[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35969-35970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14209]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D-194]


WTO Consultations Regarding Measures Treating Export Restraints 
as Subsidies

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 May 19, 2000, Canada requested consultations 
with the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement), regarding U.S. measures that 
treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other 
products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the 
domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. 
The measures identified by Canada in its consultation request are those 
provisions of the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 
I, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the 
Explanation of the Final Rules (the Explanation), U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 
65,348, 65,349-51 (November 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)), as amended by the URAA. 
Canada alleges that the SAA and the Explanation are inconsistent with 
Article 1.1, 10 (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to 
the requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). Canada also 
alleges that by maintaining these measures, the United States violates 
Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement. Pursuant to 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 Canada. 
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 June 12 to be assured of timely consideration by 
USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation 
Assistant, the Monitoring and Enforcement Unit, Office of the General 
Counsel, Room 122, Attn: Export Restraint Dispute, Office of the United 
States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20508, (202) 395-3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Hunter, Associate General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., (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 Canada

    In its consultation request, Canada alleges that the SAA and the 
Explanation are measures that treat an export restraint as a subsidy. 
Because Canada appears to allege that an export restraint cannot be 
considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM 
Agreement, Canada claims that the SAA and the Explanation are 
inconsistent with Articles 1.1, 10, 11, 17, 19 and 32.1 of the SCM 
Agreement. Canada also appears to allege that due to the existence of 
the SAA and the Explanation, the United States has failed to ensure 
that its laws, regulations and administrative procedures are in 
conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the 
SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

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 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,

[[Page 35970]]

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-
194, Export Restraint 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. 00-14209 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-P