Petition Under Section 302 on Access to the German Bar Aptitude Examination; Decision Not To Initiate Investigation, 25401-25402 [2011-10874]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 86 / Wesnesday, May 4, 2011 / Notices Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs serves as an independent source of advice and policy recommendation to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. The purpose of this meeting is to focus on framing the discussion for policy and programs that encompasses government support of veterans’ entrepreneurship. For information regarding our veterans’ resources and partners, please visit our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/vets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The meeting is open to the public. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting or to make a presentation to the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, advance notice is requested. Please contact Cheryl Simms, Program Liaison, at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Veterans Business Development, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416; Telephone number: (202) 619–1697; Fax number (202) 481–6085 or by e-mail at cheryl.simms@sba.gov. If you require accommodations because of a disability, please contact the Office of Veterans Business Development at (202) 205–6773 at least two weeks in advance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: April 21, 2011. Dan S. Jones, SBA Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 2011–10777 Filed 5–3–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025–01–P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration by the Prospero Ventures of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Washington, Oakland Division, dated Prospero Ventures, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of Prospero Ventures, L.P. a California Limited Partnership, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 979–0422 issued to Prospero Ventures, L.P. on September 29, 1999 and said license is hereby declared null and void as of September 15, 2010. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 May 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 United States Small Business Administration. Dated: April 27, 2011. Sean J. Greene, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. 2011–10776 Filed 5–3–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025–01–P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Petition Under Section 302 on Access to the German Bar Aptitude Examination; Decision Not To Initiate Investigation Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Decision not to initiate investigation. AGENCY: The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) has determined not to initiate an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), with respect to a petition alleging, among other things, that the Government of Germany has breached obligations under the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany (the FCN Treaty) to afford U.S. citizens national treatment and most-favorednation (MFN) status in connection with requirements for access to the German bar aptitude examination. DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Wessel, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 395–3150; William Busis, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement and Chair of the Section 301 Committee, (202) 395–3150; David Weiner, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Europe, (202) 395–4620; or Christopher Melly, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Services, (202) 395– 4510. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 14, 2011, Mr. Peter M. Haver filed a petition on his own behalf pursuant to Section 302 of the Trade Act addressed to acts, policies, and practices of the Government of Germany regarding requirements for access to the German bar aptitude examination. The petition contends that Mr. Haver (the petitioner) is a U.S. citizen who practices U.S. and French law as a foreign legal consultant in Germany. The petition states that under German law, only nationals of Germany, the European Economic Area, and the Swiss Confederation are eligible SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25401 to sit for the German bar aptitude examination. The petition alleges that these acts, policies, and practices restrict U.S. citizens from sitting for the German bar aptitude examination and, therefore, from gaining admission to the German bar, and that these restrictions: (1) Violate the national treatment obligations of the FCN Treaty; (2) violate the MFN obligations of the FCN Treaty; and (3) constitute unreasonable and discriminatory treatment of U.S. citizens. The petition requests that the Trade Representative Atake measures’’ against Germany under Section 301. The Trade Representative, upon the advice of the interagency Section 301 Committee, has decided not to initiate an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act in response to the petition. The Trade Representative’s decision is based on three separate grounds. First, the petition fails to allege that Mr. Haver has the significant interest necessary to have standing as an interested person to file a petition under Section 302 of the Trade Act. See 15 CFR 2006.0(b). According to the petition, Mr. Haver need not sit for the examination to practice law in Germany because he has an ‘‘automatic right to German bar membership’’ based on the fact that he has resided and practiced law in Germany for three years. Because Mr. Haver claims he has another, automatic option for obtaining admission to the German bar, the petition fails to allege that Mr. Haver has the significant interest necessary to have standing to file a petition regarding access to the German bar aptitude examination. The petition does not allege, for example, that there is any economic benefit to Mr. Haver through admission by examination that he would not obtain through automatic admission based on his three years of practice. Second, in the framework of the Trade Act, the petition’s allegations that Germany breached its national treatment and MFN obligations under the FCN Treaty amount to an allegation of an unjustifiable act, policy, or practice under Section 301(d)(4) (defining an unjustifiable act, policy, or practice as one that ‘‘is in violation of, or inconsistent with, the international legal rights of the United States,’’ including an act, policy, or practice that ‘‘denies national or most-favored-nation treatment’’), and not an allegation of the violation of a ‘‘trade agreement’’ under Section 301(a)(1)(B)(i). To be actionable under Section 301, an unjustifiable act, policy, or practice must burden or restrict U.S. commerce. See Section E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 25402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 86 / Wesnesday, May 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 301(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Trade Act. Here, the petition fails to include sufficient information on burdens or restrictions on U.S. commerce arising from the alleged restrictions under German law on access to the German bar aptitude examination. The petition does not establish the volume of trade in legal services involved or how that volume is impacted by the restrictions in question. See also 15 CFR 2006.1(a)(7) (requiring that a petition contain information on the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce.) Third, the initiation of a Section 301 investigation in response to the petition would not be an effective means to address the matters raised in the petition. See Section 302(c) of the Trade Act. According to the petition, Mr. Haver previously raised his claims under the FCN Treaty in German courts, and the German courts have rejected those claims. Mr. Haver claims that the German courts’ interpretation of the FCN Treaty is erroneous. The FCN Treaty does include a dispute settlement mechanism: disputes between the parties regarding the interpretation or application of the FCN Treaty may be submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). An ICJ proceeding, however, would not be an effective tool for purposes of Section 301 of the Trade Act. In particular, under the statutory provisions applicable to the allegations in the petition, the Trade Representative would have to conclude the investigation, and decide what action to take under Section 301, within 12 months. See Section 304(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act. An ICJ proceeding conducted pursuant to the FCN Treaty would typically take longer than 12 months. For this and other reasons, initiation of an investigation under Section 301 would not be an effective means to address the alleged restrictions on access to the German bar aptitude examination. This decision not to initiate an investigation under Section 301 does not preclude other means to try to address the matters raised in the petition. William Busis, Chair, Section 301 Committee. [FR Doc. 2011–10874 Filed 5–3–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190–W1–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 May 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at Hammond Northshore Regional Airport, Hammond, LA Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property. AGENCY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport, Hammond, Louisiana. The property consists of vacant land located on the corner of Industrial Park Road and Shelton Road near the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport just outside the city limits of Hammond, Louisiana. The land in question was acquired by the city of Hammond, Louisiana on September 8, 1948, through provisions of the Federal Property and Administration Service Act of 1949 and the Surplus Property Act of 1944. As airport owner, the city of Hammond has requested to release a parcel in an effort to obtain a control tower at the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport. As part of this release, this parcel will change from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and be limited to some type of commercial or industrial use under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 215t Century (AIR 21). DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2011. ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Lacey D. Spriggs, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Manager/Louisiana/ New Mexico Airports Development Office, ASW–640, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Bradley R. Brandt, Acting Aviation Director, Louisiana Department of Transportation, at the following address: P.O. Box 94245, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Justin Barker, Federal Aviation Administration, Program Manager/ Louisiana/New Mexico Airports Development, Office, ASW–640, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21. The following is a brief overview of the request: As airport owner, the city of Hammond has requested to release a parcel comprised of 17.01 acres that was acquired under the 1945 acquisition of property with aeronautical rights attached. The release of property will not adversely affect the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport because the parcel is located immediately east of the airport on the on Industrial Park Road. The parcel is separated from the airport by Industrial Park Road. This property was part of the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 22 which is no longer in use and can never be used for airport purposes. The sale is estimated to provide $545,000.00 to be used for construction of a new control tower at the airport. In the event that the proposed control tower project is not funded, the city of Hammond has provided written concent that the proceeds of this land release will be used for other needed airport improvements at the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Hammond Northshore Regional Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on April 1, 2011. Kelvin L. Solco, Manager, Airports Division. [FR Doc. 2011–10637 Filed 5–3–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance; Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land. AGENCY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25401-25402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10874]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Petition Under Section 302 on Access to the German Bar Aptitude 
Examination; Decision Not To Initiate Investigation

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Decision not to initiate investigation.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) 
has determined not to initiate an investigation under Section 301 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), with respect to a 
petition alleging, among other things, that the Government of Germany 
has breached obligations under the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and 
Navigation Between the United States of America and the Federal 
Republic of Germany (the FCN Treaty) to afford U.S. citizens national 
treatment and most-favored-nation (MFN) status in connection with 
requirements for access to the German bar aptitude examination.

DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Wessel, Assistant General 
Counsel, (202) 395-3150; William Busis, Deputy Assistant United States 
Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement and Chair of the 
Section 301 Committee, (202) 395-3150; David Weiner, Deputy Assistant 
United States Trade Representative for Europe, (202) 395-4620; or 
Christopher Melly, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative 
for Services, (202) 395-4510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 14, 2011, Mr. Peter M. Haver filed 
a petition on his own behalf pursuant to Section 302 of the Trade Act 
addressed to acts, policies, and practices of the Government of Germany 
regarding requirements for access to the German bar aptitude 
examination. The petition contends that Mr. Haver (the petitioner) is a 
U.S. citizen who practices U.S. and French law as a foreign legal 
consultant in Germany. The petition states that under German law, only 
nationals of Germany, the European Economic Area, and the Swiss 
Confederation are eligible to sit for the German bar aptitude 
examination. The petition alleges that these acts, policies, and 
practices restrict U.S. citizens from sitting for the German bar 
aptitude examination and, therefore, from gaining admission to the 
German bar, and that these restrictions: (1) Violate the national 
treatment obligations of the FCN Treaty; (2) violate the MFN 
obligations of the FCN Treaty; and (3) constitute unreasonable and 
discriminatory treatment of U.S. citizens. The petition requests that 
the Trade Representative Atake measures'' against Germany under Section 
301.
    The Trade Representative, upon the advice of the interagency 
Section 301 Committee, has decided not to initiate an investigation 
under Section 301 of the Trade Act in response to the petition. The 
Trade Representative's decision is based on three separate grounds.
    First, the petition fails to allege that Mr. Haver has the 
significant interest necessary to have standing as an interested person 
to file a petition under Section 302 of the Trade Act. See 15 CFR 
2006.0(b). According to the petition, Mr. Haver need not sit for the 
examination to practice law in Germany because he has an ``automatic 
right to German bar membership'' based on the fact that he has resided 
and practiced law in Germany for three years. Because Mr. Haver claims 
he has another, automatic option for obtaining admission to the German 
bar, the petition fails to allege that Mr. Haver has the significant 
interest necessary to have standing to file a petition regarding access 
to the German bar aptitude examination. The petition does not allege, 
for example, that there is any economic benefit to Mr. Haver through 
admission by examination that he would not obtain through automatic 
admission based on his three years of practice.
    Second, in the framework of the Trade Act, the petition's 
allegations that Germany breached its national treatment and MFN 
obligations under the FCN Treaty amount to an allegation of an 
unjustifiable act, policy, or practice under Section 301(d)(4) 
(defining an unjustifiable act, policy, or practice as one that ``is in 
violation of, or inconsistent with, the international legal rights of 
the United States,'' including an act, policy, or practice that 
``denies national or most-favored-nation treatment''), and not an 
allegation of the violation of a ``trade agreement'' under Section 
301(a)(1)(B)(i). To be actionable under Section 301, an unjustifiable 
act, policy, or practice must burden or restrict U.S. commerce. See 
Section

[[Page 25402]]

301(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Trade Act. Here, the petition fails to include 
sufficient information on burdens or restrictions on U.S. commerce 
arising from the alleged restrictions under German law on access to the 
German bar aptitude examination. The petition does not establish the 
volume of trade in legal services involved or how that volume is 
impacted by the restrictions in question. See also 15 CFR 2006.1(a)(7) 
(requiring that a petition contain information on the burden or 
restriction on U.S. commerce.)
    Third, the initiation of a Section 301 investigation in response to 
the petition would not be an effective means to address the matters 
raised in the petition. See Section 302(c) of the Trade Act. According 
to the petition, Mr. Haver previously raised his claims under the FCN 
Treaty in German courts, and the German courts have rejected those 
claims. Mr. Haver claims that the German courts' interpretation of the 
FCN Treaty is erroneous.
    The FCN Treaty does include a dispute settlement mechanism: 
disputes between the parties regarding the interpretation or 
application of the FCN Treaty may be submitted to the International 
Court of Justice (ICJ). An ICJ proceeding, however, would not be an 
effective tool for purposes of Section 301 of the Trade Act. In 
particular, under the statutory provisions applicable to the 
allegations in the petition, the Trade Representative would have to 
conclude the investigation, and decide what action to take under 
Section 301, within 12 months. See Section 304(a)(2)(B) of the Trade 
Act. An ICJ proceeding conducted pursuant to the FCN Treaty would 
typically take longer than 12 months. For this and other reasons, 
initiation of an investigation under Section 301 would not be an 
effective means to address the alleged restrictions on access to the 
German bar aptitude examination.
    This decision not to initiate an investigation under Section 301 
does not preclude other means to try to address the matters raised in 
the petition.

William Busis,
Chair, Section 301 Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-10874 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W1-P