.

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 that 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,

N.W., 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 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–

23 (‘‘U.S.-Anti-Dumping Duties on

DRAMS from Korea’’) 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.

Frederick L. Montgomery,

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 97–31524 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements; Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (44 USC

Chapter 35), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Requests

(ICRs) abstracted below have been

forwarded to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review and

comment. The ICRs describes the nature

of the information collections and their

expected burden. The Federal Register

(FR) Notice with a 60-day comment

period soliciting comments on

information collection 2125–0571 was

published on July 22, 1997 [62 FR

39300] and the FR Notice for 2125–0572

was published on July 22, 1997 [62 FR

39301].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before (Insert 30 days from date of

publication).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Mr. Thomas Vining, Office of

Motor Carriers, (202) 358–7028, Federal

Highway Administration, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590; for

information collections 2125–0571 and

2125–0572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)

Title: Request for Revocation of

Authority Granted.

OMB Number: 2125–0571.

Type of Request: Reinstatement,

without change, of a previously

approved collection for which approval

has expired.

Affected Public: Motor Carriers,

Freight Forwarders, and Brokers.

Form(s): OCE–46.

Abstract: The Secretary of

Transportation is authorized to

promulgate regulations that provide for

the registration of for-hire motor carriers

of regulated commodities under 49

U.S.C. 13902, for surface freight

forwarders under 49 U.S.C. 13903, and

for property brokers under 49 U.S.C.

13904. The Secretary has adopted

regulations to implement these

registration procedures. Under Title 49

U.S.C. 13905, each registration is

effective from the date specified and

remains in effect for such period as the

Secretary of Transportation determines

appropriate by regulation. Subsection

(c) of 49 U.S.C. 13905 provides that, on

application of the registrant, the

Secretary may amend or revoke a

registration. Authority pertaining to

these registrations has been delegated to

the FHWA.

Form OCE–46 allows transportation

entities to apply voluntarily for

revocation of their registration in whole

or in part. The form asks for the

registrant’s docket number, name and

address, and the reasons for the

revocation request.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 400

hours.

Title: Application for Certificate of

Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers

and Foreign Motor Private Carriers

under 49 U.S.C. 13902(c).

OMB Number: 2125–0572.

Affected Public: Foreign Motor

Carriers.

Type of Request: Reinstatement,

without change, of a previously

approved collection for which approval

has expired.

Form(s): OP–2.

Abstract: Basic licensing procedures

for registering foreign motor carriers to

operate across the border into the

United States are found at 49 U.S.C.

13902(c). Related regulations appear at

49 CFR 368. The FHWA carries out this

registration program under authority

delegated by the Secretary of

Transportation. Form OP–2 is used by

foreign motor carriers to apply for

registration with the FHWA. The form

requests information on the motor

carrier’s location, the form of business,

ownership and control, and proposed

operations.

ADDRESS: Send comments to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725–

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20503, Attention FHWA Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on: whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Department,