Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 76 / Thursday, April 19, 2012 / Notices 23539 

DATES: This notice is effective April 19, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah J. Heidema, Office of Defense 

Trade Controls Policy, Directorate of 

Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs, U.S. 

Department of State, Washington, DC 

20522–0112, telephone (202) 663–2809, 

email at heidemasj@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

21, 2012, the Department of State 

published a rule (77 FR 16592) 

amending the ITAR to implement the 

Treaty, and identify via a supplement 

the defense articles and defense services 

that may not be exported pursuant to 

the Treaty. The rule also amended the 

ITAR section pertaining to the Canadian 

exemption and added Israel to the list 

of countries and entities that have a 

shorter Congressional notification 

certification time period and a higher 

dollar value reporting threshold. This 

rule indicated it would become effective 

upon the entry into force of the Treaty 

and that the Department of State would 

publish a rule document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of this rule. This notice is being 

published to make such announcement. 

Dated: April 13, 2012. 

Beth M. McCormick, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Defense Trade 

and Regional Security, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9451 Filed 4–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

[Dispute No. WTO/DS316] 

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding 

Regarding European Communities and 

Certain Member States—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large Civil 

Aircraft—Recourse by the United 

States to Article 21.5 of the DSU 

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 March 30, 

2012, the United States requested 

establishment of a dispute settlement 

panel under the Marrakesh Agreement 

Establishing the World Trade 

Organization (‘‘WTO Agreement’’). That 

request may be found at www.wto.org 

contained in a document designated as 

WT/DS316/23. 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 May 21, 2012 to be assured of 

timely consideration by USTR. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be 

submitted electronically to 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

USTR–2012–007. If you are unable to 

provide submissions to 

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: 

Willis S. Martyn, Associate General 

Counsel, or Frank J. Schweitzer, 

Associate General Counsel, Office of the 

United States Trade Representative, 600 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508, 

(202) 395–3150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

127(b)(1) 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 establishment of a 

WTO dispute settlement panel. 

Consistent with this obligation, USTR is 

providing notice that it has requested a 

panel pursuant to the WTO 

Understanding on Rules and Procedures 

Governing the Settlement of Disputes 

(‘‘DSU’). Once it is established, the 

panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, 

Switzerland, and could issue a report on 

its findings and recommendations as 

soon as three months after its 

establishment. 

Major Issues Raised by the United 

States 

On June 1, 2011, the Dispute 

Settlement Body (‘‘DSB’’) adopted its 

recommendations and rulings in the 

dispute European Communities and 

Certain Member States—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 

(DS316) (‘‘EC—Large Civil Aircraft’’). 

The DSB ruled that the following are 

specific subsidies within the meaning of 

Articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement on 

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

(‘‘SCM Agreement’’) that caused adverse 

effects to U.S. interests within the 

meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(a), (b), 

and (c) of that Agreement: 

• Grants of launch aid/member State 

financing (‘‘LA/MSF’’) by the European 

Union (‘‘EU’’) member state 

governments of France, Germany, Spain, 

and the United Kingdom to Airbus for 

the A300, A310, A320, A330, A340, 

A330–200, A340–500/600, and A380; 

• The provision of the Mu ̈hlenberger 

Loch site and the lengthened Bremen 

Airport Runway; 

• Grants by authorities in Germany 

and Spain for the construction of 

manufacturing and assembly facilities in 

Nordenham, Germany, and Sevilla, La 

Rinconada, Toledo, Puerto de Santa 

Maria, and Puerto Real, Spain, and by 

the government of Andalusia and 

Castilla-La Mancha to Airbus in Puerto 

Real, Sevilla, and Illescas (Toledo); 

• The 1989 acquisition by 

Kreditanstalt fu ̈r Wiederaufbau (‘‘KfW’’) 

of a 20 percent equity interest in 

Deutsche Airbus and the 1992 transfer 

by KfW of its 100 percent equity interest 

in Deutsche Airbus to MesserschmittBo ̈lkow-Blohm GmbH (‘‘MBB’’); and 

• The 1987, 1988, 1992, and 1994 

equity infusions to Ae ́rospatiale. 

The DSB recommended that the EU 

and certain member States bring their 

WTO-inconsistent measures into 

compliance with their obligations under 

the SCM Agreement. 

On December 1, 2011, the EU 

transmitted a document (‘‘EU 

Notification’’) to the United States and 

the DSB claiming that the EU had 

brought its measures fully into 

conformity with the DSB 

recommendations and rulings. The EU 

notification included a list of 36 

‘‘appropriate steps’’ taken by the EU to 

bring its measures into conformity with 

the EU’s WTO obligations. Upon review 

of the notification, the United States did 

not agree with the EU’s position that the 

EU had fully complied with the DSB 

recommendations and rulings. 

Accordingly, the United States 

requested consultations on December 9, 

2011. The United States and the EU 

held consultations on January 13, 2012. 

The consultations failed to resolve the 

dispute. 

Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement 

provides that a Member found to 

maintain measures inconsistent with 

Article 5(c) and 6.3 of the SCM 

Agreement ‘‘shall take appropriate steps 

to remove the adverse effects or shall 

withdraw the subsidy.’’ The United 

States considers that the EU has done 

neither of these with regard to the 

measures identified above. As there is 

‘‘disagreement as to the existence or 

consistency with a covered agreement of 

measures taken to comply with the 

recommendations and rulings’’ of the 

DSB, the United States is seeking 

recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 

The United States has requested that 

the Article 21.5 panel consider the 

following matters. With respect to the 

measures the EU has identified in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

23540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 76 / Thursday, April 19, 2012 / Notices 

EU Notification as the measures taken to 

comply with the recommendations and 

rulings of the DSB for purposes of 

Article 21.5 of the DSU, the United 

States considers that (i) these measures 

are insufficient to remove the adverse 

effects or withdraw the subsidies, and 

(ii) certain of these measures taken to 

comply introduce new inconsistencies 

with the SCM Agreement. In addition, 

French, German, Spanish, and UK LA/ 

MSF for the A350XWB (i) are measures 

closely related to the measures the EU 

has identified as taken to comply and to 

the EU measures the DSB found to be 

inconsistent with the SCM Agreement 

and (ii) replace or continue the LA/MSF 

for twin-aisle aircraft covered by the 

recommendations and rulings of the 

DSB. The United States considers these 

LA/MSF measures for the A350XWB to 

be inconsistent with the SCM 

Agreement. 

Additional details are provided in the 

panel request, which may be found at 

www.wto.org contained in a document 

designated as WT/DS316/23. 

Public Comment: Requirements for 

Submissions 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written comments concerning 

the issues raised in this dispute. Persons 

may submit public comments 

electronically to www.regulations.gov 

docket number USTR–2012–0007. If you 

are unable to provide submissions by 

www.regulations.gov, please contact 

Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to 

arrange for an alternative method of 

transmission. 

To submit comments via 

www.regulations.gov, enter docket 

number USTR–2012–0007 on the home 

page and click ‘‘search’’. The site will 

provide a search-results page listing all 

documents associated with this docket. 

Find a reference to this notice by 

selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document 

Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link 

entitled ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ (For 

further information on using the 

www.regulations.gov Web site, please 

consult the resources provided on the 

Web site by clicking on ‘‘How to Use 

This Site’’ on the left side of the home 

page.) 

The www.regulations.gov site 

provides the option of providing 

comments by filling in a ‘‘Type 

Comments’’ field, or by attaching a 

document using an ‘‘upload file’’ field. 

It is expected that most comments will 

be provided in an attached document. If 

a document is attached, it is sufficient 

to type ‘‘See attached’’ in the ‘‘Type 

Comments’’ field. 

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 

submitter. Confidential business 

information must be clearly designated 

as such and the submission must be 

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ 

at the top and bottom of the cover page 

and each succeeding page. Any 

comment containing business 

confidential information must be 

submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at 

(202) 395–3640. A non-confidential 

summary of the confidential 

information must be submitted to 

www.regulations.gov. The nonconfidential summary will be placed in 

the docket and open to public 

inspection. 

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 clearly so designate the 

information or advice; 

(2) Must clearly mark the material as 

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ at the 

top and bottom of the cover page and 

each succeeding page; and 

(3) Must provide a non-confidential 

summary of the information or advice. 

Any comment containing confidential 

information must be submitted by fax. A 

non-confidential summary of the 

confidential information must be 

submitted to www.regulations.gov. The 

non-confidential summary will be 

placed in the docket and open to public 

inspection. 

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a 

docket on this dispute settlement 

proceeding accessible to the public at 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

USTR 2012–0007. The public file will 

include non-confidential comments 

received by USTR from the public with 

respect to the dispute. If a dispute 

settlement panel is convened or in the 

event of an appeal from such a panel, 

the U.S. submissions, any nonconfidential submissions, or nonconfidential summaries of submissions, 

received from other participants in the 

dispute, will be made available to the 

public on USTR’s Web site at 

www.ustr.gov, and the report of the 

panel, and, if applicable, the report of 

the Appellate Body, will be available on 

the Web site of the World Trade 

Organization, www.wto.org. Comments 

open to public inspection may be 

viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 

Bradford Ward, 

Acting Assistant United States Trade 

Representative for Monitoring and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9426 Filed 4–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W2–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Notice of Delays in Processing of 

Special Permits Applications 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of applications delayed 

more than 180 days. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 51I7(c), 

PHMSA is publishing the following list 

of special permit applications that have 

been in process for 180 days or more. 

The reason(s) for delay and the expected 

completion date for action on each 

application is provided in association 

with each identified application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Special Permits 

and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, East 

Building, PHH–30, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, (202) 366–4535. 

Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’ 

1. Awaiting additional information 

from applicant. 

2. Extensive public comment under 

review. 

3. Application is technically complex 

and is of significant impact or 

precedent-setting and requires extensive 

analysis. 

4. Staff review delayed by other 

priority issues or volume of special 

permit applications. 

Meaning of Application Number 

Suffixes 

N—New application 

M—Modification request 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES