WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia, 72471-72472 [2015-29543]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 223 / Thursday, November 19, 2015 / Notices
Old Business
Approval of minutes of the August 21,
2015, Board Meeting
New Business
1. Report from President and CEO
2. Report of the Finance, Rates, and
Portfolio Committee
A. Financial Performance Update
B. Section 13 Tax Equivalent
Payments
C. Modifications to TVA’s Imbalance
Transmission Rate
3. Report of the People and Performance
Committee
A. Fiscal Year 2015 Performance and
Compensation
B. CEO Compensation for Fiscal Year
2016
4. Report of the Audit, Risk, and
Regulation Committee
5. Report of the Nuclear Oversight
Committee
A. Charter Renewal
6. Report of the External Relations
Committee
A. Regional Resource Stewardship
Committee Charter Renewal
7. Recognition of Departing Director
8. Information Item
A. Settlement Agreement Regarding
Transmission Matters
For more information: Please call
TVA Media Relations at (865) 632–6000,
Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan
to attend the meeting and have special
needs should call (865) 632–6000.
Anyone who wishes to comment on any
of the agenda in writing may send their
comments to: TVA Board of Directors,
Board Agenda Comments, 400 West
Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37902.
Dated: November 13, 2015.
Sherry A. Quirk,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015–29673 Filed 11–17–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120–08–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Dispute No. WTO/DS491]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding
Regarding United States—AntiDumping and Countervailing Measures
on Certain Coated Paper From
Indonesia
Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Office of the United
States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is
providing notice that the Republic of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Nov 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72471
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 antidumping 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 antidumping 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
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
72472
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 223 / Thursday, November 19, 2015 / Notices
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,’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Nov 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 searchresults 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
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
information must be submitted to
www.regulations.gov. The nonconfidential 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 nonconfidential 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 nonconfidential 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
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
]]>Agencies
[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
