Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Notices 65843

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #2995]

State of Washington

Kitsap County and the contiguous

Counties of Island, Jefferson, King,

Mason and Pierce in the State of

Washington constitute a disaster area as

a result of damages caused by a fire

which occurred on November 13, 1997

in the Kona Village Apartments in the

City of Bremerton. Applications for

loans for physical damages may be filed

until the close of business on January

30, 1998 and for economic injury until

the close of business on September 1,

1998 at the address listed below or other

locally announced locations: U.S. Small

Business Administration, Disaster Area

4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento,

CA 95853–4795.

The interest rates are:

For Physical Damage:

Homeowners with credit available

elsewhere—7.625%

Homeowners without credit available

elsewhere—3.812%

Businesses with credit available

elsewhere—8.000%

Businesses and non-profit

organizations without credit available

elsewhere—4.000%

Others (including non-profit

organizations) with credit available

elsewhere—7.125%

For Economic Injury

Businesses and small agricultural

cooperatives without credit available

elsewhere—4.000%

The number assigned to this disaster

for physical damage is 299505 and for

economic injury the number is 967500.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.)

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Ginger Lew,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32724 Filed 12–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–22]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding—

U.S. Anti-Dumping Duties on Color

Televisions 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 maintenance by the

United States with respect to Samsung

Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung) of an

antidumping order on color television

receivers (CTVs) from the Republic of

Korea (Korea). According to the

Government of Korea, Samsung’s

dumping margins for CTVs exported

from Korea to the United States from

1985–1991 were de minimis, and

Samsung has not exported CTVs from

Korea to the United States since 1991.

The Department of Commerce has

initiated a changed circumstances

review to determine whether the

antidumping order should be revoked in

part, i.e., with respect to Samsung. The

Department of Commerce has also

initiated anti-circumvention inquiries to

determine whether Samsung is

circumventing the antidumping order

by exporting CTVs assembled in Mexico

and Thailand to the United States. The

Government of Korea is challenging the

Department of Commerce’s failure to

revoke with respect to Samsung the

antidumping order on CTVs from Korea,

as well as its initiation of the

circumvention inquiries.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before January 12, 1998 to be assured of

timely consideration by USTR in

preparing its first written submission to

the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Litigation Assistant, Office

of Monitoring and Enforcement, Room

501, Attn: Korea Color Televisions

Dispute, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Winter, Office of the General

Counsel, (202) 395–7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter

dated November 6, 1997, the

government of Korea requested the

establishment of a panel to examine the

continued imposition of anti-dumping

measures on color television receivers

from Korea. The WTO Dispute

Settlement Body is likely to establish

the panel no later than December 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

challenges the Department of

Commerce’s continuing imposition of

antidumping duties on Samsung’s CTV

exports from Korea pursuant to the

Department’s April 30, 1984

antidumping order. The Government of

Korea also challenges the Department’s

initiation and conduct of the anticircumvention inquiries. The

Government of Korea alleges that these

actions are inconsistent with several

provisions of the WTO agreements,

including the following specific

allegations:

—The failure of the United States to

review, on its own initiative, dumping

and injury respectively and to revoke

the order constitutes a violation of

Article 11.1 combined with Article

11.2, as well as Article 5.8 of the

Agreement on Implementation of

Article VI of the General Agreement

on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(Antidumping Agreement).

—The United States’ rejection of

Samsung’s request for revocation

review on the ground of the U.S.

concern about lack of current data as

a result of ‘‘no shipment’’ violates

Article 11.2 of the Antidumping

Agreement, which does not provide

such a standard.

—The failure of the United States to

revoke the order, coupled with the

U.S. position that the outcome of the

revocation review is dependent on the

outcome of the anti-circumvention

investigation, is in violation of Article

11.1 combined with Article 11.2 and

Article 11.4 of the Antidumping

Agreement because it introduces

considerations not mentioned in

Articles 11.1 and 11.2, and because

the review exceeds the Article 11.4

time limit and the requirement that

review investigations must be carried

out expeditiously.

—The United States’ requirement (19

C.F.R. 353.25(b)) that applicants file

revocation requests only in ‘‘the third

and subsequent anniversary months’’

is in violation of Article 11.2, which

stipulates no time limit whatsoever

for such requests.

—The conduct of the United States of

the anti-circumvention inquiries

violates Article VI of GATT 1994 and

several provisions of the

Antidumping Agreement.

—The initiation of the anticircumvention inquiries violates

Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles