[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64959-64960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26760]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-260]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding EC Provisional 
Safeguard Measures Against Imports of 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 September 16, 2002, pursuant to 
a request from the United States, a panel was established under the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') 
to examine the provisional safeguard measures imposed by the European 
Communities (``EC'') against imports of certain steel products. These 
measures appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under 
Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards. USTR invites written comment 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 October 30, 2002, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to 
[email protected], with ``Dispute on EC Safeguard Measures on Steel'' 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: Dispute on EC Safeguard Measures on Steel, 
with a confirmation copy sent electronically or by fax to 202-395-3640.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Daniel Mullaney, Associate General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395-3581.

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 September 16, 2002, a WTO panel was established pursuant 
to a request by the United States. The panel, which will 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 United States considers that provisional safeguard measures 
taken by the European Communities (``EC'') with regard to imports of 
certain steel products are inconsistent with the EC's commitments and 
obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(``GATT 1994'') and the Agreement on Safeguards (``Safeguards 
Agreement''). The measures in question (collectively, the ``Safeguard 
Measures'') include Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 
2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 950/2002 of 3 June 
2002, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2002 of 15 July 2002, as 
well as any other amendments thereto or extensions thereof, and any 
related measures. In particular, the Safeguard Measures appear to be 
inconsistent with:
    (1) Article 2.1 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX:1(a) of 
the GATT 1994, in that the EC applied the Safeguard Measures to certain 
steel products in the absence of a determination that such products are 
being imported in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to 
domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten 
to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or 
directly competitive products.
    (2) Article 4.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement, in that the EC did 
not make a determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury 
based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote 
possibility.
    (3) Article 4.2 (a) of the Safeguards Agreement, in that there was 
no investigation to determine, and no determination of, whether 
increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious 
injury, in which the EC evaluated all relevant factors of an objective 
and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of the 
domestic industry, in particular, the rate and amount of the increase 
in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the 
share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the 
level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits 
and losses, and employment.
    (4) Article 4.2 (b) of the Safeguards Agreement, in that there was 
no investigation demonstrating, and no determination of, the existence 
of a causal link between increased imports of the product concerned and 
serious injury or threat thereof on the basis of objective evidence. 
The EC also failed to ensure that injury caused at the same time by 
factors other than imports was not attributed to increased imports.
    (5) Article 4.2(c) of the Safeguards Agreement, in that the EC 
failed to publish, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, a 
detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a 
demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined.
    (6) Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement, in that the Safeguard 
Measures were not taken pursuant to a

[[Page 64960]]

preliminary determination that there is clear evidence that increased 
imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to the 
domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products.
    (7) Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX:2 of the 
GATT 1994 in that the EC took the Safeguard Measures in the absence of 
critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which it would be 
difficult to repair.
    (8) Article 3 of the Safeguards Agreement, in that:
    (a) The Safeguard Measures were not applied following an 
investigation by the competent authorities of the Member pursuant to 
procedures previously established and made public in consonance with 
Article X of the GATT 1994;
    (b) The Safeguard Measures were not applied following an 
investigation which included reasonable public notice to all interested 
parties and public hearings or other appropriate means in which 
importers, exporters and other interested parties could present 
evidence and their views, including the opportunity to respond to the 
presentation of other parties and to submit their views, inter alia, as 
to whether or not the application of the Safeguard Measures would be in 
the public interest;
    (c) The EC did not publish a report setting forth findings and 
reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law.
    (9) Article 5.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, in that the Safeguard 
Measures were not applied by the EC only to the extent necessary to 
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.
    (10) Article 12.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, in that the EC did 
not immediately notify the Committee on Safeguards upon:
    (a) Initiating an investigation relating to serious injury or 
threat thereof and the reasons for it;
    (b) Making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by 
increased imports; and
    (c) Taking a decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure.
    (11) Article 12.4 of the Safeguards Agreement, in that the EC 
failed to make a notification to the Committee on Safeguards before 
taking the Safeguard Measures.
    (12) Article 2.2 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article I of GATT 
1994, in that the EC applied its Safeguard Measures to the goods of 
some WTO Members, while excluding the goods of other countries whose 
territories are not part of a free trade area or a customs union and 
who are not developing country WTO Members.
    (13) Articles 2.1, 4, 5.1 and 6 of the Safeguards Agreement and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994, in that there is a lack of parallelism 
between the products for which an increase in imports was claimed and 
the products on which the Safeguards Measures were imposed.
    (14) Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994, in that there were no 
unforeseen developments, as a result of which a product is being 
imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to 
cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of the like or 
directly competitive products.

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, postage 
prepaid, to Sandy McKinzy at the address listed above or transmit a 
copy electronically to [email protected], with ``Dispute on EC Safeguard 
Measures on Steel'' 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-260, Dispute on 
EC Safeguard Measures on Steel) 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.

Daniel E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 02-26760 Filed 10-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-P