[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52767-52769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20396]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-248]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States--
Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel Products

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 June 3, 2002, a dispute 
settlement panel was established at the request of the European 
Communities (``EC'') under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization (``WTO'') to examine safeguard measures 
imposed on certain steel products pursuant to section 203 of the Trade 
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253) (``safeguard measures'') and established 
in Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002 (67 FR 10553 (Mar. 
7, 2002)). Panels were also established at the request of Brazil, 
China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland to examine 
these safeguard measures. Pursuant to an agreement with these countries 
(the ``complaining parties''), one panel will examine all of these 
disputes. The

[[Page 52768]]

complaining parties allege that the safeguard measures are inconsistent 
with the obligations of the United States under the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 1994'') and the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards (``SA''). USTR invites written comment from the public 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Canada, Chinese Taipei, 
Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela have notified 
the WTO of their intention to participate as third parties.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before September 12, 2002, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to 
[email protected], Attn: ``Steel Safeguard Measures Dispute'' in the 
subject line, or (ii) by mail, 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: Steel Safeguard Measures Dispute, with a 
confirmation copy sent electronically or by fax to 202-395-3640.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Willis S. Martyn, Associate General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395-3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 127(b) of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (``URAA'') (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), USTR is 
providing notice that on June 3, 2002, a WTO dispute settlement panel 
was established at the request of the EC. Panels were also established 
at the request of Brazil, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, and 
Switzerland to examine these safeguard measures. Pursuant to an 
agreement with these countries (the ``complaining parties''), one panel 
will examine all of these disputes. The Panel, which would hold its 
meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, is expected to issue a report on its 
findings and recommendations within six to nine months after its 
establishment.

Major Issues Raised and Legal Basis of the Complaint

    The complaining parties allege that the safeguard measures are 
inconsistent with certain obligations of the United States under GATT 
1994 and the SA. The safeguard measures consist of additional tariffs 
and a tariff-rate quota on the following steel products:
    (a) Certain flat steel, consisting of slabs provided for in the 
superior text to subheadings 9903.72.30 through 9903.72.48 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTS''); plate 
provided for in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.50 through 
9903.72.60 of the HTS; hot-rolled steel provided for in the superior 
text to subheadings 9903.72.62 through 9903.72.77 of the HTS; cold-
rolled steel provided for in the superior text to subheadings 
9903.72.80 through 9903.72.98 of the HTS; and coated steel provided for 
in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.99 through 9903.73.14 of 
the HTS;
    (b) Certain hot-rolled bar provided for in the superior text to 
subheadings 9903.73.28 through 9903.73.38 of the HTS;
    (c) Certain cold-finished bar provided for in the superior text to 
subheadings 9903.73.39 through 9903.73.44 of the HTS;
    (d) Certain rebar provided for in the superior text to subheadings 
9903.73.45 through 9903.73.50 of the HTS;
    (e) Certain certain tubular products provided for in the superior 
text to subheadings 9903.73.51 through 9903.73.62 of the HTS;
    (f) Certain carbon and alloy fittings provided for in the superior 
text to subheadings 9903.73.66 through 9903.73.72 of the HTS;
    (g) Certain stainless steel bar provided for in the superior text 
to subheadings 9903.73.74 through 9903.73.81 of the HTS;
    (h) Certain stainless steel rod provided for in the superior text 
to subheadings 9903.73.83 through 9903.73.89 of the HTS;
    (i) certain tin mill products provided for in the superior text to 
subheadings 9903.73.15 through 9903.73.27 of the HTS; and
    (j) Certain stainless steel wire provided for in the superior text 
to subheadings 9903.73.91 through 9903.73.96 of the HTS.
    The complaining parties allege that the safeguard measures are 
inconsistent with certain obligations of the United States under GATT 
1994 and the SA. Specifically, they allege that the safeguard measures 
are inconsistent with:
     Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 because the United States did 
not show that imports increased in such conditions as to cause serious 
injury or threat of serious injury as a result of unforeseen 
developments;
     Articles 2.1, 4.2(a), and 4.2(c) of the SA and Article XIX 
of GATT 1994 because the United States failed to properly define the 
domestic industry producing a product like or directly competitive with 
increased imports;
     Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the SA and Article XIX:1 of 
GATT 1994 because there were no increased imports;
     Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the SA and Article XIX of the 
GATT 1994 because the domestic industry was not experiencing serious 
injury or the threat of serious injury;
     Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the SA and Article XIX:1 of 
GATT 1994 because the United States neither demonstrated the causal 
connection between imports and serious injury nor distinguished injury 
caused by factors other than increased imports from injury caused by 
imports;
     Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the SA because the report of 
the U.S. competent authorities was inadequate;
     Article 5.1 of the SA and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 
because the United States applied the measure beyond the extent 
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury;
     Article 5.2 of the SA and Article XIII of GATT 1994 
because the allocation of the tariff-rate quota on steel slab was 
incorrect;
     Articles 2.1, 2.2, 4.2, and 5.1 of the SA because the 
United States included free trade agreement partners in its 
investigation but excluded them from the safeguard measures;
     Article 2.2 of the SA and Articles I, XIII, and XIX of 
GATT 1994 because the United States excluded its free trade agreement 
partners from the safeguard measures;
     Articles 9.1 of the SA and Article I:1 of GATT 1994 
because the United States excluded developing countries in a 
discriminatory manner;
     Article II of the GATT 1994 because the United States 
withdrew concessions without justification under Article XIX of the 
GATT 1994;
     Article X:3 of the GATT 1994 because the United States did 
not administer its laws in a uniform, impartial, and reasonable manner;
     Article 12 of the SA because the United States failed to 
provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations with affected 
Members of the WTO; and
     Article 8.1 of the SA because the United States did not 
endeavor to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions 
with members of the WTO.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Persons submitting 
comments may either send one copy by U.S. mail, first class,

[[Page 52769]]

postage prepaid, to Sandy McKinzy at the address listed above or 
transmit a copy electronically to [email protected], with ``Steel 
Safeguard Measures Dispute'' in the subject line. For documents sent by 
U.S. mail, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation 
copy, either electronically or by fax to 202-395-3640. USTR encourages 
the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as attachments to an 
electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic 
mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might 
appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. 
Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission 
should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not 
as separate files. 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 submitter. 
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 3, First Floor, Office of 
the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F 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/DS-248, Steel 
Safeguard Measures ROO Dispute) may be made by calling the Reading Room 
at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 10 
a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Bruce R. Hirsh,
Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 02-20396 Filed 8-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-P