[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8459-8460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2603]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D-218]


WTO Consultations Regarding Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Carbon Steel Products From Brazil

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, the United States received 
from Brazil a request for consultations under the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). In its 
request, Brazil identifies two measures, both of which involve 
determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) under U.S. 
countervailing duty law addressing the benefits of pre-privatization 
subsidies that may be attributable to privatized firms. These measures 
are as follows:
     A sunset review determination by Commerce with respect to 
certain cut-to-length plate from Brazil, 65 FR 18065 (Apr. 6, 2000); 
and
     A suspended final affirmative countervailing duty 
determination by Commerce with respect to certain hot-rolled steel from 
Brazil, 64 FR 38742 (July 19, 1999).
    Brazil alleges that each of these determinations is inconsistent 
with Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), because, 
according to Brazil, there was no proper finding of whether the 
financial contributions made prior to a change of ownership conferred a 
benefit to the current producer of the subject goods. With respect to 
the hot-rolled steel investigation, Brazil also alleges that Commerce's 
failure to terminate the investigation based on a finding of no 
subsidization is inconsistent with Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement.
    In its request, Brazil also expresses concern relating to the 
practice of Commerce with respect to pre-privatization subsidies. 
However, Brazil does not make any specific allegations as to how this 
practice is inconsistent with particular provisions of the SCM 
Agreement or other WTO agreements.
    Under 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 Brazil. In this case, 
consultations took place in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 17, 2001. 
USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues 
raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before March 5, 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: Change in Ownership Methodology Dispute--Brazil. 
Telephone: (202) 395-3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Hunter, Associate General 
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

[[Page 8460]]

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 Brazil

    In its consultation request, Brazil 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. Brazil alleges that the Appellate Body found 
that Commerce had not properly examined whether financial contributions 
made prior to a change of ownership conferred a benefit on the current 
producer of the subject goods. Therefore, Brazil alleges that the 
continued application of Commerce's change in ownership methodology in 
the cited countervailing duty determinations violates Articles 1.1(b), 
10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement (and, in the case of the certain 
hot-rolled steel from Brazil investigation, Article 11.9). According to 
Brazil, if the United States had properly examined the nature of the 
change in ownership in each of the countervailing duty proceedings 
identified in Brazil's request for consultations, Commerce would have 
found that no benefit was conferred to the purchasers of the companies 
in question in the context of the privatizations.

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 if 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 fill 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, NW., Washington, DC 
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-218, Change in 
Ownership Methodology Dispute--Brazil) 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. 01-2603 Filed 1-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M