33148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

Agreement, including the measures set

forth in the ‘‘Report on China’s

Enforcement Measures’’ and ‘‘Other

Measures’’ of June 17, 1996, pursuant to

section 306 of the Trade Act.

EFFECTIVE DATES: USTR’s determinations

as to the termination of the import surge

mechanism and revocation of China’s

designation as a priority foreign country

were made on June 17, 1996, and are

effective June 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Lehr, Deputy Assistant USTR

for China and Mongolian Affairs (202)

395–5050 or Catherine Field, Senior

Counsel for Multilateral Affairs (202)

395–3432.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

15, 1996, the USTR announced that

based on monitoring carried out

pursuant to section 306(a) of the Trade

Act, China was not satisfactorily

implementing the 1995 Agreement on

Enforcement of Intellectual Property

Rights and Market Access (1995

Agreement). Pursuant to sections 301 (a)

and (c)(1) and section 306(b)(1), the

USTR proposed to impose increased

duties on selected products of China

and requested public comment on that

proposed action. See 61 FR 2500 of May

17, 1996, for background on the

announcement and proposed action.

To prevent import surge of products

subject to quantitative restraints,

pursuant to section 304(b)(1) and

sections 301 (a) and (c) the USTR

directed the Commissioner of Customs

to limit the quantity of imports of the

textile and apparel products listed in

Annex II to that Federal Register notice.

On June 12, 1996, the USTR extended

her directive for an additional 30-day

period commencing on June 14, 1996.

On June 17, 1996, the Chinese

government confirmed that two

documents of that date, entitled ‘‘Report

on China’s Enforcement Measures’’ and

‘‘Other Measures’’ are an accurate

description of the measures that the

Chinese government has taken and will

take in the future to implement key

elements of the 1995 Agreement. Based

on this confirmation, on June 17, 1996,

the USTR, pursuant to section

301(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Trade Act,

determined not to impose the proposed

sanctions and to terminate the directive

to Customs limiting entry of certain

products. In addition, pursuant to

section 182(c)(1)(A) of the Trade Act,

the USTR determined to revoke China’s

designation as a ‘‘priority foreign

country.’’

Pursuant to section 306 of the Trade

Act the USTR will monitor China’s

implementation of the 1995 Agreement,

including the measures described in the

documents of June 17, 1996. If, on the

basis of this monitoring, the USTR

considers that China is not satisfactorily

implementing the 1995 Agreement or

these measures, the USTR will decide

what further action to take under

section 301(a) of the Trade Act.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–16320 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

Request for Third-Country

Antidumping Investigation of Sodium

Azide From Japan

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Request for written comments.

SUMMARY: On March 11, 1996 the

Government of Canada, through its

embassy in the United States, filed with

the United States Trade Representative

(‘‘USTR’’) a request for the initiation of

a third-country antidumping duty

investigation with respect to sodium

azide from Japan, pursuant to section

783 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1677n). The

petition attached to the request alleges

that imports of sodium azide from Japan

are being sold in the United States at

less than fair value (i.e., dumped), and

that an industry in Canada is materially

injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of these imports. The

petition alleges that ICI Canada Inc. is

the sole Canadian producer of sodium

azide. USTR invites comments from the

public on the appropriateness of

initiating a section 783 investigation

with respect to sodium azide from

Japan, on the substantive and

procedural standards USTR should

establish for the determinations of the

Department of Commerce and

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

in such an investigation, if initiated, and

on other issues that may be relevant.

DATES: Written comments from the

public are due on or before 12 noon, on

July 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Kane, Associate General

Counsel, (202) 395–6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

232 of the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act of 1994 added section 783 to the

Tariff Act of 1930 concerning

antidumping petitions by third

countries. Under section 783, the

government of a WTO member may file

with USTR a petition requesting that an

investigation be conducted to determine

if imports from another country are

being sold in the United States at less

than fair value, and an industry in the

petitioning country is materially injured

by reason of those imports. After

receiving a petition, USTR must consult

with Commerce and ITC, provide an

opportunity for public comment, and

determine whether to initiate an

investigation. Before initiating any

investigation, USTR must obtain the

approval of the WTO Council for Trade

in Goods. The URAA Statement of

Administrative Action (H.R. Doc. 103–

316, vol. l1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 845–

6) (‘‘SAA’’) notes that, in determining

whether to initiate an investigation,

USTR will take into account whether

the petitioning country provides an

equivalent opportunity to the United

States to seek the initiation of an

antidumping investigation.

Should USTR determine to initiate an

investigation, it must request Commerce

and the ITC to make determinations

with respect to dumping and injury,

respectively. If both determinations are

affirmative, Commerce must issue an

antidumping order in accordance with

section 736 of the Tariff Act.

USTR is to specify the substantive

and procedural requirements for the

Commerce and ITC determinations. The

SAA indicates that USTR is to develop

consistent, transparent standards of

general applicability that provide

meaningful guidance to Commerce and

ITC, while according them the necessary

flexibility to develop appropriate

procedures. With regard to procedural

issues, USTR is to specify deadlines,

persons who may participate in the

investigation, and the applicability of

requirements such as hearings and

exchanges of information under

administrative protective order. With

regard to substantive issues, USTR is to

specify the extent to which existing

antidumping standards will apply,

particularly with regard to the ITC’s

injury determination. In the SAA, the

Administration stated its intention that

the standards should, to a considerable

extent, permit the ITC to incorporate by

analogy existing standards concerning

injury to a U.S. industry, but also noted

that certain concepts, such as regional

industry, may have little applicability in

third-country investigations.

On January 16, 1996, an antidumping

petition was filed on behalf of American

Azide Corporation, the sole U.S.

producer of sodium azide, pursuant to

section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices 33149

The petition alleges that sodium azide

from Japan is being sold in the United

States at dumped prices and that an

industry in the United States is

materially injured and threatened with

material injury by reason of such

imports. On March 1, 1996, the ITC

issued an affirmative preliminary injury

determination. 61 FR 10596 (March 14,

1996). Commerce is scheduled to issue

a preliminary investigation of dumping

by August 13, 1996. 61 FR 26878 (May

29, 1996).

Public Comment

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

following issues:

(A) whether it is appropriate to

initiate a third-country antidumping

investigation on sodium azide from

Japan; including as part of this issue are,

inter alia, the relevance of the pending

antidumping investigation on sodium

azide from Japan, and the extent to

which Canada provides an opportunity

to the United States to seek an

antidumping investigation in Canada on

behalf of a U.S. industry.

(B) if an investigation were initiated,

what procedural and substantive

standards USTR should establish for

Commerce’s and ITC’s determinations

required by section 783; persons

submitting comments on this issue may

wish simply to use as a starting point

the existing standards for antidumping

investigations on behalf of a U.S.

industry, and specify how the

procedural and substantive standards

for a third-country antidumping

investigation should differ.

(C) any other issues relevant to the

request for the initiation of a thirdcountry antidumping investigation on

sodium azide from Japan.

Requirements for Submissions

Comments are due no later than 12

noon, July 26, 1996. Comments must be

in English and provided in twenty

copies to: Sodium Azide Antidumping,

Room 223, USTR, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20508.

Comments will be placed in a file

(Docket 783–1) open to public

inspection, except for confidential

business information exempt from

public inspection. (Confidential

business information must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

in a contrasting color ink at the top of

each page on each of 20 copies, and

must be accompanied by a

nonconfidential summary of the

confidential information. The

nonconfidential summary shall be

placed in the Docket which is open to

public inspection.) USTR will generally

apply to the standards set out in 15

C.F.R. § 2006.13 (Information Open to

Public Inspection) and § 2006.15

(Information Exemption from Public

Inspection) with respect to comments

received.

Jennifer A. Hillman,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–16282 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Concerning European Ban on the

Import of Meat From Animals Treated

With Certain Hormones

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), the

Office of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that a dispute settlement panel

convened under the Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO) at the request of the

United States will examine the

European Communities’ ban on the

importation of meat from animals

treated with certain hormones. USTR

also invites written comments from the

public concerning the issues raised in

the dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before July 24, 1996, in order to be

assured of timely consideration by

USTR in preparing its first written

submission to the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Carolyn Frank, Executive

Secretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee,

Room 501, Attn: Hormone dispute,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Brinza, Senior Advisor and

Special Counsel for Natural Resources,

Office of the General Counsel, Office of

the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20508,

(202) 395–7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the

United States’ request, a WTO dispute

settlement panel will examine whether

the European Community (EC) Council

Directive Prohibiting the Use in

Livestock Farming of Certain Substances

Having a Hormonal Action and related

measures are consistent with the EC’s

obligations under the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

1994, the Agreement on the Application

of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

(S&P Agreement), the Agreement on

Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT

Agreement), and the Agreement on

Agriculture.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and

Norway have reserved their rights to

intervene in the panel proceedings as

third parties.

Members of the panel are currently

being selected, and the panel is

expected to meet as necessary at the

WTO headquarters in Geneva,

Switzerland to examine the dispute.

Under normal circumstances, the panel

would be expected to issue a report

detailing its findings and

recommendations in six to nine months.

Major Issues Raised by the United

States and Legal Basis of Complaint

The EC’s measures (which in addition

to the Directive cited above include, but

are not limited to, the Council Directive

of March 7, 1988, (88/146/EEC); the

directives referenced in that directive

(72/462/EEC, 81/602/EEC, 81/851/EEC,

81/852/EEC, and 85/358/EEC) the

decisions referred to in Article 6(2) of

directive 88/146/EEC; the control

program referred to in Article 6(7) of

directive 88/146/EEC; the derogations

referred to in Article 7 of directive 88/

146/EEC; and any amendments or

modifications) adversely affect imports

of U.S. meat and meat products and

have no legitimate basis. They appear to

be inconsistent with the EC’s obligations

under the General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade 1994, the Agreement on the

Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement

on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the

Agreement on Agriculture. The

provisions of these agreements with

which these measures appear to be

inconsistent include, but are not limited

to, the following:

(1) General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade 1994, Article III or Article XI;

(2) Agreement on the Application of

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,

Articles 2, 3 and 5;

(3) Agreement on Technical Barriers

to Trade, Article 2; and

(4) Agreement on Agriculture, Article

4.

These measures also appear to nullify

or impair the benefits accruing to the

United States directly or indirectly

under the cited agreements.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.