[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10767-10768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5330]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-282]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding Antidumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representatives 
(``USTR'') is providing notice that on February 18, 2003, the United 
States received from Mexico a request for consultations under the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (``WTO 
Agreement'') regarding various measures relating to the antidumping 
duty order on oil country tubular goods (``OCTG'') from Mexico. Mexico 
alleges that determinations made by U.S. authorities concerning this 
product, and certain related matters, are inconsistent with Articles 1, 
2, 3, 6, 11, and 18 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``AD Agreement''), 
Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(``GATT 1994''), and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 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 April 25, 2003, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to 
[email protected], or (ii) by mail, to Sandy McKinzy, Office of the 
United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20508, Attn: Mexico OCTG Dispute, with a confirmation copy sent 
electronically to the address above, or by fax to (202) 395-3640, in 
accordance with the requirements for submission set out below.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Urugary Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA'') (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1) requires that notice 
and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submit 
or 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 (``DSU''). 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 Mexico

    With respect to the measures at issue, Mexico's request for 
consultations refers to the following:
    [sbull] The final sunset review determinations on OCTG from Mexico 
by the U.S. Department of Commerce (``Commerce'') (66 FR 14131 (March 
9, 2001), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC'') (66 FR 
35997 (July 10, 2001)), as well as the resulting continuation by 
Commerce of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico (66 FR 38630 
(July 25, 2001);
    [sbull] The final results of the fourth administrative review by 
Committee of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico, such 
review covering the time period from August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999 
(66 FR 15832 (March 21, 20010);
    [sbull] Sections 751 and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930;
    [sbull] The URAA Statement of Administrative Action;
    [sbull] Commerce's Sunset Policy Bulletin (63 FR 18871 (April 16, 
1998));
    [sbull] Commence's sunset review regulations, 19 CFR 351.218;
    [sbull] The ITC's sunset review regulations, 19 CFR 207.60-69; and
    [sbull] Portions of Commerce's regulations concerning 
administrative reviews, including 19 CFR 351.213, 351.221, and 351.222.
    With respect to the claims of WTO-inconsistency, Mexico's request 
for consultations refers to the following:
    [sbull] With regard to the sunset review conducted by Commerce:
    [sbull] Commerce's misapplication of the standard of ``would likely 
be to lead to''; and
    [sbull] Commerce's reliance on a presumption in favor of 
maintaining the anti-dumping measures.
    [sbull] With regard to the sunset review conducted by the ITC:
    [sbull] The ITC's misapplication of the ``would be likely to lead 
to '' principle;
    [sbull] The ITC's failure to conduct an ``objective examination'' 
of the record based on ``positive evidence'';
    [sbull] The ITC's failure to base its determination of injury on 
the ``effects of dumping'' on the domestic industry and to consider 
whether injury was caused by ``any known factors other than the dumped 
imports'';
    [sbull] The ITC's cumulative assessment of injury; and
    [sbull] The standards requiring that the ITC determine whether 
injury would be likely to continue or recur ``within a reasonable 
foreseeable time'' and that the ITC ``shall consider that the effects 
of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest 
themselves over a longer period of time'', both per se and applied.
    [sbull] With regard to the fourth administrative review:
    [sbull] Commerce's determination not to revoke the antidumping 
order;
    [sbull] Commerce's retroactive application of new requirements for 
revocation; and
    [sbull] Commerce's use of the practice known as ``zeroing'' for 
negative dumping margins.
    Mexico also alleges that the U.S. statutory, regulatory and 
administrative provisions it cites require Commerce and the ITC to act 
inconsistently with Articles 1, 2, 11 and 18 of the AD Agreement and 
Article VI of the GATT 1994, thereby rendering the U.S. provisions 
inconsistent per se with those articles, as well as with Article 18.4 
of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. In 
addition, Mexico alleges that its claims, viewed cumulatively, 
establish a violation of Article 11.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 
VI and Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this 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

[[Page 10768]]

copy electronically to [email protected], with ``Mexico OCTG Dispute'' in 
the subject line. For documents sent by U.S. mail, USTR requests that 
the submitter provide a confirmation copy, either electronically, to 
the electronic mail address listed above, 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. Comments must be in 
English. 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 submitting 
person. 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 submitting person believes that 
information or advice may qualify as such, the submitting person--
    (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, which is located at 1724 F 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-
confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to 
the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened, the U.S. 
submissions to that panel, 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 panel; and, if applicable, 
the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public 
file (Dock No. WT/DS-282, Mexico OCTG Dispute) may be made by calling 
the USTR Reading Room at (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.

Daniel E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 03-5330 Filed 3-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M