Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices 36499

Agreement that the United States

considers Brazil to be violating.

Specifically, the United States is

concerned about provisions of Brazil’s

1996 industrial property law (Law No.

9,279 of May 14, 1996; effective may

1997) and other related statutes and

regulations, which establish a ‘‘local

working ’’ requirement for the

enjoyment of exclusive patent rights

that can only be satisfied by the local

production—and not the importation—

of the patented subject matter.

Brazil’s ‘‘local working’’ requirement

stipulates that a patent shall be subject

to compulsory licensing if the subject

matter of the patent is not ‘‘worked’’ in

the territory of Brazil. Brazil then

explicitly defines ‘‘failure to be

worked’’as ‘‘failure to manufacture or

incomplete manufacture of the

product,’’ or ‘‘failure to make full use of

the patented process.’’ The United

States considers that such a requirement

is inconsistent with Brazil’s obligations

under Articles 27 and 28 of the TRIPS

Agreement, and Article III of the GATT

1994.

Having been unable to resolve this

difference over the past five years, the

United States decided to resort to WTO

dispute settlement procedures and on

May 31, 2000, requested consultations

with Brazil.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. 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 commenter.

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 nonconfidential 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 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508. The

public file will include a listing of any

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 (Docket WTO/D–

199, Brazil—Patent Protection) may be

made by calling Brenda Webb, (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.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant United States Trade Representative

for Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–14511 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–198]

WTO Consultations Regarding

Romania’s Use of Minimum Import

Prices for Customs Valuation

Purposes

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 May 31, 2000,

the United States requested

consultations with Romania under the

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the

World Trade Organization (WTO),

regarding Romania’s 1997 Customs

Code (L141/1997) and Ministry of

Finance General Customs Directive

(Ordinance No. 5, 4 August 1998) and

other related statutes and regulations.

The United States alleges that

Romania’s customs code, directives,

regulations and practice arbitrarily

establish minimum and maximum

import prices for such products as meat,

eggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing,

footwear, and certain distilled spirits.

Additionally, Romania has instituted

burdensome procedures for

investigating import prices when the

C.I.F. value falls below the minimum

import price. The United States

considers that this practice is

inconsistent with Articles 1 through 7,

and 12 of the Agreement on Customs

Valuation (‘‘CVA’’); general notes 1, 2,

and 4 of Annex 1 of the CVA; Articles

II, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; Article

4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;

and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement

of Textiles and Clothing. Pursuant to

Article 4.3 of the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding (‘‘DSU’’),

such consultations are to take place

within a period of 30 days from the date

of the request, or within a period

otherwise mutually agreed between the

United States and Romania. USTR

invites written comments 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 July 31 to be

assured of timely consideration by

USTR.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Sandy

McKinzy, Monitoring and Enforcement

Unit, Office of the General Counsel,

Room 122, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20508, Attn:

Romania Customs Valuation Dispute.

Telephone: (202) 395–3581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melida N. Hodgson, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street

N.W., Washington, D.C., (202) 395–

3582.

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, 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. 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

meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, would

be expected to issue a report on its

findings and recommendations within

six to nine months after it is established.

36500 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

Major Issues Raised by the United

States

The Agreement on Customs Valuation

sets forth a clear hierarchy for the

determination of the customs value of

imported goods, and in no case may the

customs value be determined on the

basis of a minimum price (Articles 1

through 7). Romania’s customs code,

directives and regulations arbitrarily

establish minimum and maximum

import prices for such products as meat,

eggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing,

footwear, and certain distilled spirits.

Additionally, Romania has instituted

burdensome procedures for

investigating import prices when the

C.I.F. value falls below the minimum

import price.

Therefore, on May 31, 2000, the

United States requested consultations

with Romania under certain WTO

agreements regarding Romania’s

customs valuation practices. Romania’s

customs valuation regime utilizes

unpublished arbitrary minimum import

prices to supplant the valuation

methodology established in Articles 1

through 7 of the CVA, and therefore

appears to be inconsistent with that

Agreement. Furthermore, if an

importer’s declared value falls below

the set minimum price, a ‘‘guarantee’’ is

required based on the difference

between the declared value and the

minimum price. The use of this

guarantee operates as a rejection of the

declared value in a manner inconsistent

with Articles 1 through 7 of the CVA

and, in practice, a refund is not given

to importers that established the

correctness of the declared value. The

United States’ consultation request also

alleges that Romania’s customs regime

is inconsistent with general notes 1, 2,

and 4 of Annex 1 of the CVA; Articles

II, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; Article

4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;

and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement

on Textiles and Clothing.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. 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 commenter.

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 nonconfidential 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 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508. The

public file will include a listing of any

comments received by USTR from the

public with respect to the dispute; if a

dispute settlement panel is convened,

the U.S. submission 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 (Docket WTO/D–

198, Romania Customs Valuation

Dispute) may be made by calling Brenda

Webb, (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.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant United States Trade Representative

for Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–14512 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–197]

WTO Consultations Regarding Brazil

Customs Valuation Regime

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 May 31, 2000,

the United States requested WTO

consultations with Brazil regarding its

system for verification of the declared

values of imported goods, such as textile

products. Brazil uses minimum

reference prices both as a requirement to

obtain import licenses and/or as a base

requirement for import. In practice, this

system works to prohibit the import of

products with declared values below

established minimum prices, and, as

such, appears to violate provisions of

the Agreement on Customs Valuation;

the GATT 1994; the Agreement on

Import Licensing Procedures; the

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing;

and the Agreement on Agriculture.

Pursuant to Article 4.3 of the WTO

Dispute Settlement Understanding

(‘‘DSU’’), such consultations are to take

place within a period of 30 days from

the date of the request, or within a

period otherwise mutually agreed

between the United States and Brazil.

USTR invites written comments 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 July 31, 2000 to

be assured of timely consideration by

USTR.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 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:

Brazil Customs Valuation Dispute.

Telephone: (202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Ross, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395–3581.

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, 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. 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.