[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3641-3642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1159]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D-217]


WTO Consultations Regarding The Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000

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 December 21, 2000, Australia, 
Brazil, the European Communities (``EC''), India Indonesia, Japan, 
Korea, and Thailand, acting jointly and severally, requested 
consultations with the United States under the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (``DSU''), the 
General Agreement Regarding Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 1994''), the 
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 
(``Antidumping Agreement'') and the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Duties (``SCM Agreement'') regarding the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``Offset Act''), Public Law No. 
106-387. The requesting parties allege that the Offset Act is 
inconsistent with certain obligations of the United States under GATT 
1994, the Antidumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. Pursuant to 
Article 4.3 of the DSU, such consultations are to take place within a 
period of 30 days from the date of the request, or within a period 
otherwise mutually agreed between the United States and the requesting 
parties. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the 
issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: although the USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before February 9, 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: Byrd Amendment, Telephone: (202) 395-3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda K. Schnare, Associate General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, (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 Consultation Request

    The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 amends the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that duties collected pursuant to an 
antidumping duty order, a countervailing duty order or a finding under 
the Antidumping Act of 1921 are to be annually distributed to the 
affected domestic producers for their qualifying expenses.
    The consultation request alleges the Offset Act constitutes a 
specific action against dumping or subsidization that is not 
contemplated by GATT 1994, the Antidumping Agreement or the SCM 
Agreement. The request further alleges that the Offset Act prevents the 
reasonable and impartial administration of the U.S. laws implementing 
the provisions of the Antidumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement 
regarding standing determinations and undertakings. Specifically, the 
request alleges that the Offset Act is inconsistent with
    Article 18.1 of the Antidumping Agreement, in conjunction with 
Article VI:2 of GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Antidumping Agreement;
    Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 
of GATT 1994 and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement;
    Article X(3)(a) of GATT 1994;
    Article 5.4 of the Antidumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the 
SCM Agreement;
    Article 8 of the Antidumping Agreement and Article 18 of the SCM 
Agreement; and
    Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World 
Trade Organization (``WTO Agreement''), Article 18.4 of the Antidumping 
Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.
    In addition, the request alleges that the offsets paid under the 
Act constitute specific subsidies with the meaning of Article 1 of the 
SCM Agreement which may cause adverse effects to the requesting 
parties' interests within the meaning of Article 5 of the SCM 
Agreement.
    Finally, the request asserts that, whether or not in conflict with 
the cited agreements, the Offset Act may nullify or impair benefits 
accruing to the requesting parties in a manner described in Article 
XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994.

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

[[Page 3642]]

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 non-confidential 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 non-
confidential 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-217, Byrd 
Amendment 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. 01-1159 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M