Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices 6827

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 10, 1996, the United States

requested establishment of a WTO

dispute settlement panel to examine

whether India’s legal regime is

inconsistent with the obligations of the

TRIPS Agreement. The WTO dispute

Settlement Body (DSB) considered the

U.S. request at its meeting on November

20, 1996, at which time a panel was

established. Very recently, three

panelists were chosen to hear the

dispute: Professor Thomas Cottier of the

University of Berne in Switzerland, Mr.

Yanyong Phuangrach of the Ministry of

Commerce in Thailand, and Mr. Doug

Chester of the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and Trade in Australia. The first

meeting of panelists is scheduled to take

place on February 19, 1997. Under

normal circumstances, the panel would

be expected to issue a report detailing

its findings and recommendations

within six to nine months after it is

established.

Major Issues Raised by the United

States and Legal Basis of Complaint

The TRIPS Agreement requires all

WTO Members to grant patents for the

subject matter specified in Article 27 of

the Agreement. Article 70.8 of the

TRIPS Agreement provides that where a

Member takes advantage of the

transitional provisions under the

Agreement and does not make product

patent protection available for

pharmaceutical and agricultural

chemical inventions as of the date of

entry into force of the WTO Agreement

(i.e., January 1, 1995), that Member must

implement measures to permit

Members’ nationals to file patent

applications drawn to such inventions

on or after that January 1, 1995. When

the Member fully implements the

product patent provisions of TRIPS

Agreement Article 27, these

applications must be examined

according to the criteria for patentability

set forth in the Agreement, based on the

earliest effective filing date claimed for

the application. Patents granted on these

applications must enjoy the term and

rights mandated by the TRIPS

Agreement.

The TRIPS Agreement further requires

Members subject to the obligations of

Article 70.8 to provide exclusive

marketing rights to those persons who

have filed an application under the

interim filing procedures, provided that

the product covered by the invention

has been granted marketing approval in

the Member providing this transitional

protection and another Member, and a

patent has been granted on the

invention in another Member.

The legal regime in India currently

does not make patent protection

available for inventions as specified in

Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement, or

provide systems that conform to

obligations of the TRIPS Agreement

regarding the acceptance of applications

and the grant of exclusive marketing

rights. As a result, India’s legal regime

appears to be inconsistent with the

obligations of the TRIPS Agreement,

including but not necessarily limited to

Articles 27, 65 and 70.

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.

A person requesting that information

or advice contained in a comment

submitted by that person, other than

business confidential information, be

treated as confidential in accordance

with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155)—

(1) Must so designate that 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, 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, DC

20508. The public file will include a

listing of any comments received by

USTR from the public with respect to

the proceeding; the U.S. submissions to

the panel in the proceeding; the

submissions, or non-confidential

summaries of submissions, to the panel

received from the other participants in

the dispute, as well as the report of the

dispute settlement panel and, if

applicable, the report of the Appellate

Body. An appointment to review the

public file (Docket WTO/D–11, ‘‘U.S.-

India: Mailbox’’), 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 U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–3546 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

[Docket No. WTO/D–15]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding:

Practices of the Government of Turkey

Regarding the Imposition of a

Discriminatory Tax on Box Office

Revenues

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), the

Office of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that the United States has

requested the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel under the Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO), to examine

whether Turkey’s imposition of a tax on

box office revenues from the showing of

foreign films, but not on the revenues

from the showing of domestic films, is

inconsistent with Turkey’s obligations

under Article III of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(GATT 1994). USTR also invites written

comments from the public concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before March 3, 1997, to be assured of

timely consideration by USTR in

preparing its first written submission to

the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Ileana Falticeni, Office of

Monitoring and Enforcement, Room

501, Attn: Turkey Film Tax Dispute,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Robertson, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC

20508, (202) 395–6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Turkey’s

Law on Municipal Revenues (Law No.

2464) imposes a 25% municipality tax

on box office revenues generated from

the showing of foreign films, but not the
6828 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices

revenue generated from the showing of

domestic films. Current information is

that the revenues are allocated to

municipal coffers for general use. On

January 9, 1997, the United States

formally requested establishment of a

WTO dispute settlement panel to

examine whether Turkey’s imposition of

the Municipality Tax is inconsistent

with the obligations of the GATT 1994.

The WTO Dispute Settlement Body

(DSB) considered the U.S. request at its

meeting on January 22, 1997. Under the

WTO Understanding on Rules and

Procedures Governing the Settlement of

Disputes, the DSB must establish a

panel at the next DSB meeting whether

this request is on the agenda, unless the

DSB determines by consensus

otherwise. Under normal circumstances,

the panel would be expected to issue a

report detailing its findings and

recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the United

States and Legal Basis of Complaint

Article III of the GATT 1994 provides,

among other things, that the products of

the territory of one WTO member

imported into the territory of another

WTO member shall not be subject to

internal taxes or other changes of any

kind in excess of those applied, directly

or indirectly, to like domestic products.

WTO members are also prohibited from

applying internal taxes or internal

charges to imported or domestic

products so as to afford protection to

domestic production. Turkey’s

imposition of a tax on box office

revenues that is applied only to

revenues generated by foreign films, and

not to revenues generated by domestic

films, would appear to be inconsistent

with the obligations set forth in Article

III of the GATT 1994.

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.

A person requesting that information

or advice contained in a comment

submitted by that person, other than

business confidential information, be

treated as confidential in accordance

with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155)—

(1) Must so designate that 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, 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 DC

20508. The public file will include a

listing of any comments received by

USTR from the public with respect to

the proceeding; the U.S. submissions to

the panel in the proceeding; 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

dispute settlement panel and, if

applicable, the report of the Appellate

Body. An appointment to review the

public file (Docket WTO/D–15, ‘‘U.S.-

Turkey: Film Tax’’), 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 U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–3545 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements, Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Request (ICR)

abstracted below has been forwarded to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for extension of currently

approved collections. The ICR describes

the nature of the information collection

and its expected burden. The Federal

Register Notice with a 60-day comment

period soliciting comments on the

following collection of information was

published on October 28, 1996 [FR 61,

page 55684].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jackie Hathaway, (202) 366–0187 and

refer to the OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

1. Title: 49 U.S.C. 5312(a).

Type of Request: Extension to a

currently approved information

collection.

OMB Control Number: 2132–0546.

Form(s): N/A.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, Federal Government State, local

government, transit and planning.

Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 5312(a) authorizes

the Secretary of Transportation to make

grants or contracts for research,

development, and demonstration

projects that will reduce urban

transportation needs, improve mass

transportation service, or help

transportation service meet the total

urban transportation needs at a

minimum cost. In carrying out the

provisions of this section, the Secretary

is also authorized to request and receive

appropriate information from any

source.

The information collected is

submitted as part of the application for

grants and cooperative agreements and

is used to determine eligibility of

applicants. Collection of this

information also provides

documentation that the applicants and

recipients are meeting program

objectives and are complying with FTA

Circular 6100.1B and other Federal

requirements.

Estimated Annual Burden: The

estimated annual burden is 20,840

hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725–17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention FTA

Desk Officer.

Comments are Invited on: Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department’s estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.