[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72471-72472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29543]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Dispute No. WTO/DS491]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States--Anti-
Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated Paper From 
Indonesia

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 the Republic of Indonesia has 
requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes (``DSU''). That request may be found at www.wto.org contained 
in a document designated as WT/DS491/3. 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 December 18, 2015, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be submitted electronically to 
www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2015-0005. If you are unable to 
provide submissions by www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy 
McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of 
transmission.
    If (as explained below) the comment contains confidential 
information, then the comment should be submitted by fax only to Sandy 
McKinzy at (202) 395-3640.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Micah Myers, Associate General 
Counsel, or Juli Schwartz, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the 
United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 
20508, (202) 395-3150.

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 submits 
or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement 
panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that 
the establishment of a dispute settlement panel has been requested 
pursuant to the DSU. The panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, 
Switzerland.

Major Issues Raised by Indonesia

    On November 17, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``DOC'') 
published antidumping (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'') orders 
(75 FR 70205; 75 FR 70206) on certain coated paper from Indonesia. On 
March 13, 2015, Indonesia requested WTO dispute settlement 
consultations regarding some of DOC's determinations in the CVD 
investigation, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission's 
(``ITC'') threat of material injury determinations in both the AD and 
CVD proceedings. Indonesia and the United States held consultations in 
Geneva on June 25, 2015.
    Indonesia filed a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute 
settlement panel in this matter on July 9, 2015. USTR notified, and 
solicited comments from, the public in connection with that request on 
August 11, 2015 (see 80 FR 48,134). Subsequently, on August 20, 2015, 
Indonesia filed a new request for the establishment of a WTO dispute 
settlement panel in this matter. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body 
established a panel on September 28, 2015.
    In its panel request, Indonesia contends that the DOC's findings of 
countervailable subsidies with respect to a number of government 
practices in the logging and paper industries are inconsistent with 
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs And Trade 1994 (``GATT 
1994'') and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
(``SCM Agreement''). Indonesia also contends that the ITC's affirmative 
threat determinations in both the AD and CVD investigations breach 
Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article 
VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs And Trade 1994 (``AD 
Agreement''), and the SCM Agreement. In addition, Indonesia raises an 
``as such'' challenge to the statutory tie-vote provision set out in 
Section 771(11)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. 
1677(11)(B)), claiming that this provision breaches Article VI of the 
GATT 1994, Articles 1 and 3.8 of the AD Agreement, and Articles 10 and 
15.8 of the SCM Agreement.
    Indonesia also lists in its panel request the following items as 
part of its challenge: ``The determinations by the [DOC] and [ITC] to 
initiate certain anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty 
investigations, the conduct of those investigations, any preliminary or 
final anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty determinations issued 
in those investigations, any definitive anti-dumping duties and 
countervailing duties imposed as a result of those investigations, 
including any notices, annexes, orders, decision memoranda, or other 
instruments issued by the United States in connection with the anti-
dumping duty and countervailing duty measures.''
    Indonesia contends DOC's determination that Indonesia provided 
standing timber for less than adequate remuneration breaches Article 
2.1 of the SCM Agreement because DOC failed to properly examine whether 
the purported subsidy was ``specific to an

[[Page 72472]]

enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority'' 
and did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a ``plan or 
scheme sufficient to constitute a `subsidy programme.' '' Indonesia 
also alleges DOC breached Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because it 
failed to determine the adequacy of remuneration ``in relation to 
prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in question in the 
country of provision.'' Indonesia alleges that these provisions were 
also breached through DOC's determinations that Indonesia's log export 
ban and debt forgiveness practices each conferred a benefit which 
constitutes a countervailable subsidy. With respect to debt 
forgiveness, Indonesia alleges that DOC improperly applied adverse 
facts available ``without examining information Indonesia provided, and 
without examining whether Indonesia `refuse[d] access to, or otherwise 
[did] not provide' '' the information, in breach of Article 12.7 of the 
SCM Agreement.
    Indonesia alleges that the ITC's threat determinations in the 
investigations at issue breach Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement and 
Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because the ITC did not demonstrate 
``the existence of a causal relationship between the imports and the 
purported threat of injury to the domestic industry'' and failed to 
``sufficiently examine known factors other than the allegedly dumped 
and subsidized imports which at the same time were in fact injuring the 
domestic injury.'' In addition, Indonesia alleges the ITC's threat 
determinations breach Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.7 
of the SCM Agreement because the threat findings were based on 
``allegation, conjecture [and] remote possibility''; were not supported 
by record evidence; and did not indicate a change in circumstances that 
was ``clearly foreseen and imminent.'' Further, Indonesia alleges the 
ITC's threat determinations breach Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement and 
Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement because the ITC failed to demonstrate 
that the ``totality of the factors considered lead to the conclusion 
that material injury would have occurred unless protective action was 
taken.'' Indonesia alleges the ITC did not apply or consider ``special 
care'' in its threat of injury determinations, in contravention of 
Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement.
    Indonesia also claims the ``requirement contained in 19 U.S.C. 
1677(11)(B) that a tie vote in a threat of injury determination must be 
treated as an affirmative . . . [ITC] determination,'' is, ``as such,'' 
inconsistent with Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.8 of 
the SCM Agreement ``because the requirement does not consider or 
exercise special care.''
    Finally, Indonesia alleges that these actions are inconsistent with 
Article 1 of the AD Agreement, Article 10 of the SCM Agreement, and 
Article VI of the GATT 1994.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public 
comments electronically to www.regulations.gov docket number USTR-2015-
0005. If you are unable to provide submissions by www.regulations.gov, 
please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an 
alternative method of transmission.
    To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number 
USTR-2015-0005 on the home page and click ``search.'' The site will 
provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with 
this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting ``Notice'' 
under ``Document Type'' on the left side of the search-results page, 
and click on the link entitled ``Comment Now!'' (For further 
information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult 
the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on ``How to Use This 
Site'' on the left side of the home page.)
    The www.regulations.gov Web site allows users to provide comments 
by filling in a ``Type Comments'' field, or by attaching a document 
using an ``Upload File'' field. It is expected that most comments will 
be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is 
sufficient to type ``See attached'' in the ``Type Comments'' field.
    A person requesting that information contained in a comment that 
he/she submitted, 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 designated as such and the 
submission must be marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' at the top and 
bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment 
containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax 
to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the 
confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The 
non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and will be open 
to public inspection.
    USTR may determine that information or advice contained in a 
comment submitted, other than business confidential information, is 
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 clearly so designate the information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE'' 
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
    (3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or 
advice.
    Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted 
by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must 
be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will 
be placed in the docket and will be open to public inspection.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement 
proceeding, docket number USTR-2015-0005, accessible to the public at 
www.regulations.gov.
    The public file will include non-confidential comments received by 
USTR from the public regarding the dispute. If a dispute settlement 
panel is convened, or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the 
following documents will be made available to the public at 
www.ustr.gov: The United States' submissions, any non-confidential 
submissions received from other participants in the dispute, and any 
non-confidential summaries of submissions received from other 
participants in the dispute. In the event that a dispute settlement 
panel is convened, or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the 
panel report and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will 
also be available on the Web site of the World Trade Organization, at 
www.wto.org. Comments open to public inspection may be viewed at 
www.regulations.gov.

Juan Millan,
Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-29543 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290-F6-P