76336 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

political, military, economic, human

rights, and arms control considerations.

More detailed information is

contained in the formal certification

which, though unclassified contains

business information submitted to the

Department of State by the applicant,

publication of which could cause

competitive harm to the United States

firm concerned.

Sincerely,

Barbara Larkin,

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Enclosure: Transmittal No. DTC 083–00

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House of

Representatives.

September 8, 2000.

Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section

36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I

am transmitting herewith certification of

a proposed license for the export of

defense articles or defense services sold

commercially under a contract in the

amount of $50,000,000 or more.

The transaction contained in the

attached certification involves the

export of defense services for the

production of various products,

systems, and subsystems for commercial

and military aircraft, in Singapore and

Germany.

The United States Government is

prepared to license the export of these

items having taken into account

political, military, economic, human

rights, and arms control considerations.

More detailed information is

contained in the formal certification

which, though unclassified, contains

business information submitted to the

Department of State by the applicant,

publication of which could cause

competitive harm to the United States

firm concerned.

Sincerely,

Barbara Larkin,

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Enclosure: Transmittal No. DTC 89–00

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House of

Representatives.

September 25, 2000.

Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section

36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control

Act, I am transmitting herewith

certification of a proposed License for

the export of defense articles or defense

services sold commercially under a

contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or

more.

The transaction described in the

attached certification involves the

transfer of ship engineering and design

services to Spain for the construction of

a new class of Corvette for the Turkish

Navy.

The United States Government is

prepared to license the export of these

items having taken into account

political, military, economic, human

rights, and arms control considerations.

More detailed information is

contained in the formal certification

which, though unclassified, contains

business information submitted to the

Department of State by the applicant,

publication of which could cause

competitive harm to the United States

firm concerned.

Sincerely,

Barbara Larkin,

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Enclosure: Transmittal No. DTC 105–00

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House of

Representatives.

[FR Doc. 00–31074 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–25–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–212]

WTO Consultations Regarding

Countervailing Duty Measures

Concerning Certain Products From the

European Communities

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 November 13,

2000, the United States received from

the European Communities (EC) a

request for consultations under the

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the

World Trade Organization (WTO

Agreement). The request relates to the

continued application by the United

States of countervailing duties based

upon the ‘‘change in ownership’’

methodology used by the U.S.

Department of Commerce (Commerce).

The measures identified by the EC

(including the relevant Commerce case

number) are as follows:

• Original Imposition of

Countervailing Duties

• Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils from France (C–427–815)

• Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Quality Steel from France (C–427–

817)

• Certain Pasta from Italy (C–475–

819)

• Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils from Italy (C–475–825)*

• Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod

form Italy (C–475–821)*

• Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from

Italy (C–475–823)*

• Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate from Italy (C–

475–827)

(With respect to those cases marked

with an asterisk, the correct case

numbers are provided, as opposed to the

incorrect case numbers included in the

EC’s request for consultations.)

• Administrative Reviews

• Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Sweden (C–401–401)

• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Sweden (C–401–804)

• Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from

Italy (C–475–812)

(With respect to case C–475–812, the EC

consultation request identifies the

‘‘Preliminary determination, plus

final sunset results’’.)

• Sunset Reviews

• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from the United Kingdom (C–412–

815)

• Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from France (C–

427–810)

• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Germany (C–428–817)

• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Spain (C–469–804)

The EC alleges that the continued

application of Commerce’s change in

ownership methodology in these

countervailing duty proceedings violate

Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the WTO

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures (SCM

Agreement), because, according to the

EC, there is no proper determination of

a benefit to the producer of the goods

under investigation, as required by

Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.

Under Article 4.3 of the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding (DSU),

consultations are to take place within a

period of 30 days from the date of

receipt of the request, or within a period

otherwise mutually agreed between the

United States and the EC. 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 January 15, 2001, to be assured of

timely consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Sandy

McKinzy, Monitoring and Enforcement

Unit, Office of the General Counsel,

Room 122, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC, 20508, Attn:

Change in Ownership Methodology

Dispute. Telephone: (202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Hunter, Associate General

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76337

Counsel, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC, 20508.

Telephone: (202) 395–3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

127(b) 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 receives a request

for the establishment of a WTO dispute

settlement panel. Consistent with this

obligation, but in an effort to provide

additional opportunity for comment,

USTR is providing notice that

consultations have been requested

pursuant to the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding. If such

consultations should fail to resolve the

matter and a dispute settlement panel is

established pursuant to the DSU, such

panel, which would hold its meetings in

Geneva, Switzerland, would be

expected to issue a report on its findings

and recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the EC

In its consultation request, the EC

alleges that in United States—

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products, WT/DS138/AB/

R, the WTO Appellate Body found

Commerce’s change in ownership

methodology to be inconsistent with the

SCM Agreement. The EC also alleges

that the Appellate Body found that a

change of ownership at fair market

value eliminated the benefit of any prior

subsidies to the privatized company.

Therefore, the EC alleges that the

continued application of Commerce’s

change in ownership methodology, and

the continued imposition of

countervailing duties based upon that

methodology, violate Articles 10, 19 and

21 of the SCM Agreement. According to

the EC, if the United States had properly

examined the nature of the change in

ownership in each of the countervailing

duty proceedings identified in the EC’s

request for consultations, the amount of

countervailing duty would have been

greatly reduced or, in some cases, found

to be zero.

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 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 commenter.

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 the 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, D.C. 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–

212, Change in Ownership Methodology

Dispute) 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.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant United States Trade Representative

for Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–31068 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility

Program; Austin-Bergstrom

International Airport, Austin, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) announces its

findings on the noise compatibility

program submitted by the City of Austin

for Austin-Bergstrom International

Airport under the provisions of Title 49,

U.S.C., Chapter 475 and CFR part 150.

These findings are made in recognition

of the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report

No. 96–52 (1980). On April 5, 1999, the

FAA determined that the noise exposure

maps submitted by the City of Austin

for Austin-Bergstrom International

Airport under part 150 were in

compliance with applicable

requirements. Subsequently, the City

submitted a revised 2004 noise exposure

map, which the FAA approved on May

8, 2000. On November 7, 2000, the

Administrator approved the noise

compatibility program. The measures

requiring Federal approval of the

program were approved.

DATES: The effective date of the FAA’s

approval of the noise compatibility

program for Austin-Bergstrom

International Airport is November 7,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nan

L. Terry, Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas,

76137, (817) 222–5607. Documents

reflecting this FAA action maybe

reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces that the FAA has

given its overall approval to the noise

compatibility program for the City of

Austin for Austin-Bergstrom

International Airport effective

November 7, 2000.

Under Title 49 U.S.C., section 47504

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Title 49’’), an

airport operator who has previously

submitted a noise exposure map may

submit to the FAA a noise compatibility

program which sets forth the measures

taken or proposed by the airport

operator for the reduction of existing

non-compatible land uses within the

area covered by the noise exposure

maps. Title 49 requires such programs

to be developed in consultation with

interested and affected parties including

local communities, government

agencies, airport users, and FAA

personnel.

Each airport noise compatibility

program developed in accordance with

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part

150 is a local program, not a Federal

Program. The FAA does not substitute

its judgment for that of the airport

proprietor with respect to which

measures should be recommended for

action. The FAA’s approval or