Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices 30929

Room, room 101, Monday through

Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and

1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. For an

appointment call Brenda Webb on 202–

395–6186. Business confidential

information will be subject to the

requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6. Any

business confidential material must be

clearly marked as such on the cover

letter or page and each succeeding page,

and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary thereof.

Frederick L. Montgomery,

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–15435 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

[Docket No. 301–99]

Section 304 Determinations: Barriers

to Access to the Japanese Market for

Consumer Photographic Film and

Paper

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of determinations.

SUMMARY: On June 13, 1996, the Acting

United States Trade Representative

(USTR) determined, pursuant to section

304(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, 19

U.S.C. 2414, (the Trade Act) that certain

acts, policies, and practices of the

Government of Japan with respect to the

sale and distribution of consumer

photographic materials in Japan are

unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S.

commerce. Specifically, the USTR

found that the Government of Japan

established and tolerated a market

structure that impedes U.S. exports of

consumer photographic materials to

Japan, and in which practices occur that

also impede U.S. exports of these

products to Japan, thereby denying fair

and equitable market opportunities. The

USTR also concluded that there is

reason to believe based on strong

evidence that certain Japanese

Government liberalization

countermeasures, including inter alia,

distribution guidelines and related

measures, the Law Pertaining to

Adjustment of Business Activities of the

Retail Industry for Large Scale Retail

Stores (LSRS Law) and the Law Against

Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading

Representations (Premiums Law)

contravene Japan’s obligations under the

Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed

to the Marrakesh Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO), and nullify or

impair benefits accruing to the United

States under the WTO agreements. As

provided by the Trade Act, the United

States will invoke the dispute

settlement procedures of the WTO with

respect to these measures and their

application. The United States also will

request consultations with the

Government of Japan under a WTO

provision for consultations on

restrictive business practices. As

appropriate, the USTR will determine

what further action under section 301 is

warranted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Weisel, Director of Policy

Planning for Japan and China, (202)

395–5070; or, for legal issues, Joanna

McIntosh, Associate General Counsel,

(202) 395–7203, Office of the U.S. Trade

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

Washington, D.C. 20508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July

1995, the USTR initiated an

investigation under section 302(a) of the

Trade Act with respect to certain acts,

policies, and practices of the

Government of Japan affecting access to

the Japanese market for consumer

photographic film and paper. Upon

initiating the investigation, the United

States requested bilateral consultations

with the Government of Japan. At an

October 3, 1995 meeting in Tokyo, U.S.

Government officials were prepared to

discuss the substance of the issues

involved in the investigation, and they

solicited the views of and information

from Japanese officials concerning those

issues. However, at that meeting and

throughout the course of the

investigation, the Government of Japan

unreasonably refused to consult on the

substance of the matters under

investigation, despite repeated U.S.

attempts to engage in consultations.

As a result of the investigation

conducted by USTR and USTR’s review

of all of the information submitted by

the petitioner and other parties, and in

the absence of rebuttal from the

Government of Japan, the USTR

determined that, pursuant to section

304(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act that

certain acts, policies, and practices of

the Government of Japan with respect to

the sale and distribution of consumer

photographic materials in Japan are

unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S.

commerce. Specifically, the USTR

found that the Government of Japan

established and tolerated a market

structure that impedes U.S. exports of

these products to Japan, and in which

practices occur that also impede U.S.

exports of these products to Japan,

thereby denying fair and equitable

market opportunities.

The USTR found that when the

Japanese Government gradually

withdrew its formal restrictions on

imports and inward investment

following international pressure

beginning in the late 1960s, it

simultaneously implemented

liberalization countermeasures designed

to restrict access of foreign capital and

goods to the Japanese market. The

capital and import liberalization

countermeasures implemented

beginning in the 1960s, included

measures to block or limit foreign direct

investment in both new and established

enterprises with the intent and effect,

inter alia, of limiting market access for

imported products. Because of the

perceived need to protect the Japanese

photographic materials industry from

foreign products, the consumer

photographic materials sector was

among the last to be liberalized.

Restrictions on foreign investment in

existing enterprises remained in effect

until the early 1980s. During the period

of capital and import liberalization

countermeasures, the Government of

Japan, in particular the Ministry of

International Trade and Industry (MITI),

took steps to restructure the distribution

sector to prevent foreign products from

making inroads into the Japanese

market. For example, MITI promulgated

distribution guidelines for photographic

film, and the market structure and

practices established under and

promoted by these guidelines fostered a

dependent and exclusionary

relationship among Japan’s major

photographic materials manufacturer,

the primary wholesalers (tokuyakuten),

secondary wholesalers, and retailers.

The distribution structure, retail sales

environment, and business relationships

in this sector that were established as a

result of MITI’s protection of the sector

remain in place today.

USTR also uncovered significant

evidence of anticompetitive activities

that warrants full and thorough

examination.

The USTR determined that these acts,

policies and practices should be

addressed comprehensively as follows.

(1) Having concluded that there is

reason to believe based on strong

evidence that certain Japanese

Government liberalization

countermeasures, including inter alia,

distribution guidelines and related

measures, the LSRS Law, and the

Premiums Law, violate Japan’s

obligations and commitments under the

WTO agreements and nullify or impair

benefits accruing to the United States

under those agreements, the United

States immediately will seek recourse to

the dispute settlement procedures of the

WTO to challenge these measures and

their application, as provided by the

Trade Act and in accordance with
30930 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

Article 23 of the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding (DSU). If, at

the conclusion of dispute settlement

proceedings, the WTO Dispute

Settlement Body finds that Japanese

government acts, policies or practices

violate, or are inconsistent with, the

provisions of, or otherwise deny

benefits accruing to the United States

under, any of the WTO agreements, and,

unless Japan is taking satisfactory

measures to grant the rights of the

United States under the WTO

agreements, has agreed to eliminate or

phase out the affected act, policy or

practice, or agreed to an imminent

satisfactory solution to the burden or

restriction on U.S. commerce, or

provided satisfactory compensatory

trade benefits, the United States shall

take action under section 301 in

accordance with the DSU.

(2)(a) The United States will request

consultations immediately with the

Government of Japan pursuant to

arrangements for consultations on

restrictive business practices adopted by

the GATT Contracting Parties in 1960

and carried forward into the WTO; (b)

in light of Prime Minister Hashimoto’s

statements of his personal commitment

and the series of commitments made by

the Government of Japan under the

Structural Impediments Initiative and

the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Japan

Framework for a New Economic

Partnership to strengthen the Japan Fair

Trade Commission (JFTC) and

enforcement of Japan’s competition

laws, the United States (i) is requesting

that Kodak provide information for

submission to the JFTC concerning

certain anticompetitive practices in the

Japanese consumer photographic

materials market, and (ii) will provide

information to the JFTC to enforce

competition laws in the consumer

photographic materials markets; (c) the

Department of Justice will seek to

cooperate with the JFTC in its review of

evidence of anticompetitive practices in

the Japanese market and in

consideration of remedial actions, as

appropriate, and USTR will consult

with the Department of Justice in

assessing efforts of the JFTC to enforce

competition laws in Japan’s

photographic materials market; and (d)

the United States will study the extent

to which Japan’s market structure for

consumer photographic materials

distorts competition or causes economic

harm in the United States and in third

markets and consider any appropriate

responses.

At the appropriate time, based on

developments in these consultations

and proceedings, the USTR will

consider what further action needs to be

taken to ensure that barriers in the

Japanese consumer photographic

materials sector are eliminated.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–15436 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Review of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection: RI 38–45

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management has submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget a request for

extension of a currently approved

information collection, RI 38–45, We

Need the Social Security Number of the

Person Named Below, is used by the

Civil Service Retirement System and the

Federal Employees Retirement System

to identify the records of individuals

with similar or the same names. It is

also needed to report payments to the

Internal Revenue Service.

We estimate 3,000 RI 38–45 forms are

completed annually. Each form takes

approximately 5 minutes to complete.

The annual estimated burden is 250

hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jimfarron@mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 18,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, Operations

Support Division, Retirement and

Insurance Service, U.S. Office of

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street,

NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC

20415

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information & Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management &

Budget, New Executive Office

Building, NW., Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management

Services Division, (202) 606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–15404 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. A96–18; Order No. 1116]

Trevett, Maine 04571 (Arthur W. Ridlon,

Petitioner); Notice and Order

Accepting Appeal and Establishing

Procedural Schedule Under 39 U.S.C.

404(b)(5)

Issued: June 12, 1996.

Docket Number: A96–18.

Name of Affected Post Office: Trevett,

Maine 04571.

Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Arthur W.

Ridlon.

Type of Determination: Closing.

Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: June

10, 1996.

Categories of Issues Apparently

Raised:

1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(C)].

2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(A)].

After the Postal Service files the

administrative record and the

Commission reviews it, the Commission

may find that there are more legal issues

than those set forth above. Or, the

Commission may find that the Postal

Service’s determination disposes of one

or more of those issues.

The Postal Reorganization Act

requires that the Commission issue its

decision within 120 days from the date

this appeal was filed (39 U.S.C.

404(b)(5)). In the interest of expedition,

in light of the 120-day decision

schedule, the Commission may request

the Postal Service to submit memoranda

of law on any appropriate issue. If

requested, such memoranda will be due

20 days from the issuance of the request

and the Postal Service shall serve a copy

of its memoranda on the petitioners.

The Postal Service may incorporate by

reference in its briefs or motions, any

arguments presented in memoranda it

previously filed in this docket. If

necessary, the Commission also may ask

petitioners or the Postal Service for

more information.

The Commission orders:

(a) The Postal Service shall file the

record in this appeal by June 25, 1996.

(b) The Secretary of the Postal Rate

Commission shall publish this Notice

and Order and Procedural Schedule in

the Federal Register.