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

76338 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

disapproval of FAR part 150 program

recommendations is measured

according to the standards expressed in

part 150 and Title 49 and is limited to

the following determinations:

a. The noise compatibility program

was developed in accordance with the

provisions and procedures of FAR part

150;

b. Program measures are reasonably

consistent with achieving the goals of

reducing existing non-compatible land

uses around the airport and preventing

the introduction of additional

noncompatible land uses;

c. Program measures would not create

an undue burden on interstate or foreign

commerce, unjustly discriminate against

types or classes of aeronautical uses,

violate the terms of airport grant

agreements, or intrude into areas

preempted by the Federal Government;

and

d. Program measures relating to the

use of flight procedures can be

implemented within the period covered

by the program without derogating

safety, adversely affecting the efficient

use and management of the navigable

airspace and air traffic control systems,

or adversely affecting other powers and

responsibilities of the Administrator

prescribed by law.

Specific limitations with respect to

the FAA’s approval of an airport noise

compatibility program are delineated in

FAR part 150, §150.5. Approval is not

a determination concerning the

acceptability of land uses under Federal,

state, or local law. Approval does not by

itself constitute a FAA implementing

action. A request for Federal action or

approval to implement specific noise

compatibility measures may be

required, and a FAA decision on the

request may require an environmental

assessment of the proposed action.

Approval does not constitute a

commitment by the FAA to financially

assist in the implementation of the

program nor a determination that all

measures covered by the program are

eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the

FAA. Where Federal funding is sought,

requests for program grants must be

submitted to the FAA Airports Division

Office in Forth Worth, Texas.

The City of Austin submitted to the

FAA on May 25, 2000, the noise

exposure maps, descriptions, and other

documentation produced during the

noise compatibility planning study

conducted from October 1998 through

May 2000. 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. Notices of these

determinations were published in the

Federal Register on April 20, 1999, and

May 25, 2000, respectively.

The Austin-Bergstrom International

Airport study contains a proposed noise

compatibility program comprised of

actions designed for phased

implementation by airport management

and adjacent jurisdictions. It was

requested that the FAA evaluate and

approve this material as a noise

compatibility program as described in

Title 49. The FAA began its review of

the program on May 8, 2000, and was

required by a provision of the Act to

approve or disapprove the program

within 180 days (other than the use of

new flight procedures for noise control).

Failure to approve or disapprove such

program within the 180-day period shall

be deemed to be an approval of such

program.

The submitted program contained

three proposed actions for noise

mitigation on and off the airport that

requested FAA approval. The FAA

completed its review and determined

that the procedural and substantive

requirements of Title 49 and FAR part

150 have been satisfied. The overall

program, therefore, was approved by the

Administrator effective November 7,

2000.

Outright approval was granted for the

three proposed action elements in the

noise compatibility program where the

City of Austin requested federal

approval. Approved action elements

included a ‘‘Fly Quiet Program’’

involving a voluntary preferential

runway use policy and flight track

management procedures, land use

mitigation measures involving a land

acquisition program and a sound

insulation program, and program

management measures involving a flight

track and noise monitoring system, and

provisions for updating the noise

exposure map and noise compatibility

program. These determinations are set

forth in detail in a Record of Approval

endorsed by the Administrator on

November 7, 2000. The Record of

Approval, as well as other evaluation

materials and the documents

comprising the submittal are available at

the FAA office listed above and at the

administrative offices of: City of Austin,

Department of Aviation, AustinBergstrom International Airport, 3600

Presidential Boulevard, Austin, Texas

78719.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, November 20,

2000.

Naomi L. Saunders,

Manager, Airports Division.

[FR Doc. 00–31088 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA, Inc.; Government/Industry Free

Flight Steering Committee, Revised

Agenda

The December 13 RTCA Free Flight

Steering Committee meeting announced

in the Federal Register, 65 FR 70869

(Tuesday, November 28, 2000), has been

revised.

The revised agenda reads as follows:

The agenda will include: (1) Welcome

and Opening Remarks; (2) Review

Summary of the Previous Meeting; (3)

Report from FAA: (a) Free Flight Phase

1 Operational Assessment Update; (b)

End-to-End Checklist for Safe Flight 21

Applications; (c) FAA Primary En Route

Radar Restructuring Program; (4) Report

and Recommendations from the Free

Flight Select Committee: (d) National

Airspace System Concept of Operations;

(e) Addendum 4: Free Flight Phase 2; (5)

CNS/ATM Focus Team Data Link

Report; (6) National Airspace System

Operational Evolution Plan; (7) Other

Business; (8) Date and Location of Next

Meeting; (9) Closing Remarks.

Persons wishing to present statements

or obtain information should contact the

RTCA, Inc., at (202) 833–9339 (phone),

(202) 833–9434 (facsimile).

Issued in Washington, DC on November 30,

2000.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 00–31092 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application

to a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at

Killeen Municipal Airport, Kileen, TX

and Use the Revenue at Killeen

Municipal Airport and Robert Gray

Army Airfield

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose at Killeen